C'mon, did they really expect that no one would notice that EVERY SINGLE 
ONE of the major feature upgrades - aside from the virus/spyware/security 
make-goods which are irrelevant to Mac OS - is a renamed version of 
something Apple developed for OS X?

The funniest thing would be if the Rip Off Apple strategy backfired this 
time around, and just made people switch to OS X... the playing field is a 
lot different now than it was the last time the Microsoft crooks tried it.


-- 
http://homepage.mac.com/vito/real_vista_episode_1.mov

"Steve Gary" <stevegary@hotlejrkw.com> wrote in message 
news:Xns988D5A7E4D80332ju44k2j3k@217.22.228.20...
> C'mon, did they really expect that no one would notice that EVERY SINGLE
> ONE of the major feature upgrades - aside from the virus/spyware/security
> make-goods which are irrelevant to Mac OS - is a renamed version of
> something Apple developed for OS X?
>
> The funniest thing would be if the Rip Off Apple strategy backfired this
> time around, and just made people switch to OS X... the playing field is a
> lot different now than it was the last time the Microsoft crooks tried it.
>
>
> -- 
> http://homepage.mac.com/vito/real_vista_episode_1.mov


Like Apple has ever had  an original idea?

Just ask Xerox

"Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> Like Apple has ever had  an original idea?
> 
> Just ask Xerox

but apple didn't "copy" anything from xerox -- so you need to keep that 
in mind.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tom Scales <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> "Steve Gary" <stevegary@hotlejrkw.com> wrote in message 
> news:Xns988D5A7E4D80332ju44k2j3k@217.22.228.20...
>> C'mon, did they really expect that no one would notice that EVERY SINGLE
>> ONE of the major feature upgrades - aside from the virus/spyware/security
>> make-goods which are irrelevant to Mac OS - is a renamed version of
>> something Apple developed for OS X?
>>
>> The funniest thing would be if the Rip Off Apple strategy backfired this
>> time around, and just made people switch to OS X... the playing field is a
>> lot different now than it was the last time the Microsoft crooks tried it.
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> http://homepage.mac.com/vito/real_vista_episode_1.mov
> 
> 
> Like Apple has ever had  an original idea?
> 
> Just ask Xerox
> 
> 

This is an old and stupid argument, particularly for those of us who 
actually remember those days.




-----yttrx



-- 
http://www.yttrx.net

Steve Gary wrote:
> C'mon, did they really expect that no one would notice that EVERY SINGLE
> ONE of the major feature upgrades - aside from the virus/spyware/security
> make-goods which are irrelevant to Mac OS - is a renamed version of
> something Apple developed for OS X?

Even funnier, most of these features have been a standard part of Linux
since long before OS/X came out.  Sure, XGL is a better handling of 3D
OpenGL, but Linux has had OpenGL support since the mid 1990s, when SGI
contributed their technology to Linux (most of it was actually
developed as part of government contracts).  In fact, for a while, it
looked like VRML might be a really popular modelling language (VRML was
a "shell" interpreter that converted scripts to OpenGL calls).

> The funniest thing would be if the Rip Off Apple strategy backfired this
> time around, and just made people switch to OS X... the playing field is a
> lot different now than it was the last time the Microsoft crooks tried it.

It looks like it's been an even bigger back-fire.  Microsoft has had to
sign a deal with Novell, and make Linux part of their OEM offering in
order to meet the demands of users who now insist on the capabilities
of *nix along with *dows.

Microsoft could still find itself facing lawsuits, or could end up
offering similar contracts to other Linux distributors.  Microsoft
would offer Linux/Windows images to OEMs far an additional price - a
small portion of the additional price going to Novell or the other
distributors.

> -- 
> http://homepage.mac.com/vito/real_vista_episode_1.mov

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 10:23:18 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Like Apple has ever had  an original idea?
>> 
>> Just ask Xerox
> 
> but apple didn't "copy" anything from xerox -- so you need to keep that 
> in mind.

While there is some argument as to whether or not apple licensed technology
from Xerox, there's no doubt that OSX is not an original product.  Darwin
is largely derived from FreeBSD, and Safari/Webkit is largely derived from
KHTML.  Other features, like Dashboard are copies of ideas Microsoft was
shopping around in 2003 (see http://youtube.com/watch?v=b9ifQvQCO7Y for an
early 2003 preview video that shows the sidebar with widgets).  Of course
even those had precedents.  Very little in computers is really "new".

Also, don't forget that things like "time machine" in Leopard are (albeitly
better implemented) copies of Windows Volume Shadow Copies (been around
since 2003) and Spotlight was also copied from early versions of Longhorn.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 10:23:18 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> 
>> "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Like Apple has ever had  an original idea?
>>> 
>>> Just ask Xerox
>> 
>> but apple didn't "copy" anything from xerox -- so you need to keep that 
>> in mind.
> 
> While there is some argument as to whether or not apple licensed technology
> from Xerox, there's no doubt that OSX is not an original product.  Darwin
> is largely derived from FreeBSD, 

No, its largely derived from NeXTStep, and somewhat derived from BSD, as
NeXTStep was.

> and Safari/Webkit is largely derived from
> KHTML.  Other features, like Dashboard are copies of ideas Microsoft was
> shopping around in 2003 

And the unix world had in the form of karamba toys in 2001...

> (see http://youtube.com/watch?v=b9ifQvQCO7Y for an
> early 2003 preview video that shows the sidebar with widgets).  Of course
> even those had precedents.  Very little in computers is really "new".
> 

Nothing at microsoft is really new, they copy EVERYTHING.

> Also, don't forget that things like "time machine" in Leopard are (albeitly
> better implemented) copies of Windows Volume Shadow Copies (been around
> since 2003) 

Which IBM invented almost congruently with SGI as jfs and xfs modules, 
respectively, and Veritas implemented for the rest of the Unices and even
windows years before microsoft thought to copy it.

> and Spotlight was also copied from early versions of Longhorn.

Another fucking lie.  Christ, eric.




-----yttrx



-- 
http://www.yttrx.net

In article <u4jch.3252$Yy1.131@textfe.usenetserver.com>, yttrx
<yttrx@yttrx.net> wrote:

> Nothing at microsoft is really new, they copy EVERYTHING.

Let's sum up the arguments, shall we?

MAC: "There's ample documentation to prove that much of the Windows
interface has been copied from the Mac OS, for decades."

WINDOWS: "Oh yeah? Well... well... well... YOU SUCK, DUDE!"

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 17:53:30 GMT, yttrx wrote:

>> While there is some argument as to whether or not apple licensed technology
>> from Xerox, there's no doubt that OSX is not an original product.  Darwin
>> is largely derived from FreeBSD, 
> 
> No, its largely derived from NeXTStep, and somewhat derived from BSD, as
> NeXTStep was.

Yes, but Darwin was derived from FreeBSD rather than the official UCB BSD
that NeXTStep was.

>> and Safari/Webkit is largely derived from
>> KHTML.  Other features, like Dashboard are copies of ideas Microsoft was
>> shopping around in 2003 
> 
> And the unix world had in the form of karamba toys in 2001...

Karamba came around about the same time, yes... which is even further
evidence that Apple did not invent this.

>> (see http://youtube.com/watch?v=b9ifQvQCO7Y for an
>> early 2003 preview video that shows the sidebar with widgets).  Of course
>> even those had precedents.  Very little in computers is really "new".
> 
> Nothing at microsoft is really new, they copy EVERYTHING.

As does everyone else.

>> Also, don't forget that things like "time machine" in Leopard are (albeitly
>> better implemented) copies of Windows Volume Shadow Copies (been around
>> since 2003) 
> 
> Which IBM invented almost congruently with SGI as jfs and xfs modules, 
> respectively, and Veritas implemented for the rest of the Unices and even
> windows years before microsoft thought to copy it.

Not the same thing at all.  Veritas and SGI and such could access backups
that had been done previously, not be able to go back to snapshots of the
filesystem at any time.

>> and Spotlight was also copied from early versions of Longhorn.
> 
> Another fucking lie.  Christ, eric.

We were even talking about it here in 2003

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/browse_thread/thread/343e06425fde16d3/a503dbf064d290d5?q=longhorn+search+author%3AFunkenbusch&lnk=ol&hl=en&

That's a year before Spotlight shipped in the form of OSX 10.4

In article <u4jch.3252$Yy1.131@textfe.usenetserver.com>,
 yttrx@yttrx.net (yttrx) wrote:
> > and Safari/Webkit is largely derived from
> > KHTML.  Other features, like Dashboard are copies of ideas Microsoft was
> > shopping around in 2003 
> 
> And the unix world had in the form of karamba toys in 2001...

That's a pretty neat trick, considering that Karamba was inspired by 
Samurize on Windows, which was started in 2002. :-)

Karamba is from March 2003, not 2001.

-- 
--Tim Smith

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 12:08:41 -0600, DB wrote:

> In article <u4jch.3252$Yy1.131@textfe.usenetserver.com>, yttrx
> <yttrx@yttrx.net> wrote:
> 
>> Nothing at microsoft is really new, they copy EVERYTHING.
> 
> Let's sum up the arguments, shall we?
> 
> MAC: "There's ample documentation to prove that much of the Windows
> interface has been copied from the Mac OS, for decades."
> 
> WINDOWS: "Oh yeah? Well... well... well... YOU SUCK, DUDE!"

No.

MAC: You copied us. We invented everything

Windows: That's the pot calling the kettle black

MAC: But we invented the "flower power" iMac

Windows: No contest there.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> In article <u4jch.3252$Yy1.131@textfe.usenetserver.com>,
> yttrx@yttrx.net (yttrx) wrote:
>> > and Safari/Webkit is largely derived from
>> > KHTML.  Other features, like Dashboard are copies of ideas Microsoft was
>> > shopping around in 2003 
>> 
>> And the unix world had in the form of karamba toys in 2001...
> 
> That's a pretty neat trick, considering that Karamba was inspired by 
> Samurize on Windows, which was started in 2002. :-)
> 
> Karamba is from March 2003, not 2001.
> 

Ah, my mistake.  I know I was using something similar under freebsd
in 2001, god only knows what it was.

Anyhow, where did microsoft steal the idea from then?




-----yttrx



-- 
http://www.yttrx.net

In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 17:53:30 GMT, yttrx wrote:
> 
>>> While there is some argument as to whether or not apple licensed technology
>>> from Xerox, there's no doubt that OSX is not an original product.  Darwin
>>> is largely derived from FreeBSD, 
>> 
>> No, its largely derived from NeXTStep, and somewhat derived from BSD, as
>> NeXTStep was.
> 
> Yes, but Darwin was derived from FreeBSD rather than the official UCB BSD
> that NeXTStep was.
> 
>>> and Safari/Webkit is largely derived from
>>> KHTML.  Other features, like Dashboard are copies of ideas Microsoft was
>>> shopping around in 2003 
>> 
>> And the unix world had in the form of karamba toys in 2001...
> 
> Karamba came around about the same time, yes... which is even further
> evidence that Apple did not invent this.
> 
>>> (see http://youtube.com/watch?v=b9ifQvQCO7Y for an
>>> early 2003 preview video that shows the sidebar with widgets).  Of course
>>> even those had precedents.  Very little in computers is really "new".
>> 
>> Nothing at microsoft is really new, they copy EVERYTHING.
> 
> As does everyone else.
> 
>>> Also, don't forget that things like "time machine" in Leopard are (albeitly
>>> better implemented) copies of Windows Volume Shadow Copies (been around
>>> since 2003) 
>> 
>> Which IBM invented almost congruently with SGI as jfs and xfs modules, 
>> respectively, and Veritas implemented for the rest of the Unices and even
>> windows years before microsoft thought to copy it.
> 
> Not the same thing at all.  Veritas and SGI and such could access backups
> that had been done previously, not be able to go back to snapshots of the
> filesystem at any time.
>

Ahem...

Neither can windows.  




-----yttrx
 

-- 
http://www.yttrx.net

In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 12:08:41 -0600, DB wrote:
> 
>> In article <u4jch.3252$Yy1.131@textfe.usenetserver.com>, yttrx
>> <yttrx@yttrx.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> Nothing at microsoft is really new, they copy EVERYTHING.
>> 
>> Let's sum up the arguments, shall we?
>> 
>> MAC: "There's ample documentation to prove that much of the Windows
>> interface has been copied from the Mac OS, for decades."
>> 
>> WINDOWS: "Oh yeah? Well... well... well... YOU SUCK, DUDE!"
> 
> No.
> 
> MAC: You copied us. We invented everything
> 
> Windows: That's the pot calling the kettle black
> 
> MAC: But we invented the "flower power" iMac
> 
> Windows: No contest there.

Eric, you're a toner monkey in a little idiot community college
in minnessotta.  What do you have to say about anything thats
actually pertinent?




-----yttrx


-- 
http://www.yttrx.net

In article <ppgx3yd5ioc3.dlg@funkenbusch.com>, Erik Funkenbusch
<erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 12:08:41 -0600, DB wrote:
> 
> > In article <u4jch.3252$Yy1.131@textfe.usenetserver.com>, yttrx
> > <yttrx@yttrx.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> Nothing at microsoft is really new, they copy EVERYTHING.
> > 
> > Let's sum up the arguments, shall we?
> > 
> > MAC: "There's ample documentation to prove that much of the Windows
> > interface has been copied from the Mac OS, for decades."
> > 
> > WINDOWS: "Oh yeah? Well... well... well... YOU SUCK, DUDE!"
> 
> No.
> 
> MAC: You copied us. We invented everything
> 
> Windows: That's the pot calling the kettle black
> 
> MAC: But we invented the "flower power" iMac
> 
> Windows: No contest there.

ROFLMAO!

In article <u4jch.3252$Yy1.131@textfe.usenetserver.com>,
 yttrx@yttrx.net (yttrx) wrote:

> No, its largely derived from NeXTStep, and somewhat derived from BSD, as
> NeXTStep was.

In fact, OS X 10.0 was a direct port of NeXt.
-- 
W. Oates

"Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message 
news:4571b686$0$3577$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
> "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Like Apple has ever had  an original idea?
>>
>> Just ask Xerox
>
> but apple didn't "copy" anything from xerox -- so you need to keep that
> in mind.

How about the ENTIRE Mac? 

"DB" <dontbother@dot.net> wrote in message 
news:021220061208413589%dontbother@dot.net...
> In article <u4jch.3252$Yy1.131@textfe.usenetserver.com>, yttrx
> <yttrx@yttrx.net> wrote:
>
>> Nothing at microsoft is really new, they copy EVERYTHING.
>
> Let's sum up the arguments, shall we?
>
> MAC: "There's ample documentation to prove that much of the Windows
> interface has been copied from the Mac OS, for decades."
>
> WINDOWS: "Oh yeah? Well... well... well... YOU SUCK, DUDE!"

And for 90% of average computer users, no one cares.

Windows is just fine for me. I guess I'm not 1337.

-- 
Chris H. of Portland, Oregon
Konichiwa, Bitches!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUuIzw8X46Q 

"yttrx" <yttrx@yttrx.net> wrote in message 
news:jHich.3247$Yy1.3244@textfe.usenetserver.com...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tom Scales <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Steve Gary" <stevegary@hotlejrkw.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns988D5A7E4D80332ju44k2j3k@217.22.228.20...
>>> C'mon, did they really expect that no one would notice that EVERY SINGLE
>>> ONE of the major feature upgrades - aside from the 
>>> virus/spyware/security
>>> make-goods which are irrelevant to Mac OS - is a renamed version of
>>> something Apple developed for OS X?
>>>
>>> The funniest thing would be if the Rip Off Apple strategy backfired this
>>> time around, and just made people switch to OS X... the playing field is 
>>> a
>>> lot different now than it was the last time the Microsoft crooks tried 
>>> it.
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> http://homepage.mac.com/vito/real_vista_episode_1.mov
>>
>>
>> Like Apple has ever had  an original idea?
>>
>> Just ask Xerox
>>
>>
>
> This is an old and stupid argument, particularly for those of us who
> actually remember those days.
>
>
>
>
> -----yttrx
>
>
>
> -- 
> http://www.yttrx.net
>


Some of us DO remember it.  Is it stupid just because it is accurate? 

In article <4571c5c6$0$32598$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, Warren Oates
<warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <u4jch.3252$Yy1.131@textfe.usenetserver.com>,
>  yttrx@yttrx.net (yttrx) wrote:
> 
> > No, its largely derived from NeXTStep, and somewhat derived from BSD, as
> > NeXTStep was.
> 
> In fact, OS X 10.0 was a direct port of NeXt.

Cite, please?

In article <HIKdnV0sDrQDV-zYnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Chris H. of
Portland, OR <chrispdx@comcast.FUCKOFFSPAMMERS.net> wrote:

> "DB" <dontbother@dot.net> wrote in message 
> news:021220061208413589%dontbother@dot.net...
> > In article <u4jch.3252$Yy1.131@textfe.usenetserver.com>, yttrx
> > <yttrx@yttrx.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Nothing at microsoft is really new, they copy EVERYTHING.
> >
> > Let's sum up the arguments, shall we?
> >
> > MAC: "There's ample documentation to prove that much of the Windows
> > interface has been copied from the Mac OS, for decades."
> >
> > WINDOWS: "Oh yeah? Well... well... well... YOU SUCK, DUDE!"
> 
> And for 90% of average computer users, no one cares.

I think you're underestimating.

Steve Gary wrote:

> C'mon, did they really expect that no one would notice that EVERY SINGLE 
> ONE of the major feature upgrades - aside from the virus/spyware/security 
> make-goods which are irrelevant to Mac OS - is a renamed version of 
> something Apple developed for OS X?
> 
> The funniest thing would be if the Rip Off Apple strategy backfired this 
> time around, and just made people switch to OS X... the playing field is a 
> lot different now than it was the last time the Microsoft crooks tried it.
> 
> 

I don't normally feed trolls, but you know what? You're absolutely 
right. They copied many of the nicer features of OSX. And just like I 
figured all the Mac biggots out there that have been touting how much 
better OSX is are now complaining because Windows is more like it. Make 
up your mind.

So what if it Mac users start loading Windows on the new Mactels and 
discover that it's acutally better? Rosetta is a complete abortion when 
trying to run non UB apps and loading Windows along with the Win version 
is far superior.

Just my $0.02,

Bob

Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 10:23:18 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> 
>> "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Like Apple has ever had  an original idea?
>>>
>>> Just ask Xerox
>> but apple didn't "copy" anything from xerox -- so you need to keep that 
>> in mind.
> 
> While there is some argument as to whether or not apple licensed technology
> from Xerox, there's no doubt that OSX is not an original product.  Darwin
> is largely derived from FreeBSD, and Safari/Webkit is largely derived from
> KHTML.

It's KHTML with the KDE/QT dependencies ripped out.

>  Other features, like Dashboard are copies of ideas Microsoft was
> shopping around in 2003 (see http://youtube.com/watch?v=b9ifQvQCO7Y for an
> early 2003 preview video that shows the sidebar with widgets).

Dashboard is almost a direct clone of a formerly popular Mac app called 
Konfabulator. Right down to the widget styles. AFAIK, Apple never paid 
the developers of Konfabulator a penny.

>  Of course
> even those had precedents.  Very little in computers is really "new".
> 
> Also, don't forget that things like "time machine" in Leopard are (albeitly
> better implemented) copies of Windows Volume Shadow Copies (been around
> since 2003)

It's not really the same thing as Volume Shadow Copy--it's implemented 
differently, and the interface is very different. They are superficially 
similar, but it's hard to say that Apple 'copied' Microsoft here.

> and Spotlight was also copied from early versions of Longhorn.

More correctly it's an implementation of a searchable file system index. 
Microsoft certainly wasn't the first to throw this idea around. Indeed, 
I might go so far as to say that this is more reminiscent of Copland's 
proposed search functionality than it is WinFS.

"DB" <dontbother@dot.net> wrote in message
news:021220061304405127%dontbother@dot.net...
> In article <HIKdnV0sDrQDV-zYnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Chris H. of
> Portland, OR <chrispdx@comcast.FUCKOFFSPAMMERS.net> wrote:
>
> > "DB" <dontbother@dot.net> wrote in message
> > news:021220061208413589%dontbother@dot.net...
> > > In article <u4jch.3252$Yy1.131@textfe.usenetserver.com>, yttrx
> > > <yttrx@yttrx.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Nothing at microsoft is really new, they copy EVERYTHING.
> > >
> > > Let's sum up the arguments, shall we?
> > >
> > > MAC: "There's ample documentation to prove that much of the Windows
> > > interface has been copied from the Mac OS, for decades."
> > >
> > > WINDOWS: "Oh yeah? Well... well... well... YOU SUCK, DUDE!"
> >
> > And for 90% of average computer users, no one cares.
>
> I think you're underestimating.
>
if only everyone would switch to Unix.  then the world would be perfect.

Tom Scales <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:

> "yttrx" <yttrx@yttrx.net> wrote in message 
> news:jHich.3247$Yy1.3244@textfe.usenetserver.com...
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tom Scales <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> "Steve Gary" <stevegary@hotlejrkw.com> wrote in message
> >> news:Xns988D5A7E4D80332ju44k2j3k@217.22.228.20...
> >>> C'mon, did they really expect that no one would notice that EVERY SINGLE
> >>> ONE of the major feature upgrades - aside from the 
> >>> virus/spyware/security
> >>> make-goods which are irrelevant to Mac OS - is a renamed version of
> >>> something Apple developed for OS X?
> >>>
> >>> The funniest thing would be if the Rip Off Apple strategy backfired this
> >>> time around, and just made people switch to OS X... the playing field is
> >>> a
> >>> lot different now than it was the last time the Microsoft crooks tried
> >>> it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -- 
> >>> http://homepage.mac.com/vito/real_vista_episode_1.mov
> >>
> >>
> >> Like Apple has ever had  an original idea?
> >>
> >> Just ask Xerox
> >>
> >>
> >
> > This is an old and stupid argument, particularly for those of us who
> > actually remember those days.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----yttrx
> >
> >
> >
> > -- 
> > http://www.yttrx.net
> >
> 
> 
> Some of us DO remember it.  Is it stupid just because it is accurate?

No. it is stupid to the degree of boneheadedness, because Apple didn't
"rip off" Xerox - they made a deal, quid pro quo, where Xerox got Apple
shares, and Apple got to use Xerox's ideas.

-- 
regards , Peter B. P. - http://titancity.com/blog
http://markedspartiet.dk, http://macplanet.dk
http://siad.dk

Chris H. of Portland, OR <chrispdx@comcast.FUCKOFFSPAMMERS.net> wrote:

> "DB" <dontbother@dot.net> wrote in message 
> news:021220061208413589%dontbother@dot.net...
> > In article <u4jch.3252$Yy1.131@textfe.usenetserver.com>, yttrx
> > <yttrx@yttrx.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Nothing at microsoft is really new, they copy EVERYTHING.
> >
> > Let's sum up the arguments, shall we?
> >
> > MAC: "There's ample documentation to prove that much of the Windows
> > interface has been copied from the Mac OS, for decades."
> >
> > WINDOWS: "Oh yeah? Well... well... well... YOU SUCK, DUDE!"
> 
> And for 90% of average computer users, no one cares.
> 
> Windows is just fine for me. I guess I'm not 1337.

Well, if you're not connected to a WAN and only do Office document
editing, sure, Windows is fine.

-- 
regards , Peter B. P. - http://titancity.com/blog
http://markedspartiet.dk, http://macplanet.dk
http://siad.dk

"Peter Bj�rn Perls�" <peter@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message
news:1hpqifw.u2op8xofy0lmN%peter@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk...
> Chris H. of Portland, OR <chrispdx@comcast.FUCKOFFSPAMMERS.net> wrote:
>
> > "DB" <dontbother@dot.net> wrote in message
> > news:021220061208413589%dontbother@dot.net...
> > > In article <u4jch.3252$Yy1.131@textfe.usenetserver.com>, yttrx
> > > <yttrx@yttrx.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Nothing at microsoft is really new, they copy EVERYTHING.
> > >
> > > Let's sum up the arguments, shall we?
> > >
> > > MAC: "There's ample documentation to prove that much of the Windows
> > > interface has been copied from the Mac OS, for decades."
> > >
> > > WINDOWS: "Oh yeah? Well... well... well... YOU SUCK, DUDE!"
> >
> > And for 90% of average computer users, no one cares.
> >
> > Windows is just fine for me. I guess I'm not 1337.
>
> Well, if you're not connected to a WAN and only do Office document
> editing, sure, Windows is fine.
>
>
what if I'm on a DSL and all I do is download porn and troll usenet?

""Peter Bj�rn Perls�"" <peter@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message 
news:1hpqi5f.xrct8t1qp54qoN%peter@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk...
> Tom Scales <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "yttrx" <yttrx@yttrx.net> wrote in message
>> news:jHich.3247$Yy1.3244@textfe.usenetserver.com...
>> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tom Scales <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Steve Gary" <stevegary@hotlejrkw.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:Xns988D5A7E4D80332ju44k2j3k@217.22.228.20...
>> >>> C'mon, did they really expect that no one would notice that EVERY 
>> >>> SINGLE
>> >>> ONE of the major feature upgrades - aside from the
>> >>> virus/spyware/security
>> >>> make-goods which are irrelevant to Mac OS - is a renamed version of
>> >>> something Apple developed for OS X?
>> >>>
>> >>> The funniest thing would be if the Rip Off Apple strategy backfired 
>> >>> this
>> >>> time around, and just made people switch to OS X... the playing field 
>> >>> is
>> >>> a
>> >>> lot different now than it was the last time the Microsoft crooks 
>> >>> tried
>> >>> it.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> -- 
>> >>> http://homepage.mac.com/vito/real_vista_episode_1.mov
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Like Apple has ever had  an original idea?
>> >>
>> >> Just ask Xerox
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > This is an old and stupid argument, particularly for those of us who
>> > actually remember those days.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -----yttrx
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -- 
>> > http://www.yttrx.net
>> >
>>
>>
>> Some of us DO remember it.  Is it stupid just because it is accurate?
>
> No. it is stupid to the degree of boneheadedness, because Apple didn't
> "rip off" Xerox - they made a deal, quid pro quo, where Xerox got Apple
> shares, and Apple got to use Xerox's ideas.
>


Where did I say anything about stealing?

My point, which was quite clear, was that Apple is rarely an innovator. 
They often have good implementations of an existing idea.  The Ipod is an 
excellent example.  They clearly didn't invent the mp3 player, but they 
certainly do make excellent ones.  I have one myself and like it a lot.

I find it funny to point fingers at MS and say "look they're copying the UI" 
when that is exactly what Apple did.

I'm also not saying its wrong -- I just love the Apple bigots that can't see 
the big picture or the history.

Tom 

""Peter Bj�rn Perls�"" <peter@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message 
news:1hpqifw.u2op8xofy0lmN%peter@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk...
> Chris H. of Portland, OR <chrispdx@comcast.FUCKOFFSPAMMERS.net> wrote:
>
>> "DB" <dontbother@dot.net> wrote in message
>> news:021220061208413589%dontbother@dot.net...
>> > In article <u4jch.3252$Yy1.131@textfe.usenetserver.com>, yttrx
>> > <yttrx@yttrx.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Nothing at microsoft is really new, they copy EVERYTHING.
>> >
>> > Let's sum up the arguments, shall we?
>> >
>> > MAC: "There's ample documentation to prove that much of the Windows
>> > interface has been copied from the Mac OS, for decades."
>> >
>> > WINDOWS: "Oh yeah? Well... well... well... YOU SUCK, DUDE!"
>>
>> And for 90% of average computer users, no one cares.
>>
>> Windows is just fine for me. I guess I'm not 1337.
>
> Well, if you're not connected to a WAN and only do Office document
> editing, sure, Windows is fine.
>
> -- 
> regards , Peter B. P

You mean all that work I do in Photoshop to print to my Epson 7600 to print 
24"x36" prints really didn't happen?  My use of the PC as my 'tivo' (where 
PCs clearly excel compared to Macs) didn't happen?

They're just tools folks.  There are good PCs.  There are good Macs.  Almost 
everything can be done on either platform these days.

Tom 

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 13:33:09 -0600, the Bede wrote:

> "Peter Bjørn Perlsø" <peter@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message
> news:1hpqifw.u2op8xofy0lmN%peter@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk...
>> Chris H. of Portland, OR <chrispdx@comcast.FUCKOFFSPAMMERS.net> wrote:
>>
>> > "DB" <dontbother@dot.net> wrote in message
>> > news:021220061208413589%dontbother@dot.net...
>> > > In article <u4jch.3252$Yy1.131@textfe.usenetserver.com>, yttrx
>> > > <yttrx@yttrx.net> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Nothing at microsoft is really new, they copy EVERYTHING.
>> > >
>> > > Let's sum up the arguments, shall we?
>> > >
>> > > MAC: "There's ample documentation to prove that much of the Windows
>> > > interface has been copied from the Mac OS, for decades."
>> > >
>> > > WINDOWS: "Oh yeah? Well... well... well... YOU SUCK, DUDE!"
>> >
>> > And for 90% of average computer users, no one cares.
>> >
>> > Windows is just fine for me. I guess I'm not 1337.
>>
>> Well, if you're not connected to a WAN and only do Office document
>> editing, sure, Windows is fine.
>>
>>
> what if I'm on a DSL and all I do is download porn and troll usenet?

Considering the amount of viruses and trojans that porn sites try to load
onto Windows computers...definitely not a good idea.

In article <O8kch.336$4p2.199@trndny07>,
 Bob Levine <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:

> So what if it Mac users start loading Windows on the new Mactels and 
> discover that it's acutally better? 

Baaaahahahahhaha! Good one!

In article <Xns988D5A7E4D80332ju44k2j3k@217.22.228.20>, Steve Gary
<stevegary@hotlejrkw.com> wrote:

> C'mon, did they really expect that no one would notice that EVERY SINGLE 
> ONE of the major feature upgrades - aside from the virus/spyware/security 
> make-goods which are irrelevant to Mac OS - is a renamed version of 
> something Apple developed for OS X?
> 
> The funniest thing would be if the Rip Off Apple strategy backfired this 
> time around, and just made people switch to OS X... the playing field is a 
> lot different now than it was the last time the Microsoft crooks tried it.

I haven't seen the final release version yet, but I've seen the betas.
It's awful. Granted, they stole stuff from OS X but implemented them
quite poorly.

In article <Txkch.6873$Ig1.5232@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, the Bede
<rspwsownthebede@yahoo.com> wrote:

> what if I'm on a DSL and all I do is download porn and troll usenet?

The Mac will do porn quite nicely...not that I have personal
experience, of course.

In article <O8kch.336$4p2.199@trndny07>, Bob Levine
<robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:

> So what if it Mac users start loading Windows on the new Mactels and 
> discover that it's acutally better? Rosetta is a complete abortion when 
> trying to run non UB apps and loading Windows along with the Win version 
> is far superior.

Any guesses on how long it will take for the first security fixes for
Vista to be released?

Ura Dippschit wrote:

> In article <O8kch.336$4p2.199@trndny07>,
>  Bob Levine <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>So what if it Mac users start loading Windows on the new Mactels and 
>>discover that it's acutally better? 
> 
> 
> Baaaahahahahhaha! Good one!

Actually it is a good one. Load up Photoshop or InDesign and run it 
under rosetta. Have fun with that.

Bob

the Bede wrote:

> 
> "Peter Bj�rn Perls�" <peter@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message
> news:1hpqifw.u2op8xofy0lmN%peter@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk...
>> Chris H. of Portland, OR <chrispdx@comcast.FUCKOFFSPAMMERS.net> wrote:
>>
>> > "DB" <dontbother@dot.net> wrote in message
>> > news:021220061208413589%dontbother@dot.net...
>> > > In article <u4jch.3252$Yy1.131@textfe.usenetserver.com>, yttrx
>> > > <yttrx@yttrx.net> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Nothing at microsoft is really new, they copy EVERYTHING.
>> > >
>> > > Let's sum up the arguments, shall we?
>> > >
>> > > MAC: "There's ample documentation to prove that much of the Windows
>> > > interface has been copied from the Mac OS, for decades."
>> > >
>> > > WINDOWS: "Oh yeah? Well... well... well... YOU SUCK, DUDE!"
>> >
>> > And for 90% of average computer users, no one cares.
>> >
>> > Windows is just fine for me. I guess I'm not 1337.
>>
>> Well, if you're not connected to a WAN and only do Office document
>> editing, sure, Windows is fine.
>>
>>
> what if I'm on a DSL and all I do is download porn and troll usenet?

Sounds about right
-- 
Windows was created to keep stupid people away from UNIX."
  -- Tom Christiansen

In article <O8kch.336$4p2.199@trndny07>,
 Bob Levine <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:

> Steve Gary wrote:
> 
> > C'mon, did they really expect that no one would notice that EVERY SINGLE 
> > ONE of the major feature upgrades - aside from the virus/spyware/security 
> > make-goods which are irrelevant to Mac OS - is a renamed version of 
> > something Apple developed for OS X?
> > 
> > The funniest thing would be if the Rip Off Apple strategy backfired this 
> > time around, and just made people switch to OS X... the playing field is a 
> > lot different now than it was the last time the Microsoft crooks tried it.
> > 
> > 
> 
> I don't normally feed trolls, but you know what? You're absolutely 
> right. They copied many of the nicer features of OSX. And just like I 
> figured all the Mac biggots out there that have been touting how much 
> better OSX is are now complaining because Windows is more like it. Make 
> up your mind.

We have.
1) Why use a copy when the original will always be ahead. Leopard will 
introduce features that M$ won't get to copy until the NEXT version of 
Windows. How long will that be? Another 6-years?

2) While many of the features will be similar, that's not all there is 
to an OS. There's the interface, and Vista's interface, like all Windows 
versions before it, is inferior to the Mac's (IMHO, of course).
> 
> So what if it Mac users start loading Windows on the new Mactels and 
> discover that it's acutally better?

There's no accounting for taste, but since Vista nowhere as good as OSX, 
the only people likely to follow your scenario are 1) Those ex-Windows 
users who bought a Mac, and because it doesn't work like Windows, have 
decided that they don't like it as well, 2) and some general malcontents 
who have never used either before and for some unfathomable reason find 
Windows easier to understand (I know that's almost an impossibility, but 
it is, nonetheless true. I knew someone who fits that scenario). 


> Rosetta is a complete abortion when 
> trying to run non UB apps and loading Windows along with the Win version 
> is far superior.

Rosetta, is apparently much faster now than it was originally (I 
wouldn't know, I don't own an Intel Mac, nor am I likely to for some 
time). Some say it equals a dual 2-gig G5 in speed on many things. If 
so, it will certainly do until Adobe and M$ get their intel Mac acts 
together.

-- 
George Graves
The easiest thing for one to be is "fashionable." It requires no thought, 
no intelligence, and no creativity. Just watch, listen to, and do what 
everybody else does and you're part of the "in crowd." 

In article <6Aich.5307$%u3.713@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
 "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Steve Gary" <stevegary@hotlejrkw.com> wrote in message 
> news:Xns988D5A7E4D80332ju44k2j3k@217.22.228.20...
> > C'mon, did they really expect that no one would notice that EVERY SINGLE
> > ONE of the major feature upgrades - aside from the virus/spyware/security
> > make-goods which are irrelevant to Mac OS - is a renamed version of
> > something Apple developed for OS X?
> >
> > The funniest thing would be if the Rip Off Apple strategy backfired this
> > time around, and just made people switch to OS X... the playing field is a
> > lot different now than it was the last time the Microsoft crooks tried it.
> >
> >
> > -- 
> > http://homepage.mac.com/vito/real_vista_episode_1.mov
> 
> 
> Like Apple has ever had  an original idea?
> 
> Just ask Xerox

What does Xerox have to do with anything? They never developed the GUI 
concept to anywhere within a country mile of what Apple did. If you were 
to ever contrast any of the Xerox OSes to the original Mac, you would 
know how lame it was in comaprison.

-- 
George Graves
The easiest thing for one to be is "fashionable." It requires no thought, 
no intelligence, and no creativity. Just watch, listen to, and do what 
everybody else does and you're part of the "in crowd." 

In article <jHich.3247$Yy1.3244@textfe.usenetserver.com>,
 yttrx@yttrx.net (yttrx) wrote:

> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tom Scales <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > "Steve Gary" <stevegary@hotlejrkw.com> wrote in message 
> > news:Xns988D5A7E4D80332ju44k2j3k@217.22.228.20...
> >> C'mon, did they really expect that no one would notice that EVERY SINGLE
> >> ONE of the major feature upgrades - aside from the virus/spyware/security
> >> make-goods which are irrelevant to Mac OS - is a renamed version of
> >> something Apple developed for OS X?
> >>
> >> The funniest thing would be if the Rip Off Apple strategy backfired this
> >> time around, and just made people switch to OS X... the playing field is a
> >> lot different now than it was the last time the Microsoft crooks tried it.
> >>
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> http://homepage.mac.com/vito/real_vista_episode_1.mov
> > 
> > 
> > Like Apple has ever had  an original idea?
> > 
> > Just ask Xerox
> > 
> > 
> 
> This is an old and stupid argument, particularly for those of us who 
> actually remember those days.

Exactly!

-- 
George Graves
The easiest thing for one to be is "fashionable." It requires no thought, 
no intelligence, and no creativity. Just watch, listen to, and do what 
everybody else does and you're part of the "in crowd." 

In article <yVjch.5317$%u3.1320@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
 "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:

> "yttrx" <yttrx@yttrx.net> wrote in message 
> news:jHich.3247$Yy1.3244@textfe.usenetserver.com...
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tom Scales <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> "Steve Gary" <stevegary@hotlejrkw.com> wrote in message
> >> news:Xns988D5A7E4D80332ju44k2j3k@217.22.228.20...
> >>> C'mon, did they really expect that no one would notice that EVERY SINGLE
> >>> ONE of the major feature upgrades - aside from the 
> >>> virus/spyware/security
> >>> make-goods which are irrelevant to Mac OS - is a renamed version of
> >>> something Apple developed for OS X?
> >>>
> >>> The funniest thing would be if the Rip Off Apple strategy backfired this
> >>> time around, and just made people switch to OS X... the playing field is 
> >>> a
> >>> lot different now than it was the last time the Microsoft crooks tried 
> >>> it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -- 
> >>> http://homepage.mac.com/vito/real_vista_episode_1.mov
> >>
> >>
> >> Like Apple has ever had  an original idea?
> >>
> >> Just ask Xerox
> >>
> >>
> >
> > This is an old and stupid argument, particularly for those of us who
> > actually remember those days.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----yttrx
> >
> >
> >
> > -- 
> > http://www.yttrx.net
> >
> 
> 
> Some of us DO remember it.  Is it stupid just because it is accurate? 

It's stupid because it has NO relation to reality. I worked for Xerox 
PARC in those days, I ought to know!

-- 
George Graves
The easiest thing for one to be is "fashionable." It requires no thought, 
no intelligence, and no creativity. Just watch, listen to, and do what 
everybody else does and you're part of the "in crowd." 

In article <4571b686$0$3577$815e3792@news.qwest.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Like Apple has ever had  an original idea?
> > 
> > Just ask Xerox
> 
> but apple didn't "copy" anything from xerox -- so you need to keep that 
> in mind.

Only the very skeletal concept of a GUI.

-- 
George Graves
The easiest thing for one to be is "fashionable." It requires no thought, 
no intelligence, and no creativity. Just watch, listen to, and do what 
everybody else does and you're part of the "in crowd." 

In article <dIkch.6474$7T5.905@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
 "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:

> ""Peter Bj�rn Perls�"" <peter@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message 
> news:1hpqi5f.xrct8t1qp54qoN%peter@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk...
> > Tom Scales <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "yttrx" <yttrx@yttrx.net> wrote in message
> >> news:jHich.3247$Yy1.3244@textfe.usenetserver.com...
> >> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tom Scales <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "Steve Gary" <stevegary@hotlejrkw.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:Xns988D5A7E4D80332ju44k2j3k@217.22.228.20...
> >> >>> C'mon, did they really expect that no one would notice that EVERY 
> >> >>> SINGLE
> >> >>> ONE of the major feature upgrades - aside from the
> >> >>> virus/spyware/security
> >> >>> make-goods which are irrelevant to Mac OS - is a renamed version of
> >> >>> something Apple developed for OS X?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The funniest thing would be if the Rip Off Apple strategy backfired 
> >> >>> this
> >> >>> time around, and just made people switch to OS X... the playing field 
> >> >>> is
> >> >>> a
> >> >>> lot different now than it was the last time the Microsoft crooks 
> >> >>> tried
> >> >>> it.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> -- 
> >> >>> http://homepage.mac.com/vito/real_vista_episode_1.mov
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Like Apple has ever had  an original idea?
> >> >>
> >> >> Just ask Xerox
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > This is an old and stupid argument, particularly for those of us who
> >> > actually remember those days.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > -----yttrx
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > -- 
> >> > http://www.yttrx.net
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Some of us DO remember it.  Is it stupid just because it is accurate?
> >
> > No. it is stupid to the degree of boneheadedness, because Apple didn't
> > "rip off" Xerox - they made a deal, quid pro quo, where Xerox got Apple
> > shares, and Apple got to use Xerox's ideas.
> >
> 
> 
> Where did I say anything about stealing?
> 
> My point, which was quite clear, was that Apple is rarely an innovator. 
> They often have good implementations of an existing idea.  The Ipod is an 
> excellent example.  They clearly didn't invent the mp3 player, but they 
> certainly do make excellent ones.  I have one myself and like it a lot.
> 
> I find it funny to point fingers at MS and say "look they're copying the UI" 
> when that is exactly what Apple did.
> 
> I'm also not saying its wrong -- I just love the Apple bigots that can't see 
> the big picture or the history.
> 


   You're confusing the words "innovate" with "invent". 

-- 
Stefan:

Tom Scales <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:

> ""Peter Bj�rn Perls�"" <peter@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message 
> news:1hpqi5f.xrct8t1qp54qoN%peter@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk...
> > Tom Scales <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Some of us DO remember it.  Is it stupid just because it is accurate?
> >
> > No. it is stupid to the degree of boneheadedness, because Apple didn't
> > "rip off" Xerox - they made a deal, quid pro quo, where Xerox got Apple
> > shares, and Apple got to use Xerox's ideas.
> >
> 
> 
> Where did I say anything about stealing?
> 
> My point, which was quite clear, was that Apple is rarely an innovator.
> They often have good implementations of an existing idea.

Who says innovation cannot be that you bring a good idea to a wider
market?

Just curious. Apple took ideas and concepts that others did the footwork
on, and brought it into the mainstream and demonstrated its use for a
wide user base.

Then again, you might say that Microsoft did this too, for even more
people, but with a noticably more fucked up version of what theyr
copied... :p

>  The Ipod is an 
> excellent example.  They clearly didn't invent the mp3 player, but they
> certainly do make excellent ones.  I have one myself and like it a lot.
> 
> I find it funny to point fingers at MS and say "look they're copying the UI"
> when that is exactly what Apple did.
> 
> I'm also not saying its wrong -- I just love the Apple bigots that can't see
> the big picture or the history.
> 
> Tom 


-- 
regards , Peter B. P. - http://titancity.com/blog
http://markedspartiet.dk, http://macplanet.dk
http://siad.dk

Peter Bj�rn Perls� wrote:
> Chris H. of Portland, OR <chrispdx@comcast.FUCKOFFSPAMMERS.net> wrote:
> 
>> "DB" <dontbother@dot.net> wrote in message 
>> news:021220061208413589%dontbother@dot.net...
>>> In article <u4jch.3252$Yy1.131@textfe.usenetserver.com>, yttrx
>>> <yttrx@yttrx.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nothing at microsoft is really new, they copy EVERYTHING.
>>> Let's sum up the arguments, shall we?
>>>
>>> MAC: "There's ample documentation to prove that much of the Windows
>>> interface has been copied from the Mac OS, for decades."
>>>
>>> WINDOWS: "Oh yeah? Well... well... well... YOU SUCK, DUDE!"
>> And for 90% of average computer users, no one cares.
>>
>> Windows is just fine for me. I guess I'm not 1337.
> 
> Well, if you're not connected to a WAN and only do Office document
> editing, sure, Windows is fine.

What if I want to do real CAD work and play a wide variety of games?

-- 
Rockboy

I don't need your love to disconnect

George Graves wrote:

>> Some of us DO remember it.  Is it stupid just because it is accurate? 
> 
> It's stupid because it has NO relation to reality. I worked for Xerox 
> PARC in those days, I ought to know!

I can make up stories too.

-- 
Rockboy

I don't need your love to disconnect

George Graves wrote:

> We have.
> 1) Why use a copy when the original will always be ahead. Leopard will 
> introduce features that M$ won't get to copy until the NEXT version of 
> Windows. How long will that be? Another 6-years?
> 
> 2) While many of the features will be similar, that's not all there is 
> to an OS. There's the interface, and Vista's interface, like all Windows 
> versions before it, is inferior to the Mac's (IMHO, of course).

How can the UI of either be superior to the other? Like many other 
things in life this completely subjective. There's no way to measure how 
good one is. Can you honestly tell me there's something you can do on a 
Mac that can't be done on Windows?

>>So what if it Mac users start loading Windows on the new Mactels and 
>>discover that it's acutally better?
> 
> 
> There's no accounting for taste, but since Vista nowhere as good as OSX, 
> the only people likely to follow your scenario are 1) Those ex-Windows 
> users who bought a Mac, and because it doesn't work like Windows, have 
> decided that they don't like it as well, 2) and some general malcontents 
> who have never used either before and for some unfathomable reason find 
> Windows easier to understand (I know that's almost an impossibility, but 
> it is, nonetheless true. I knew someone who fits that scenario). 

Again...very subjective. I use both. I prefer Windows. My next laptop 
will be a Mac only because it can run both but that won't be until Adobe 
releases CS3.

>>Rosetta is a complete abortion when 
>>trying to run non UB apps and loading Windows along with the Win version 
>>is far superior.
> 
> 
> Rosetta, is apparently much faster now than it was originally (I 
> wouldn't know, I don't own an Intel Mac, nor am I likely to for some 
> time). Some say it equals a dual 2-gig G5 in speed on many things. If 
> so, it will certainly do until Adobe and M$ get their intel Mac acts 
> together.

Then there are other who curse its very existance and don't know who to 
blame for lousy software performance first Adobe or Apple. In the mean 
time, they can't get anything done.

Bob

"Rockboy" <rockboy@rockboy..net> wrote in message
news:Iolch.409498$R63.351835@pd7urf1no...
> George Graves wrote:
>
> >> Some of us DO remember it.  Is it stupid just because it is accurate?
> >
> > It's stupid because it has NO relation to reality. I worked for Xerox
> > PARC in those days, I ought to know!
>
> I can make up stories too.
>
>
you are jealous that his first mouse was a handcarved block of wood.

In article <eUjch.3904$yj1.57@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
 "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message 
> news:4571b686$0$3577$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
> > "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Like Apple has ever had  an original idea?
> >>
> >> Just ask Xerox
> >
> > but apple didn't "copy" anything from xerox -- so you need to keep that
> > in mind.
> 
> How about the ENTIRE Mac? 

That's just bullshit. I worked at Xerox PARC and I've used the Alto 
system that Jobs was shown on his tour.  I also subsequently have used 
the Lisa the Xerox Star system, and I owned one of the early Macs. The 
Mac and the Xerox Alto have almost NOTHING in common. They both used a 
keyboard and a mouse, yes, but there, the resemblance stops. Later Alto 
systems used geometric symbols to represent files only, but applications 
had to be launched by picking the app name from a list, originally, one 
could pick either the application or the file name from a text list 
using the mouse but applications had to be launched first before 
existing files in that application could be opened.  Applications were 
listed as "<application name here>.RUN."Later, you could go to the edge 
of a screen and open a file by clicking on the icon. I don't remember 
what was what, but different kinds of files used different icon shapes, 
and the creator had to associate those shapes with the file being 
created. In other words, it worked NOTHING like the Mac. 

Xerox came out with something called the Star computer in the early 
Eighties after Xerox developers saw the Lisa after a visit to Apple. A 
Company for which I worked at the time bought one for its technical 
publications department. I played with it extensively. It wasn't just 
primitive compared to the original Mac, it was primitive compared to the 
Lisa!

So get the idea that the Mac was a rip-off of the Xerox Alto or Star 
system completely out of your mind, because you're wrong.

-- 
George Graves
The easiest thing for one to be is "fashionable." It requires no thought, 
no intelligence, and no creativity. Just watch, listen to, and do what 
everybody else does and you're part of the "in crowd." 

In article <4571c5c6$0$32598$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
 Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <u4jch.3252$Yy1.131@textfe.usenetserver.com>,
>  yttrx@yttrx.net (yttrx) wrote:
> 
> > No, its largely derived from NeXTStep, and somewhat derived from BSD, as
> > NeXTStep was.
> 
> In fact, OS X 10.0 was a direct port of NeXt.

Where did you get THAT nonsense?

-- 
George Graves
The easiest thing for one to be is "fashionable." It requires no thought, 
no intelligence, and no creativity. Just watch, listen to, and do what 
everybody else does and you're part of the "in crowd." 

In article <021220061303532281%dontbother@dot.net>,
 DB <dontbother@dot.net> wrote:

> In article <4571c5c6$0$32598$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, Warren Oates
> <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <u4jch.3252$Yy1.131@textfe.usenetserver.com>,
> >  yttrx@yttrx.net (yttrx) wrote:
> > 
> > > No, its largely derived from NeXTStep, and somewhat derived from BSD, as
> > > NeXTStep was.
> > 
> > In fact, OS X 10.0 was a direct port of NeXt.
> 
> Cite, please?

He pulled it out of his own ignorance. Its obvious that he has never 
seen OSX  10.0, or he wouldn't say that.

-- 
George Graves
The easiest thing for one to be is "fashionable." It requires no thought, 
no intelligence, and no creativity. Just watch, listen to, and do what 
everybody else does and you're part of the "in crowd." 

In article <HIKdnV0sDrQDV-zYnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
 "Chris H. of Portland, OR" <chrispdx@comcast.FUCKOFFSPAMMERS.net> 
 wrote:

> Windows is just fine for me. I guess I'm not 1337.

No, you are a Micro$haft drone.

In article <wJkch.6475$7T5.4141@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
 "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:


> You mean all that work I do in Photoshop to print to my Epson 7600 to print 
> 24"x36" prints really didn't happen?  My use of the PC as my 'tivo' (where 
> PCs clearly excel compared to Macs) didn't happen?
> 
> They're just tools folks.  There are good PCs.  There are good Macs.  Almost 
> everything can be done on either platform these days.
> 
> Tom 

Name us one Mac virus in the wild.

Jim Lee Jr. wrote:

> In article <HIKdnV0sDrQDV-zYnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>  "Chris H. of Portland, OR" <chrispdx@comcast.FUCKOFFSPAMMERS.net> 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
>>Windows is just fine for me. I guess I'm not 1337.
> 
> 
> No, you are a Micro$haft drone.

I think its so cute how you use that dollar sign in there. And so 
original, too. Mac biggots are so creative.

Bob

In article <%okch.6868$Ig1.3909@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
 "the Bede" <rspwsownthebede@yahoo.com> wrote:

> if only everyone would switch to Unix. Then the world would be perfect.

Would that not make Steve Ballmer and his fanbois jealous?

Jim Lee Jr. wrote:

> In article <wJkch.6475$7T5.4141@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
>  "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>>You mean all that work I do in Photoshop to print to my Epson 7600 to print 
>>24"x36" prints really didn't happen?  My use of the PC as my 'tivo' (where 
>>PCs clearly excel compared to Macs) didn't happen?
>>
>>They're just tools folks.  There are good PCs.  There are good Macs.  Almost 
>>everything can be done on either platform these days.
>>
>>Tom 
> 
> 
> Name us one Mac virus in the wild.

That has got to be one of the most tired arguments around. Find 
something else. The subject is using them as tools.

Tell me one thing you can do on a Mac that can't be done on Windows.

Bob

In article <ppgx3yd5ioc3.dlg@funkenbusch.com>,
 Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:

> MAC: You copied us. We invented everything
> 
> Windows: That's the pot calling the kettle black
> 
> MAC: But we invented the "flower power" iMac
> 
> Windows: No contest there.

You misspelled "Mac."

MAC is the ethernet device identifying number.

Mac is the shortened form of Macintosh.

Learn to tell the difference between the two.

In article <hFlch.3058$H22.2368@trndny09>,
 Bob Levine <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:

> Jim Lee Jr. wrote:
> 
> > In article <wJkch.6475$7T5.4141@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> >  "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >>You mean all that work I do in Photoshop to print to my Epson 7600 to print 
> >>24"x36" prints really didn't happen?  My use of the PC as my 'tivo' (where 
> >>PCs clearly excel compared to Macs) didn't happen?
> >>
> >>They're just tools folks.  There are good PCs.  There are good Macs.  
> >>Almost 
> >>everything can be done on either platform these days.
> >>
> >>Tom 
> > 
> > 
> > Name us one Mac virus in the wild.
> 
> That has got to be one of the most tired arguments around. Find 
> something else. The subject is using them as tools.
> 
> Tell me one thing you can do on a Mac that can't be done on Windows.
> 


   Go to porn sites and not get a virus. 



-- 
Stefan:

In article <1tlch.3055$H22.759@trndny09>, Bob Levine
<robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:

> How can the UI of either be superior to the other? Like many other 
> things in life this completely subjective. There's no way to measure how 
> good one is. Can you honestly tell me there's something you can do on a 
> Mac that can't be done on Windows?

Fun without a firewall, anti-virus, and anti-spyware software without
danger of infection?

In article <pDlch.3057$H22.961@trndny09>, Bob Levine
<robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:

> I think its so cute how you use that dollar sign in there. And so 
> original, too. Mac biggots are so creative.

I see that spell checker is working great.

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> In article <1tlch.3055$H22.759@trndny09>, Bob Levine
> <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> How can the UI of either be superior to the other? Like many other 
>> things in life this completely subjective. There's no way to measure how 
>> good one is. Can you honestly tell me there's something you can do on a 
>> Mac that can't be done on Windows?
> 
> Fun without a firewall, anti-virus, and anti-spyware software without
> danger of infection?

Yes, because it's Mac it clearly doesn't need a firewall...

-- 
Rockboy

I don't need your love to disconnect

In article <hFlch.3058$H22.2368@trndny09>,
 Bob Levine <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:

> Jim Lee Jr. wrote:
> 
> > In article <wJkch.6475$7T5.4141@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> >  "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >>You mean all that work I do in Photoshop to print to my Epson 7600 to print 
> >>24"x36" prints really didn't happen?  My use of the PC as my 'tivo' (where 
> >>PCs clearly excel compared to Macs) didn't happen?
> >>
> >>They're just tools folks.  There are good PCs.  There are good Macs.  
> >>Almost 
> >>everything can be done on either platform these days.
> >>
> >>Tom 
> > 
> > 
> > Name us one Mac virus in the wild.
> 
> That has got to be one of the most tired arguments around. Find 
> something else. The subject is using them as tools.
> 
> Tell me one thing you can do on a Mac that can't be done on Windows.
> 
... or vice versa... (note that it was CAN"T do).

Rockboy <rockboy@rockboy..net> wrote:

> Peter Bj�rn Perls� wrote:
> > Chris H. of Portland, OR <chrispdx@comcast.FUCKOFFSPAMMERS.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> "DB" <dontbother@dot.net> wrote in message 
> >> news:021220061208413589%dontbother@dot.net...
> >>> In article <u4jch.3252$Yy1.131@textfe.usenetserver.com>, yttrx
> >>> <yttrx@yttrx.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Nothing at microsoft is really new, they copy EVERYTHING.
> >>> Let's sum up the arguments, shall we?
> >>>
> >>> MAC: "There's ample documentation to prove that much of the Windows
> >>> interface has been copied from the Mac OS, for decades."
> >>>
> >>> WINDOWS: "Oh yeah? Well... well... well... YOU SUCK, DUDE!"
> >> And for 90% of average computer users, no one cares.
> >>
> >> Windows is just fine for me. I guess I'm not 1337.
> > 
> > Well, if you're not connected to a WAN and only do Office document
> > editing, sure, Windows is fine.
> 
> What if I want to do real CAD work and play a wide variety of games?

http://www.parallels.com/

-- 
regards , Peter B. P. - http://titancity.com/blog
http://markedspartiet.dk, http://macplanet.dk
http://siad.dk

"Jim Lee Jr." <peejster01@insightbb.com> wrote in message 
news:peejster01-DEF49C.14464702122006@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article <wJkch.6475$7T5.4141@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> You mean all that work I do in Photoshop to print to my Epson 7600 to 
>> print
>> 24"x36" prints really didn't happen?  My use of the PC as my 'tivo' 
>> (where
>> PCs clearly excel compared to Macs) didn't happen?
>>
>> They're just tools folks.  There are good PCs.  There are good Macs. 
>> Almost
>> everything can be done on either platform these days.
>>
>> Tom
>
> Name us one Mac virus in the wild.

What in the world does that have to do with anything?

Change the subject if I don't have an answer? 

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:kurtullman-37C3D3.16360402122006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx...
> In article <hFlch.3058$H22.2368@trndny09>,
> Bob Levine <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Jim Lee Jr. wrote:
>>
>> > In article <wJkch.6475$7T5.4141@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
>> >  "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>You mean all that work I do in Photoshop to print to my Epson 7600 to 
>> >>print
>> >>24"x36" prints really didn't happen?  My use of the PC as my 'tivo' 
>> >>(where
>> >>PCs clearly excel compared to Macs) didn't happen?
>> >>
>> >>They're just tools folks.  There are good PCs.  There are good Macs.
>> >>Almost
>> >>everything can be done on either platform these days.
>> >>
>> >>Tom
>> >
>> >
>> > Name us one Mac virus in the wild.
>>
>> That has got to be one of the most tired arguments around. Find
>> something else. The subject is using them as tools.
>>
>> Tell me one thing you can do on a Mac that can't be done on Windows.
>>
> .. or vice versa... (note that it was CAN"T do).

OK.

Show me a 10 tuner -- 5 OTA HD and 5 Cable SD system using a Mac.  A Mac 
that costs less that $800.

I do it with an older PC machine.

Oh, must have client software that also allows me to stream to 5 HDTVs in my 
house concurrently.

While recording.

From one SATA drive. 

"George Graves" <gmgraves@pacbell.net> wrote in message 
news:gmgraves-7165EC.12120102122006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <6Aich.5307$%u3.713@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Gary" <stevegary@hotlejrkw.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns988D5A7E4D80332ju44k2j3k@217.22.228.20...
>> > C'mon, did they really expect that no one would notice that EVERY 
>> > SINGLE
>> > ONE of the major feature upgrades - aside from the 
>> > virus/spyware/security
>> > make-goods which are irrelevant to Mac OS - is a renamed version of
>> > something Apple developed for OS X?
>> >
>> > The funniest thing would be if the Rip Off Apple strategy backfired 
>> > this
>> > time around, and just made people switch to OS X... the playing field 
>> > is a
>> > lot different now than it was the last time the Microsoft crooks tried 
>> > it.
>> >
>> >
>> > -- 
>> > http://homepage.mac.com/vito/real_vista_episode_1.mov
>>
>>
>> Like Apple has ever had  an original idea?
>>
>> Just ask Xerox
>
> What does Xerox have to do with anything? They never developed the GUI
> concept to anywhere within a country mile of what Apple did. If you were
> to ever contrast any of the Xerox OSes to the original Mac, you would
> know how lame it was in comaprison.
>

Again, changing the argument.  The statement was made ONLY to refute the 
point that Windows steals from the Mac and that the Mac was original 

""Peter Bj�rn Perls�"" <peter@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message 
news:1hpqpq3.1cc88949r6by8N%peter@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk...
> Rockboy <rockboy@rockboy..net> wrote:
>
>> Peter Bj�rn Perls� wrote:
>> > Chris H. of Portland, OR <chrispdx@comcast.FUCKOFFSPAMMERS.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "DB" <dontbother@dot.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:021220061208413589%dontbother@dot.net...
>> >>> In article <u4jch.3252$Yy1.131@textfe.usenetserver.com>, yttrx
>> >>> <yttrx@yttrx.net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Nothing at microsoft is really new, they copy EVERYTHING.
>> >>> Let's sum up the arguments, shall we?
>> >>>
>> >>> MAC: "There's ample documentation to prove that much of the Windows
>> >>> interface has been copied from the Mac OS, for decades."
>> >>>
>> >>> WINDOWS: "Oh yeah? Well... well... well... YOU SUCK, DUDE!"
>> >> And for 90% of average computer users, no one cares.
>> >>
>> >> Windows is just fine for me. I guess I'm not 1337.
>> >
>> > Well, if you're not connected to a WAN and only do Office document
>> > editing, sure, Windows is fine.
>>
>> What if I want to do real CAD work and play a wide variety of games?
>
> http://www.parallels.com/
>

So the solution to Mac weaknesses is software that let's it be a PC?

Made me laugh 

"George Graves" <gmgraves@pacbell.net> wrote in message 
news:gmgraves-D162FC.12382402122006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <eUjch.3904$yj1.57@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message
>> news:4571b686$0$3577$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
>> > "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Like Apple has ever had  an original idea?
>> >>
>> >> Just ask Xerox
>> >
>> > but apple didn't "copy" anything from xerox -- so you need to keep that
>> > in mind.
>>
>> How about the ENTIRE Mac?
>
> That's just bullshit. I worked at Xerox PARC and I've used the Alto
> system that Jobs was shown on his tour.  I also subsequently have used
> the Lisa the Xerox Star system, and I owned one of the early Macs. The
> Mac and the Xerox Alto have almost NOTHING in common. They both used a
> keyboard and a mouse, yes, but there, the resemblance stops. Later Alto
> systems used geometric symbols to represent files only, but applications
> had to be launched by picking the app name from a list, originally, one
> could pick either the application or the file name from a text list
> using the mouse but applications had to be launched first before
> existing files in that application could be opened.  Applications were
> listed as "<application name here>.RUN."Later, you could go to the edge
> of a screen and open a file by clicking on the icon. I don't remember
> what was what, but different kinds of files used different icon shapes,
> and the creator had to associate those shapes with the file being
> created. In other words, it worked NOTHING like the Mac.
>
> Xerox came out with something called the Star computer in the early
> Eighties after Xerox developers saw the Lisa after a visit to Apple. A
> Company for which I worked at the time bought one for its technical
> publications department. I played with it extensively. It wasn't just
> primitive compared to the original Mac, it was primitive compared to the
> Lisa!
>
> So get the idea that the Mac was a rip-off of the Xerox Alto or Star
> system completely out of your mind, because you're wrong.
>
> -- 
> George Graves

Whatever.  You continue arguing with yourself.  The rest of us know the 
truth :) 

"Jim Lee Jr." <peejster01@insightbb.com> wrote in message 
news:peejster01-11BFA3.14484802122006@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article <%okch.6868$Ig1.3909@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
> "the Bede" <rspwsownthebede@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> if only everyone would switch to Unix. Then the world would be perfect.
>
> Would that not make Steve Ballmer and his fanbois jealous?


I just love Mac people.  When their arguments get weak they start name 
calling. 

"Jim Lee Jr." <peejster01@insightbb.com> wrote in message 
news:peejster01-62FD12.14512402122006@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article <ppgx3yd5ioc3.dlg@funkenbusch.com>,
> Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>
>> MAC: You copied us. We invented everything
>>
>> Windows: That's the pot calling the kettle black
>>
>> MAC: But we invented the "flower power" iMac
>>
>> Windows: No contest there.
>
> You misspelled "Mac."
>
> MAC is the ethernet device identifying number.
>
> Mac is the shortened form of Macintosh.
>
> Learn to tell the difference between the two.


OOOhhh, we're so impressed.  We Windows folks bow to your superior 
knowledge.

Oh wait, he didn't misspell it.

MAC = Mac as far as spelling goes.

He may not have capitalized it to convention, but he spelled it right.

If you going to lower yourself to grammar correction, at least do a good job 
at it. 

In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tom Scales <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> "Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
> news:kurtullman-37C3D3.16360402122006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx...
>> In article <hFlch.3058$H22.2368@trndny09>,
>> Bob Levine <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Lee Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>> > In article <wJkch.6475$7T5.4141@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
>>> >  "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>You mean all that work I do in Photoshop to print to my Epson 7600 to 
>>> >>print
>>> >>24"x36" prints really didn't happen?  My use of the PC as my 'tivo' 
>>> >>(where
>>> >>PCs clearly excel compared to Macs) didn't happen?
>>> >>
>>> >>They're just tools folks.  There are good PCs.  There are good Macs.
>>> >>Almost
>>> >>everything can be done on either platform these days.
>>> >>
>>> >>Tom
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Name us one Mac virus in the wild.
>>>
>>> That has got to be one of the most tired arguments around. Find
>>> something else. The subject is using them as tools.
>>>
>>> Tell me one thing you can do on a Mac that can't be done on Windows.
>>>
>> .. or vice versa... (note that it was CAN"T do).
> 
> OK.
> 
> Show me a 10 tuner -- 5 OTA HD and 5 Cable SD system using a Mac.  A Mac 
> that costs less that $800.
> 
> I do it with an older PC machine.
> 
> Oh, must have client software that also allows me to stream to 5 HDTVs in my 
> house concurrently.
> 
> While recording.
> 
> From one SATA drive. 
> 

You are not doing that on an 800 dollar windows box, period.




-----yttrx


-- 
http://www.yttrx.net

Tom Scales wrote:


>>>What if I want to do real CAD work and play a wide variety of games?
>>
>>http://www.parallels.com/
>>
> 
> 
> So the solution to Mac weaknesses is software that let's it be a PC?
> 
> Made me laugh 
> 
> 

And again, Parallels is not the way I'd go. Bootcamp has less limitations.

Bob

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 22:11:34 +0000, yttrx wrote:

> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tom Scales <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> "Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:kurtullman-37C3D3.16360402122006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx...
>>> In article <hFlch.3058$H22.2368@trndny09>, Bob Levine
>>> <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jim Lee Jr. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > In article <wJkch.6475$7T5.4141@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
>>>> >  "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >>You mean all that work I do in Photoshop to print to my Epson 7600
>>>> >>to print
>>>> >>24"x36" prints really didn't happen?  My use of the PC as my 'tivo'
>>>> >>(where
>>>> >>PCs clearly excel compared to Macs) didn't happen?
>>>> >>
>>>> >>They're just tools folks.  There are good PCs.  There are good
>>>> >>Macs. Almost
>>>> >>everything can be done on either platform these days.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Tom
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Name us one Mac virus in the wild.
>>>>
>>>> That has got to be one of the most tired arguments around. Find
>>>> something else. The subject is using them as tools.
>>>>
>>>> Tell me one thing you can do on a Mac that can't be done on Windows.
>>>>
>>> .. or vice versa... (note that it was CAN"T do).
>> 
>> OK.
>> 
>> Show me a 10 tuner -- 5 OTA HD and 5 Cable SD system using a Mac.  A
>> Mac that costs less that $800.
>> 
>> I do it with an older PC machine.
>> 
>> Oh, must have client software that also allows me to stream to 5 HDTVs
>> in my house concurrently.
>> 
>> While recording.
>> 
>> From one SATA drive.
>> 
>> 
> You are not doing that on an 800 dollar windows box, period.
> 
> 
Linux I could see, not a chance in hell on a Winblows machine.

Rockboy wrote:

> Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> 
>> In article <1tlch.3055$H22.759@trndny09>, Bob Levine
>> <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> How can the UI of either be superior to the other? Like many other 
>>> things in life this completely subjective. There's no way to measure 
>>> how good one is. Can you honestly tell me there's something you can 
>>> do on a Mac that can't be done on Windows?
>>
>>
>> Fun without a firewall, anti-virus, and anti-spyware software without
>> danger of infection?
> 
> 
> Yes, because it's Mac it clearly doesn't need a firewall...
> 

A true BS argument if I've ever heard one. Why do IT people lock Macs 
down? Even better...why have anything but admin rights on a Mac if 
they're so safe?

Bob

yttrx wrote:

> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tom Scales <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> "Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
news:kurtullman-37C3D3.16360402122006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx...
>>> In article <hFlch.3058$H22.2368@trndny09>,
>>> Bob Levine <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jim Lee Jr. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > In article <wJkch.6475$7T5.4141@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
>>>> >  "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >>You mean all that work I do in Photoshop to print to my Epson 7600 to
>>>> >>print
>>>> >>24"x36" prints really didn't happen?  My use of the PC as my 'tivo'
>>>> >>(where
>>>> >>PCs clearly excel compared to Macs) didn't happen?
>>>> >>
>>>> >>They're just tools folks.  There are good PCs.  There are good Macs.
>>>> >>Almost
>>>> >>everything can be done on either platform these days.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Tom
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Name us one Mac virus in the wild.
>>>>
>>>> That has got to be one of the most tired arguments around. Find
>>>> something else. The subject is using them as tools.
>>>>
>>>> Tell me one thing you can do on a Mac that can't be done on Windows.
>>>>
>>> .. or vice versa... (note that it was CAN"T do).
>> 
>> OK.
>> 
>> Show me a 10 tuner -- 5 OTA HD and 5 Cable SD system using a Mac.  A Mac
>> that costs less that $800.
>> 
>> I do it with an older PC machine.
>> 
>> Oh, must have client software that also allows me to stream to 5 HDTVs in
>> my house concurrently.
>> 
>> While recording.
>> 
>> From one SATA drive.
>> 
> 
> You are not doing that on an 800 dollar windows box, period.
> 

No. But on that same box with linux
-- 
Windows was created to keep stupid people away from UNIX."
  -- Tom Christiansen

"yttrx" <yttrx@yttrx.net> wrote in message 
news:qSmch.3258$Yy1.1875@textfe.usenetserver.com...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tom Scales <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:kurtullman-37C3D3.16360402122006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx...
>>> In article <hFlch.3058$H22.2368@trndny09>,
>>> Bob Levine <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jim Lee Jr. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > In article <wJkch.6475$7T5.4141@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
>>>> >  "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >>You mean all that work I do in Photoshop to print to my Epson 7600 to
>>>> >>print
>>>> >>24"x36" prints really didn't happen?  My use of the PC as my 'tivo'
>>>> >>(where
>>>> >>PCs clearly excel compared to Macs) didn't happen?
>>>> >>
>>>> >>They're just tools folks.  There are good PCs.  There are good Macs.
>>>> >>Almost
>>>> >>everything can be done on either platform these days.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Tom
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Name us one Mac virus in the wild.
>>>>
>>>> That has got to be one of the most tired arguments around. Find
>>>> something else. The subject is using them as tools.
>>>>
>>>> Tell me one thing you can do on a Mac that can't be done on Windows.
>>>>
>>> .. or vice versa... (note that it was CAN"T do).
>>
>> OK.
>>
>> Show me a 10 tuner -- 5 OTA HD and 5 Cable SD system using a Mac.  A Mac
>> that costs less that $800.
>>
>> I do it with an older PC machine.
>>
>> Oh, must have client software that also allows me to stream to 5 HDTVs in 
>> my
>> house concurrently.
>>
>> While recording.
>>
>> From one SATA drive.
>>
>
> You are not doing that on an 800 dollar windows box, period.
>
>
>
>
> -----yttrx
>
>
> -- 
> http://www.yttrx.net
>

Uh, yes, I am.  I should have clarified, that doesn't include the capture 
cards.  They clearly add to the cost.

"Bob Levine" <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:K0nch.3063$H22.1822@trndny09...
> Tom Scales wrote:
>
>
>>>>What if I want to do real CAD work and play a wide variety of games?
>>>
>>>http://www.parallels.com/
>>>
>>
>>
>> So the solution to Mac weaknesses is software that let's it be a PC?
>>
>> Made me laugh
>
> And again, Parallels is not the way I'd go. Bootcamp has less limitations.
>
> Bob

So in other words, to do the real work requires booting your Mac (notice the 
proper upper/lower case) into Windows 

"Liam Slider" <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote in message 
news:o2nch.6126$tM1.517@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 22:11:34 +0000, yttrx wrote:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tom Scales <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:kurtullman-37C3D3.16360402122006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx...
>>>> In article <hFlch.3058$H22.2368@trndny09>, Bob Levine
>>>> <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jim Lee Jr. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > In article <wJkch.6475$7T5.4141@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
>>>>> >  "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >>You mean all that work I do in Photoshop to print to my Epson 7600
>>>>> >>to print
>>>>> >>24"x36" prints really didn't happen?  My use of the PC as my 'tivo'
>>>>> >>(where
>>>>> >>PCs clearly excel compared to Macs) didn't happen?
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>They're just tools folks.  There are good PCs.  There are good
>>>>> >>Macs. Almost
>>>>> >>everything can be done on either platform these days.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>Tom
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Name us one Mac virus in the wild.
>>>>>
>>>>> That has got to be one of the most tired arguments around. Find
>>>>> something else. The subject is using them as tools.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell me one thing you can do on a Mac that can't be done on Windows.
>>>>>
>>>> .. or vice versa... (note that it was CAN"T do).
>>>
>>> OK.
>>>
>>> Show me a 10 tuner -- 5 OTA HD and 5 Cable SD system using a Mac.  A
>>> Mac that costs less that $800.
>>>
>>> I do it with an older PC machine.
>>>
>>> Oh, must have client software that also allows me to stream to 5 HDTVs
>>> in my house concurrently.
>>>
>>> While recording.
>>>
>>> From one SATA drive.
>>>
>>>
>> You are not doing that on an 800 dollar windows box, period.
>>
>>
> Linux I could see, not a chance in hell on a Winblows machine.

Damn, all those shows I've been watching don't exist! 

"Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:WHmch.6487$7T5.1020@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Jim Lee Jr." <peejster01@insightbb.com> wrote in message 
> news:peejster01-11BFA3.14484802122006@news.isp.giganews.com...
>> In article <%okch.6868$Ig1.3909@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
>> "the Bede" <rspwsownthebede@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> if only everyone would switch to Unix. Then the world would be perfect.
>>
>> Would that not make Steve Ballmer and his fanbois jealous?
>
>
> I just love Mac people.  When their arguments get weak they start name 
> calling.
>
When they get weak? When have they not been weak?  Don't forget most Mac 
users are teenage girls in a dorm room, name calling is their only ammo. 

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 20:30:17 +0000, Rockboy wrote:

> Peter Bjørn Perlsø wrote:
>> Chris H. of Portland, OR <chrispdx@comcast.FUCKOFFSPAMMERS.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> "DB" <dontbother@dot.net> wrote in message 
>>> news:021220061208413589%dontbother@dot.net...
>>>> In article <u4jch.3252$Yy1.131@textfe.usenetserver.com>, yttrx
>>>> <yttrx@yttrx.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Nothing at microsoft is really new, they copy EVERYTHING.
>>>> Let's sum up the arguments, shall we?
>>>>
>>>> MAC: "There's ample documentation to prove that much of the Windows
>>>> interface has been copied from the Mac OS, for decades."
>>>>
>>>> WINDOWS: "Oh yeah? Well... well... well... YOU SUCK, DUDE!"
>>> And for 90% of average computer users, no one cares.
>>>
>>> Windows is just fine for me. I guess I'm not 1337.
>> 
>> Well, if you're not connected to a WAN and only do Office document
>> editing, sure, Windows is fine.
> 
> What if I want to do real CAD work and play a wide variety of games?
>

Run Linux on it. :-P

Peter Bj�rn Perls� wrote:
> Rockboy <rockboy@rockboy..net> wrote:
> 
>> Peter Bj�rn Perls� wrote:
>>> Chris H. of Portland, OR <chrispdx@comcast.FUCKOFFSPAMMERS.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "DB" <dontbother@dot.net> wrote in message 
>>>> news:021220061208413589%dontbother@dot.net...
>>>>> In article <u4jch.3252$Yy1.131@textfe.usenetserver.com>, yttrx
>>>>> <yttrx@yttrx.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing at microsoft is really new, they copy EVERYTHING.
>>>>> Let's sum up the arguments, shall we?
>>>>>
>>>>> MAC: "There's ample documentation to prove that much of the Windows
>>>>> interface has been copied from the Mac OS, for decades."
>>>>>
>>>>> WINDOWS: "Oh yeah? Well... well... well... YOU SUCK, DUDE!"
>>>> And for 90% of average computer users, no one cares.
>>>>
>>>> Windows is just fine for me. I guess I'm not 1337.
>>> Well, if you're not connected to a WAN and only do Office document
>>> editing, sure, Windows is fine.
>> What if I want to do real CAD work and play a wide variety of games?
> 
> http://www.parallels.com/

Yes, clearly a virtual machine is the best way to run graphics and 
processor intensive applications.

-- 
Rockboy

I don't need your love to disconnect

Liam Slider wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 20:30:17 +0000, Rockboy wrote:
> 
>> Peter Bjørn Perlsø wrote:
>>> Chris H. of Portland, OR <chrispdx@comcast.FUCKOFFSPAMMERS.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "DB" <dontbother@dot.net> wrote in message 
>>>> news:021220061208413589%dontbother@dot.net...
>>>>> In article <u4jch.3252$Yy1.131@textfe.usenetserver.com>, yttrx
>>>>> <yttrx@yttrx.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing at microsoft is really new, they copy EVERYTHING.
>>>>> Let's sum up the arguments, shall we?
>>>>>
>>>>> MAC: "There's ample documentation to prove that much of the Windows
>>>>> interface has been copied from the Mac OS, for decades."
>>>>>
>>>>> WINDOWS: "Oh yeah? Well... well... well... YOU SUCK, DUDE!"
>>>> And for 90% of average computer users, no one cares.
>>>>
>>>> Windows is just fine for me. I guess I'm not 1337.
>>> Well, if you're not connected to a WAN and only do Office document
>>> editing, sure, Windows is fine.
>> What if I want to do real CAD work and play a wide variety of games?
> 
> Run Linux on it. :-P

That makes even less sense than a Mac.

-- 
Rockboy

I don't need your love to disconnect

Tom Scales wrote:

> So in other words, to do the real work requires booting your Mac (notice the 
> proper upper/lower case) into Windows 

Parallels is nice piece of work but if I'm going to work in Windows, I 
want work in Windows.

Bob

In article <OPidneD_ceeKY-zYnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@adelphia.com>,
 "MuahMan" <muahman@gmail.com> wrote:

> When they get weak? When have they not been weak?  Don't forget most 
> Mac users are teenage girls in a dorm room, name calling is their 
> only ammo. 

Pot.
Kettle.
Black.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

"Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:iHmch.5337$%u3.2331@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "George Graves" <gmgraves@pacbell.net> wrote in message 
> news:gmgraves-D162FC.12382402122006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
>> In article <eUjch.3904$yj1.57@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
>> "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message
>>> news:4571b686$0$3577$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
>>> > "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> Like Apple has ever had  an original idea?
>>> >>
>>> >> Just ask Xerox
>>> >
>>> > but apple didn't "copy" anything from xerox -- so you need to keep 
>>> > that
>>> > in mind.
>>>
>>> How about the ENTIRE Mac?
>>
>> That's just bullshit. I worked at Xerox PARC and I've used the Alto
>> system that Jobs was shown on his tour.  I also subsequently have used
>> the Lisa the Xerox Star system, and I owned one of the early Macs. The
>> Mac and the Xerox Alto have almost NOTHING in common. They both used a
>> keyboard and a mouse, yes, but there, the resemblance stops. Later Alto
>> systems used geometric symbols to represent files only, but applications
>> had to be launched by picking the app name from a list, originally, one
>> could pick either the application or the file name from a text list
>> using the mouse but applications had to be launched first before
>> existing files in that application could be opened.  Applications were
>> listed as "<application name here>.RUN."Later, you could go to the edge
>> of a screen and open a file by clicking on the icon. I don't remember
>> what was what, but different kinds of files used different icon shapes,
>> and the creator had to associate those shapes with the file being
>> created. In other words, it worked NOTHING like the Mac.
>>
>> Xerox came out with something called the Star computer in the early
>> Eighties after Xerox developers saw the Lisa after a visit to Apple. A
>> Company for which I worked at the time bought one for its technical
>> publications department. I played with it extensively. It wasn't just
>> primitive compared to the original Mac, it was primitive compared to the
>> Lisa!
>>
>> So get the idea that the Mac was a rip-off of the Xerox Alto or Star
>> system completely out of your mind, because you're wrong.
>>
>> -- 
>> George Graves
>
> Whatever.  You continue arguing with yourself.  The rest of us know the 
> truth :)
>
George like to tell stories. Keep in mind that none of his stories are true. 

Steve Gary wrote:
> C'mon, did they really expect that no one would notice that EVERY SINGLE 
> ONE of the major feature upgrades - aside from the virus/spyware/security 
> make-goods which are irrelevant to Mac OS - is a renamed version of 
> something Apple developed for OS X?

Can you jog my memory and provide the original OS 
X names for these?

Bitlocker?

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/library/c61f2a12-8ae6-4957-b031-97b4d762cf31.mspx

Readyboost?

Readydrive?

DirectX10?

Media Center Enhancements?

Steve

"George Graves" <gmgraves@pacbell.net> wrote in message 
news:gmgraves-C6BFF7.12091902122006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <O8kch.336$4p2.199@trndny07>,
> Bob Levine <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Steve Gary wrote:
>>
>> > C'mon, did they really expect that no one would notice that EVERY 
>> > SINGLE
>> > ONE of the major feature upgrades - aside from the 
>> > virus/spyware/security
>> > make-goods which are irrelevant to Mac OS - is a renamed version of
>> > something Apple developed for OS X?
>> >
>> > The funniest thing would be if the Rip Off Apple strategy backfired 
>> > this
>> > time around, and just made people switch to OS X... the playing field 
>> > is a
>> > lot different now than it was the last time the Microsoft crooks tried 
>> > it.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I don't normally feed trolls, but you know what? You're absolutely
>> right. They copied many of the nicer features of OSX. And just like I
>> figured all the Mac biggots out there that have been touting how much
>> better OSX is are now complaining because Windows is more like it. Make
>> up your mind.
>
> We have.
> 1) Why use a copy when the original will always be ahead. Leopard will
> introduce features that M$ won't get to copy until the NEXT version of
> Windows. How long will that be? Another 6-years?


Talk about the "original", how old is OSX again??  When is OSXI coming out 
anyway.?  Leopard is a Service Pack - nothing more.


>
> 2) While many of the features will be similar, that's not all there is
> to an OS. There's the interface, and Vista's interface, like all Windows
> versions before it, is inferior to the Mac's (IMHO, of course).

Buy whose standard, yours?  Have you even seen it?

Bob Levine wrote:
> Tom Scales wrote:
> 
>> So in other words, to do the real work requires booting your Mac 
>> (notice the proper upper/lower case) into Windows 
> 
> Parallels is nice piece of work but if I'm going to work in Windows, I 
> want work in Windows.

This sentence needs the word "work" in it more.

-- 
Rockboy

I don't need your love to disconnect

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 14:18:53 -0500, TheLetterK wrote:

>>  Other features, like Dashboard are copies of ideas Microsoft was
>> shopping around in 2003 (see http://youtube.com/watch?v=b9ifQvQCO7Y for an
>> early 2003 preview video that shows the sidebar with widgets).
> 
> Dashboard is almost a direct clone of a formerly popular Mac app called 
> Konfabulator. Right down to the widget styles. AFAIK, Apple never paid 
> the developers of Konfabulator a penny.

I'm pretty sure Konfabulator was a Windows only app.  I know it ran on
Windows, but I never saw a mac version.  It's now called "Yahoo Widgets" or
something like that since Yahoo bought them.

However, Konfabulator came out around 2003 as well.  All these apps are
muddied together, apparently feeding off the other (there is little chance
so many different apps that did exactly the same things, and looked almost
exactly the same came out independantly).
 
>> Also, don't forget that things like "time machine" in Leopard are (albeitly
>> better implemented) copies of Windows Volume Shadow Copies (been around
>> since 2003)
> 
> It's not really the same thing as Volume Shadow Copy--it's implemented 
> differently, and the interface is very different. They are superficially 
> similar, but it's hard to say that Apple 'copied' Microsoft here.

That's why I said "albeitly better implemented", I was talking about the
UI.  VMS had a versioned filesystem decades ago, but this isn't really that
either.

>> and Spotlight was also copied from early versions of Longhorn.
> 
> More correctly it's an implementation of a searchable file system index. 
> Microsoft certainly wasn't the first to throw this idea around. Indeed, 
> I might go so far as to say that this is more reminiscent of Copland's 
> proposed search functionality than it is WinFS.

Also, apple hired most of the BeOS develoeprs as well.  But I guess my
point was that Microsoft made a big stink about search in the 2002-2003
timeframe, and apple likely figured it would be a good time to capitalize
on Microsoft's marketing.

In article <021220061158070798%rag@nospam.techline.com>, Randall
Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:

> In article <O8kch.336$4p2.199@trndny07>, Bob Levine
> <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > So what if it Mac users start loading Windows on the new Mactels and 
> > discover that it's acutally better? Rosetta is a complete abortion when 
> > trying to run non UB apps and loading Windows along with the Win version 
> > is far superior.
> 
> Any guesses on how long it will take for the first security fixes for
> Vista to be released?

Thursday.

Liam Slider wrote:

>> what if I'm on a DSL and all I do is download porn and troll usenet?
> 
> Considering the amount of viruses and trojans that porn sites try to load
> onto Windows computers...definitely not a good idea.

Newsflash!

There are simple tools to make this a non issue. 
I am using a Mac now but up until a couple of 
months ago all my web browsing was on an XP 
laptop, and I actually made it a point to 
intentionally click on "bad" things to let them 
try and do what they could.  I used Firefox with 
scripting disabled by default, had Symantec 
Anti-Virus, Windows Defender, and had Windows 
Automatic Updates enabled.

Steve

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> In article <Xns988D5A7E4D80332ju44k2j3k@217.22.228.20>, Steve Gary
> <stevegary@hotlejrkw.com> wrote:
> 
>> C'mon, did they really expect that no one would notice that EVERY SINGLE 
>> ONE of the major feature upgrades - aside from the virus/spyware/security 
>> make-goods which are irrelevant to Mac OS - is a renamed version of 
>> something Apple developed for OS X?
>>
>> The funniest thing would be if the Rip Off Apple strategy backfired this 
>> time around, and just made people switch to OS X... the playing field is a 
>> lot different now than it was the last time the Microsoft crooks tried it.
> 
> I haven't seen the final release version yet, but I've seen the betas.
> It's awful. Granted, they stole stuff from OS X but implemented them
> quite poorly.

The betas were just that, betas.  If you haven't 
seen the Release Candidates, or the RTM, you 
shouldn't comment.

Steve

In article <Xkmch.410444$R63.277038@pd7urf1no>, Rockboy
<rockboy@rockboy..net> wrote:

> Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> > In article <1tlch.3055$H22.759@trndny09>, Bob Levine
> > <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> How can the UI of either be superior to the other? Like many other 
> >> things in life this completely subjective. There's no way to measure how 
> >> good one is. Can you honestly tell me there's something you can do on a 
> >> Mac that can't be done on Windows?
> > 
> > Fun without a firewall, anti-virus, and anti-spyware software without
> > danger of infection?
> 
> Yes, because it's Mac it clearly doesn't need a firewall...

OS X ships with an excellent firewall, active by default.

:-P

Bob Levine wrote:
> Ura Dippschit wrote:
> 
>> In article <O8kch.336$4p2.199@trndny07>,
>>  Bob Levine <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> So what if it Mac users start loading Windows on the new Mactels and 
>>> discover that it's acutally better? 
>>
>>
>>
>> Baaaahahahahhaha! Good one!
> 
> 
> Actually it is a good one. Load up Photoshop or InDesign and run it 
> under rosetta. Have fun with that.
> 

And usually will end up as a waste of time and money.


-- 
One night stand in a Korean cat-house.
by Kum Flu.

In article <NVkch.140$R_1.1@trndny08>, Bob Levine
<robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:

> Ura Dippschit wrote:
> 
> > In article <O8kch.336$4p2.199@trndny07>,
> >  Bob Levine <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>So what if it Mac users start loading Windows on the new Mactels and 
> >>discover that it's acutally better? 
> > 
> > 
> > Baaaahahahahhaha! Good one!
> 
> Actually it is a good one. Load up Photoshop or InDesign and run it 
> under rosetta. Have fun with that.

Currently true. That will change in the next six month, significantly.

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> In article <O8kch.336$4p2.199@trndny07>, Bob Levine
> <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> So what if it Mac users start loading Windows on the new Mactels and 
>> discover that it's acutally better? Rosetta is a complete abortion when 
>> trying to run non UB apps and loading Windows along with the Win version 
>> is far superior.
> 
> Any guesses on how long it will take for the first security fixes for
> Vista to be released?

Let's see, Vista RC 1 and 2, and the RTM, have 
been out for a couple of months now.  Have any 
security fixes been released so far?  I haven't 
noticed any, but I could be wrong.  Apple just 
released about 30 security fixes, and I think they 
had 20 or so in their last set about 90 days ago.

Steve

In article
<lordhatred-12DD2F.15183302122006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, Lord
Hatred <lordhatred@stopthespamminggmail.com> wrote:

>    You're confusing the words "innovate" with "invent". 

POINT!

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 22:53:44 +0000, Steve de Mena wrote:

> Liam Slider wrote:
> 
>>> what if I'm on a DSL and all I do is download porn and troll usenet?
>> 
>> Considering the amount of viruses and trojans that porn sites try to load
>> onto Windows computers...definitely not a good idea.
> 
> Newsflash!
> 
> There are simple tools to make this a non issue. 
> I am using a Mac now but up until a couple of 
> months ago all my web browsing was on an XP 
> laptop, and I actually made it a point to 
> intentionally click on "bad" things to let them 
> try and do what they could.  I used Firefox with 
> scripting disabled by default, had Symantec 
> Anti-Virus, Windows Defender, and had Windows 
> Automatic Updates enabled.
> 
> Steve



Didn't you notice what a pain in the ass all those various "protection"
tools were, especially the hogging of system resources? I certainly
noticed when I had XP on *this* laptop. Total pain in the ass...almost
rather get the damn viruses.

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 22:27:49 +0000, Tom Scales wrote:

> "yttrx" <yttrx@yttrx.net> wrote in message
> news:qSmch.3258$Yy1.1875@textfe.usenetserver.com...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tom Scales <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:kurtullman-37C3D3.16360402122006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx...
>>>> In article <hFlch.3058$H22.2368@trndny09>, Bob Levine
>>>> <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jim Lee Jr. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > In article <wJkch.6475$7T5.4141@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
>>>>> >  "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >>You mean all that work I do in Photoshop to print to my Epson 7600
>>>>> >>to print
>>>>> >>24"x36" prints really didn't happen?  My use of the PC as my
>>>>> >>'tivo' (where
>>>>> >>PCs clearly excel compared to Macs) didn't happen?
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>They're just tools folks.  There are good PCs.  There are good
>>>>> >>Macs. Almost
>>>>> >>everything can be done on either platform these days.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>Tom
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Name us one Mac virus in the wild.
>>>>>
>>>>> That has got to be one of the most tired arguments around. Find
>>>>> something else. The subject is using them as tools.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell me one thing you can do on a Mac that can't be done on Windows.
>>>>>
>>>> .. or vice versa... (note that it was CAN"T do).
>>>
>>> OK.
>>>
>>> Show me a 10 tuner -- 5 OTA HD and 5 Cable SD system using a Mac.  A
>>> Mac that costs less that $800.
>>>
>>> I do it with an older PC machine.
>>>
>>> Oh, must have client software that also allows me to stream to 5 HDTVs
>>> in my
>>> house concurrently.
>>>
>>> While recording.
>>>
>>> From one SATA drive.
>>>
>>>
>> You are not doing that on an 800 dollar windows box, period.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----yttrx
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.yttrx.net
>>
>>
> Uh, yes, I am.  I should have clarified, that doesn't include the
> capture cards.  They clearly add to the cost.


Sure, bet you forgot to include the hard drives too. And the cabling,
networking, and all the other stuff. And forgot to include software cost
too I bet, because I'm seriously doubting the existence of decent Free
Software available for Windows that'll do that. So, $800 was a serious
exaggeration yes? How much was the real cost of your system?

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 22:33:42 +0000, Rockboy wrote:

> Liam Slider wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 20:30:17 +0000, Rockboy wrote:
>> 
>>> Peter Bjørn Perlsø wrote:
>>>> Chris H. of Portland, OR <chrispdx@comcast.FUCKOFFSPAMMERS.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "DB" <dontbother@dot.net> wrote in message 
>>>>> news:021220061208413589%dontbother@dot.net...
>>>>>> In article <u4jch.3252$Yy1.131@textfe.usenetserver.com>, yttrx
>>>>>> <yttrx@yttrx.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing at microsoft is really new, they copy EVERYTHING.
>>>>>> Let's sum up the arguments, shall we?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> MAC: "There's ample documentation to prove that much of the Windows
>>>>>> interface has been copied from the Mac OS, for decades."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WINDOWS: "Oh yeah? Well... well... well... YOU SUCK, DUDE!"
>>>>> And for 90% of average computer users, no one cares.
>>>>>
>>>>> Windows is just fine for me. I guess I'm not 1337.
>>>> Well, if you're not connected to a WAN and only do Office document
>>>> editing, sure, Windows is fine.
>>> What if I want to do real CAD work and play a wide variety of games?
>> 
>> Run Linux on it. :-P
> 
> That makes even less sense than a Mac.
>

Why? Has more games that the Mac...not too many fewer than Windows really,
and there is a fair amount of commercial CAD software for Linux these days
(a few years ago this wasn't true, but things have changed).

In article <Fgnch.36550$K9.23749@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
 "zara" <zspook@aol.com> wrote: 

> How old is OS X again? 

You tell us, Twink Ass.

> When is OS XI coming out anyway?  

You tell us, Twink Ass.

> Leopard is a service pack, nothing more.

I don't think so, Twink Ass.

"Liam Slider" <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote in message 
news:aFnch.6595$1s6.228@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 22:27:49 +0000, Tom Scales wrote:
>
>> "yttrx" <yttrx@yttrx.net> wrote in message
>> news:qSmch.3258$Yy1.1875@textfe.usenetserver.com...
>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tom Scales <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:kurtullman-37C3D3.16360402122006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx...
>>>>> In article <hFlch.3058$H22.2368@trndny09>, Bob Levine
>>>>> <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jim Lee Jr. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > In article <wJkch.6475$7T5.4141@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
>>>>>> >  "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >>You mean all that work I do in Photoshop to print to my Epson 7600
>>>>>> >>to print
>>>>>> >>24"x36" prints really didn't happen?  My use of the PC as my
>>>>>> >>'tivo' (where
>>>>>> >>PCs clearly excel compared to Macs) didn't happen?
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>They're just tools folks.  There are good PCs.  There are good
>>>>>> >>Macs. Almost
>>>>>> >>everything can be done on either platform these days.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>Tom
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Name us one Mac virus in the wild.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That has got to be one of the most tired arguments around. Find
>>>>>> something else. The subject is using them as tools.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tell me one thing you can do on a Mac that can't be done on Windows.
>>>>>>
>>>>> .. or vice versa... (note that it was CAN"T do).
>>>>
>>>> OK.
>>>>
>>>> Show me a 10 tuner -- 5 OTA HD and 5 Cable SD system using a Mac.  A
>>>> Mac that costs less that $800.
>>>>
>>>> I do it with an older PC machine.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, must have client software that also allows me to stream to 5 HDTVs
>>>> in my
>>>> house concurrently.
>>>>
>>>> While recording.
>>>>
>>>> From one SATA drive.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You are not doing that on an 800 dollar windows box, period.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----yttrx
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://www.yttrx.net
>>>
>>>
>> Uh, yes, I am.  I should have clarified, that doesn't include the
>> capture cards.  They clearly add to the cost.
>
>
> Sure, bet you forgot to include the hard drives too. And the cabling,
> networking, and all the other stuff. And forgot to include software cost
> too I bet, because I'm seriously doubting the existence of decent Free
> Software available for Windows that'll do that. So, $800 was a serious
> exaggeration yes? How much was the real cost of your system?


No, not really.   Just not a new machine.  Dell Dimension 8400 with a 300Gb 
drive is under $400.  Snapstream BeyondTV is $69.  8400 includes Gigabit, so 
nothing extra for that.

HD cards are around $80.  SD cards are around $60.  Depending on how many 
concurrent recordings you want, the price can add up.

The 8400 is really overkill.  If all you want is HD, then a decent 4550 is 
fine.  Saw one on  Craigs list today for $100.

Now which Mac can do this?  With what software?  What HD or SD cards?

Liam Slider <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 22:53:44 +0000, Steve de Mena wrote:
> 
> > Liam Slider wrote:
> > 
> >>> what if I'm on a DSL and all I do is download porn and troll usenet?
> >> 
> >> Considering the amount of viruses and trojans that porn sites try to load
> >> onto Windows computers...definitely not a good idea.
> > 
> > Newsflash!
> > 
> > There are simple tools to make this a non issue. 
> > I am using a Mac now but up until a couple of 
> > months ago all my web browsing was on an XP 
> > laptop, and I actually made it a point to 
> > intentionally click on "bad" things to let them 
> > try and do what they could.  I used Firefox with 
> > scripting disabled by default, had Symantec 
> > Anti-Virus, Windows Defender, and had Windows 
> > Automatic Updates enabled.
> > 
> > Steve
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you notice what a pain in the ass all those various "protection"
> tools were, especially the hogging of system resources? I certainly
> noticed when I had XP on *this* laptop. Total pain in the ass...almost
> rather get the damn viruses.

NSW/NAV increases boot time significantly until the system is ready for
use, and just about doubles OS memory use.

-- 
regards , Peter B. P. - http://titancity.com/blog
http://markedspartiet.dk, http://macplanet.dk
http://siad.dk

"Jim Lee Jr." <peejster01@insightbb.com> wrote in message 
news:peejster01-9657AB.17124002122006@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article <Fgnch.36550$K9.23749@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
> "zara" <zspook@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> How old is OS X again?
>
> You tell us, Twink Ass.
>
>> When is OS XI coming out anyway?
>
> You tell us, Twink Ass.
>
>> Leopard is a service pack, nothing more.
>
> I don't think so, Twink Ass.

Ah the refuge of  someone out of arguments.

Twink Ass.

Love  it 

In article <WHmch.6487$7T5.1020@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
 "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Jim Lee Jr." <peejster01@insightbb.com> wrote in message 
> news:peejster01-11BFA3.14484802122006@news.isp.giganews.com...
> > In article <%okch.6868$Ig1.3909@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
> > "the Bede" <rspwsownthebede@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> if only everyone would switch to Unix. Then the world would be perfect.
> >
> > Would that not make Steve Ballmer and his fanbois jealous?
> 
> 
> I just love Mac people.  When their arguments get weak they start name 
> calling. 

Look at posts by the likes of zara, MuahMan and their ilk, and tell us 
why I resort to namecalling. If the Wintrolls posted intelligently, the 
namecalling would be at a minimum. Now go back to gawking at Steve 
Ballmer photos.

In article <OPidneD_ceeKY-zYnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@adelphia.com>,
 "MuahMan" <muahman@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:WHmch.6487$7T5.1020@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > "Jim Lee Jr." <peejster01@insightbb.com> wrote in message 
> > news:peejster01-11BFA3.14484802122006@news.isp.giganews.com...
> >> In article <%okch.6868$Ig1.3909@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
> >> "the Bede" <rspwsownthebede@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> if only everyone would switch to Unix. Then the world would be perfect.
> >>
> >> Would that not make Steve Ballmer and his fanbois jealous?
> >
> >
> > I just love Mac people.  When their arguments get weak they start name 
> > calling.
> >
> When they get weak? When have they not been weak?  Don't forget most Mac 
> users are teenage girls in a dorm room, name calling is their only ammo. 

Don't forget most Windoze users are skinny, teenaged twinks in a dorm 
room, fantasizing about Steve Ballmer is their only fun they get.

In article <oDmch.6482$7T5.4214@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
 "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Jim Lee Jr." <peejster01@insightbb.com> wrote in message 
> news:peejster01-DEF49C.14464702122006@news.isp.giganews.com...
> > In article <wJkch.6475$7T5.4141@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> > "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> You mean all that work I do in Photoshop to print to my Epson 7600 to 
> >> print
> >> 24"x36" prints really didn't happen?  My use of the PC as my 'tivo' 
> >> (where
> >> PCs clearly excel compared to Macs) didn't happen?
> >>
> >> They're just tools folks.  There are good PCs.  There are good Macs. 
> >> Almost
> >> everything can be done on either platform these days.
> >>
> >> Tom
> >
> > Name us one Mac virus in the wild.
> 
> What in the world does that have to do with anything?
> 
> Change the subject if I don't have an answer? 

Malware is one thing Macs don't do at the moment that Windoze PCs do all 
the time.

In article <L2nch.3064$H22.1253@trndny09>, Bob Levine
<robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:

> A true BS argument if I've ever heard one. Why do IT people lock Macs 
> down? Even better...why have anything but admin rights on a Mac if 
> they're so safe?

Pssst...hey rocket scientist...there are not viruses or spyware for the
Macintosh.

In article <hFlch.3058$H22.2368@trndny09>,
 Bob Levine <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:

> Jim Lee Jr. wrote:
> 
> > In article <wJkch.6475$7T5.4141@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> >  "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >>You mean all that work I do in Photoshop to print to my Epson 7600 to print 
> >>24"x36" prints really didn't happen?  My use of the PC as my 'tivo' (where 
> >>PCs clearly excel compared to Macs) didn't happen?
> >>
> >>They're just tools folks.  There are good PCs.  There are good Macs.  
> >>Almost 
> >>everything can be done on either platform these days.
> >>
> >>Tom 
> > 
> > 
> > Name us one Mac virus in the wild.
> 
> That has got to be one of the most tired arguments around. Find 
> something else. The subject is using them as tools.
> 
> Tell me one thing you can do on a Mac that can't be done on Windows.
> 
> Bob

Get malware. Again, show us one piece of Mac malware in the wild.
While Windoze users look over their shoulders and load tons of AV and 
anti-spyware shit on their PCs, Mac users are being more productive.

In article <zjkch.23774$Q7.12470@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
 TheLetterK <none@none.net> wrote:

> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 10:23:18 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> > 
> >> "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Like Apple has ever had  an original idea?
> >>>
> >>> Just ask Xerox
> >> but apple didn't "copy" anything from xerox -- so you need to keep that 
> >> in mind.
> > 
> > While there is some argument as to whether or not apple licensed technology
> > from Xerox, there's no doubt that OSX is not an original product.  Darwin
> > is largely derived from FreeBSD, and Safari/Webkit is largely derived from
> > KHTML.
> 
> It's KHTML with the KDE/QT dependencies ripped out.

That was the basis of it. Apple has done a *huge* amount of work on it. 
I would suspect the total number of man hours invested in WebKit by 
Apple probably exceeds the number of man hours invested in the code it 
contains by all other parties. This is impossible to prove, but, well, 
read the development blog.

> >  Other features, like Dashboard are copies of ideas Microsoft was
> > shopping around in 2003 (see http://youtube.com/watch?v=b9ifQvQCO7Y for an
> > early 2003 preview video that shows the sidebar with widgets).
> 
> Dashboard is almost a direct clone of a formerly popular Mac app called 
> Konfabulator. Right down to the widget styles. AFAIK, Apple never paid 
> the developers of Konfabulator a penny.

Dashboard and Konfabulator are substantially different internally. If 
you look at the people behind Dashboard, it's likely it actually owes 
more to Firefox than to Konfabulator.

The concept of little utilities that the user can easily pop up and 
dismiss dates back to desk accessories, which were first implemented 
within Apple in 1982.

> >  Of course
> > even those had precedents.  Very little in computers is really 
> > "new".
> > 
> > Also, don't forget that things like "time machine" in Leopard are 
> > (albeitly better implemented) copies of Windows Volume Shadow 
> > Copies (been around since 2003)
> 
> It's not really the same thing as Volume Shadow Copy--it's 
> implemented differently, and the interface is very different. They 
> are superficially similar, but it's hard to say that Apple 'copied' 
> Microsoft here.
> 
> > and Spotlight was also copied from early versions of Longhorn.
> 
> More correctly it's an implementation of a searchable file system 
> index. Microsoft certainly wasn't the first to throw this idea 
> around. Indeed, I might go so far as to say that this is more 
> reminiscent of Copland's proposed search functionality than it is 
> WinFS.

Microsoft talks about thing for years before (possibly) shipping them, 
whereas Apple doesn't talk about them until maybe 6 months ahead of 
time. As a result, there have been a couple of cases where Microsoft has 
been talking about an idea before Apple, but the state of Apple's 
implementation seems to suggest Apple was actually working on it first.

-- 
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
          -- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message 
news:021220061524505203%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <L2nch.3064$H22.1253@trndny09>, Bob Levine
> <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> A true BS argument if I've ever heard one. Why do IT people lock Macs
>> down? Even better...why have anything but admin rights on a Mac if
>> they're so safe?
>
> Pssst...hey rocket scientist...there are not viruses or spyware for the
> Macintosh.

That's only because the market share doesn't make it worthwhile.  You don't 
honestly believe there are NO security holes, do you? Then why does Apple 
keep release security fixes?

In article <yunch.42461$Fg.27983@tornado.socal.rr.com>, Steve de Mena
<steven@stevedemena.com> wrote:

> The betas were just that, betas.  If you haven't 
> seen the Release Candidates, or the RTM, you 
> shouldn't comment.

Uh-huh. I've seen and used enough M$ operating systems through the
years, and while the betas may have had performance issues, the idea
remains the same. They actually came up with something that sucks more
than XP.

"Jim Lee Jr." <peejster01@insightbb.com> wrote in message 
news:peejster01-83C09B.17253002122006@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article <hFlch.3058$H22.2368@trndny09>,
> Bob Levine <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Jim Lee Jr. wrote:
>>
>> > In article <wJkch.6475$7T5.4141@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
>> >  "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>You mean all that work I do in Photoshop to print to my Epson 7600 to 
>> >>print
>> >>24"x36" prints really didn't happen?  My use of the PC as my 'tivo' 
>> >>(where
>> >>PCs clearly excel compared to Macs) didn't happen?
>> >>
>> >>They're just tools folks.  There are good PCs.  There are good Macs.
>> >>Almost
>> >>everything can be done on either platform these days.
>> >>
>> >>Tom
>> >
>> >
>> > Name us one Mac virus in the wild.
>>
>> That has got to be one of the most tired arguments around. Find
>> something else. The subject is using them as tools.
>>
>> Tell me one thing you can do on a Mac that can't be done on Windows.
>>
>> Bob
>
> Get malware. Again, show us one piece of Mac malware in the wild.
> While Windoze users look over their shoulders and load tons of AV and
> anti-spyware shit on their PCs, Mac users are being more productive.

Exactly how are you being more productive?  Any security/virus/malware 
software I run isn't intrusive.

In article <GEmch.6483$7T5.669@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
 "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:

> OK.
> 
> Show me a 10 tuner -- 5 OTA HD and 5 Cable SD system using a Mac.  A Mac 
> that costs less that $800.

Admitting to being a cheap mamzer? Figures.
 
> I do it with an older PC machine.

Before or after spending a day scanning and cleaning up after malware or 
wiping and reinstallling Windoze because of said malware? You must like 
being less productive courtesy of Billy Boy Gates and Monkey Boy Ballmer.

In article 
<gmgraves-C6BFF7.12091902122006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
 George Graves <gmgraves@pacbell.net> wrote:

> In article <O8kch.336$4p2.199@trndny07>,
>  Bob Levine <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > Steve Gary wrote:
> > 
> > > C'mon, did they really expect that no one would notice that EVERY SINGLE 
> > > ONE of the major feature upgrades - aside from the virus/spyware/security 
> > > make-goods which are irrelevant to Mac OS - is a renamed version of 
> > > something Apple developed for OS X?
> > > 
> > > The funniest thing would be if the Rip Off Apple strategy backfired this 
> > > time around, and just made people switch to OS X... the playing field is 
> > > a 
> > > lot different now than it was the last time the Microsoft crooks tried 
> > > it.
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > I don't normally feed trolls, but you know what? You're absolutely 
> > right. They copied many of the nicer features of OSX. And just like I 
> > figured all the Mac biggots out there that have been touting how much 
> > better OSX is are now complaining because Windows is more like it. Make 
> > up your mind.
> 
> We have.
> 1) Why use a copy when the original will always be ahead. Leopard will 
> introduce features that M$ won't get to copy until the NEXT version of 
> Windows. How long will that be? Another 6-years?

Supposedly Microsoft is planning for less than 5 years. They haven't 
given much hint about exactly what they intend to *do* in that time 
frame, of course....

[snip]

-- 
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
          -- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005

In article <1tlch.3055$H22.759@trndny09>,
 Bob Levine <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:

> George Graves wrote:
> 
> > We have.
> > 1) Why use a copy when the original will always be ahead. Leopard will 
> > introduce features that M$ won't get to copy until the NEXT version of 
> > Windows. How long will that be? Another 6-years?
> > 
> > 2) While many of the features will be similar, that's not all there is 
> > to an OS. There's the interface, and Vista's interface, like all Windows 
> > versions before it, is inferior to the Mac's (IMHO, of course).
> 
> How can the UI of either be superior to the other? Like many other 
> things in life this completely subjective. There's no way to measure how 
> good one is. Can you honestly tell me there's something you can do on a 
> Mac that can't be done on Windows?

If UI is entirely subjective, why is there an entire field of study 
centered around interaction design?

[snip]

-- 
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
          -- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005

In article <F5nch.5580$yj1.4275@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
 "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:

> "yttrx" <yttrx@yttrx.net> wrote in message 
> news:qSmch.3258$Yy1.1875@textfe.usenetserver.com...

> > You are not doing that on an 800 dollar Windows box, period.
> >
> > -----yttrx
> >
> > http://www.yttrx.net

> Uh, yes, I am.  I should have clarified, that doesn't include the capture 
> cards.  They clearly add to the cost.

Distracted by Steve Ballmer photos to forget the video capture cards?

In article <pDlch.3057$H22.961@trndny09>,
 Bob Levine <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:

> Jim Lee Jr. wrote:

> > No, you are a Micro$haft drone.
> 
> I think its so cute how you use that dollar sign in there. And so 
> original, too. Mac biggots are so creative.
> 
> Bob

You misspelled "bigots."

In article <Q_nch.6498$7T5.111@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
 "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message 
> news:021220061524505203%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> > In article <L2nch.3064$H22.1253@trndny09>, Bob Levine
> > <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> A true BS argument if I've ever heard one. Why do IT people lock Macs
> >> down? Even better...why have anything but admin rights on a Mac if
> >> they're so safe?
> >
> > Pssst...hey rocket scientist...there are not viruses or spyware for the
> > Macintosh.
> 
> That's only because the market share doesn't make it worthwhile.  You don't 
> honestly believe there are NO security holes, do you? Then why does Apple 
> keep release security fixes?

    This is bogus, argument too. Especially given the mentality of most 
virus writers. If the vulnerabilities were there, the socially retarded 
idiots who write these things would be falling all over themselves to 
The First to Stick It to Apple. They would be absolute God's in their 
social circles and might even be able to use their buddy's blow up doll 
for a weekend.

DB wrote:
> In article <Xkmch.410444$R63.277038@pd7urf1no>, Rockboy
> <rockboy@rockboy..net> wrote:
> 
>> Randall Ainsworth wrote:
>>> In article <1tlch.3055$H22.759@trndny09>, Bob Levine
>>> <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> How can the UI of either be superior to the other? Like many other 
>>>> things in life this completely subjective. There's no way to measure how 
>>>> good one is. Can you honestly tell me there's something you can do on a 
>>>> Mac that can't be done on Windows?
>>> Fun without a firewall, anti-virus, and anti-spyware software without
>>> danger of infection?
>> Yes, because it's Mac it clearly doesn't need a firewall...
> 
> OS X ships with an excellent firewall, active by default.

Good. Randall seems to think he doesn't need one.

-- 
Rockboy

I don't need your love to disconnect

In article <iHmch.5337$%u3.2331@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
 "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:

> "George Graves" <gmgraves@pacbell.net> wrote in message 
> news:gmgraves-D162FC.12382402122006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> > In article <eUjch.3904$yj1.57@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> > "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message
> >> news:4571b686$0$3577$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
> >> > "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Like Apple has ever had  an original idea?
> >> >>
> >> >> Just ask Xerox
> >> >
> >> > but apple didn't "copy" anything from xerox -- so you need to keep that
> >> > in mind.
> >>
> >> How about the ENTIRE Mac?
> >
> > That's just bullshit. I worked at Xerox PARC and I've used the Alto
> > system that Jobs was shown on his tour.  I also subsequently have used
> > the Lisa the Xerox Star system, and I owned one of the early Macs. The
> > Mac and the Xerox Alto have almost NOTHING in common. They both used a
> > keyboard and a mouse, yes, but there, the resemblance stops. Later Alto
> > systems used geometric symbols to represent files only, but applications
> > had to be launched by picking the app name from a list, originally, one
> > could pick either the application or the file name from a text list
> > using the mouse but applications had to be launched first before
> > existing files in that application could be opened.  Applications were
> > listed as "<application name here>.RUN."Later, you could go to the edge
> > of a screen and open a file by clicking on the icon. I don't remember
> > what was what, but different kinds of files used different icon shapes,
> > and the creator had to associate those shapes with the file being
> > created. In other words, it worked NOTHING like the Mac.
> >
> > Xerox came out with something called the Star computer in the early
> > Eighties after Xerox developers saw the Lisa after a visit to Apple. A
> > Company for which I worked at the time bought one for its technical
> > publications department. I played with it extensively. It wasn't just
> > primitive compared to the original Mac, it was primitive compared to the
> > Lisa!
> >
> > So get the idea that the Mac was a rip-off of the Xerox Alto or Star
> > system completely out of your mind, because you're wrong.
> >
> > -- 
> > George Graves
> 
> Whatever.  You continue arguing with yourself.  The rest of us know the 
> truth :) 

I'm not "arguing" with anyone. I'm telling YOU the truth from someone 
who was actually THERE. Now, you can continue to believe urban mythology 
and lies if you wish to, but you can't say that nobody's explained the 
actual facts to you. :-)

-- 
George Graves
The easiest thing for one to be is "fashionable." It requires no thought, 
no intelligence, and no creativity. Just watch, listen to, and do what 
everybody else does and you're part of the "in crowd." 

In article <L2nch.3064$H22.1253@trndny09>,
 Bob Levine <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:

> Rockboy wrote:
> 
> > Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> > 
> >> In article <1tlch.3055$H22.759@trndny09>, Bob Levine
> >> <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> How can the UI of either be superior to the other? Like many other 
> >>> things in life this completely subjective. There's no way to measure 
> >>> how good one is. Can you honestly tell me there's something you can 
> >>> do on a Mac that can't be done on Windows?
> >>
> >>
> >> Fun without a firewall, anti-virus, and anti-spyware software without
> >> danger of infection?
> > 
> > 
> > Yes, because it's Mac it clearly doesn't need a firewall...
> > 
> 
> A true BS argument if I've ever heard one. Why do IT people lock Macs 
> down? Even better, why have anything but admin rights on a Mac if 
> they're so safe?
> 
> Bob

Perhaps to keep unauthorized people out.

In article <Iolch.409498$R63.351835@pd7urf1no>,
 Rockboy <rockboy@rockboy..net> wrote:

> George Graves wrote:
> 
> >> Some of us DO remember it.  Is it stupid just because it is accurate? 
> > 
> > It's stupid because it has NO relation to reality. I worked for Xerox 
> > PARC in those days, I ought to know!
> 
> I can make up stories too.

I happy for you.

-- 
George Graves
The easiest thing for one to be is "fashionable." It requires no thought, 
no intelligence, and no creativity. Just watch, listen to, and do what 
everybody else does and you're part of the "in crowd." 

In article <tnlch.401687$1T2.47927@pd7urf2no>,
 Rockboy <rockboy@rockboy..net> wrote:

> What if I want to do real CAD work and play a wide variety of games?

Admitting to being a pimply faced, nerdy gamer with no life?

In article <abnch.411457$R63.335923@pd7urf1no>,
 Rockboy <rockboy@rockboy..net> wrote:

> Liam Slider wrote:

> > Run Linux on it. :-P
> 
> That makes even less sense than a Mac.

Tells us why, Rocky. And don't ask Bullwinkle for help/

In article <GGmch.6486$7T5.3370@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
 "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:

> So the solution to Mac weaknesses is software that let's it be a PC?
> 
> Made me laugh 

You misspelled "lets." "Let's" is a contraction of "Let us."

In article <GFmch.6484$7T5.4584@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
 "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:

> "George Graves" <gmgraves@pacbell.net> wrote in message 
> news:gmgraves-7165EC.12120102122006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> > In article <6Aich.5307$%u3.713@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> > "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Steve Gary" <stevegary@hotlejrkw.com> wrote in message
> >> news:Xns988D5A7E4D80332ju44k2j3k@217.22.228.20...
> >> > C'mon, did they really expect that no one would notice that EVERY 
> >> > SINGLE
> >> > ONE of the major feature upgrades - aside from the 
> >> > virus/spyware/security
> >> > make-goods which are irrelevant to Mac OS - is a renamed version of
> >> > something Apple developed for OS X?
> >> >
> >> > The funniest thing would be if the Rip Off Apple strategy backfired 
> >> > this
> >> > time around, and just made people switch to OS X... the playing field 
> >> > is a
> >> > lot different now than it was the last time the Microsoft crooks tried 
> >> > it.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > -- 
> >> > http://homepage.mac.com/vito/real_vista_episode_1.mov
> >>
> >>
> >> Like Apple has ever had  an original idea?
> >>
> >> Just ask Xerox
> >
> > What does Xerox have to do with anything? They never developed the GUI
> > concept to anywhere within a country mile of what Apple did. If you were
> > to ever contrast any of the Xerox OSes to the original Mac, you would
> > know how lame it was in comaprison.
> >
> 
> Again, changing the argument.  The statement was made ONLY to refute the 
> point that Windows steals from the Mac and that the Mac was original 

The Mac WAS original. Before the Lisa/Mac no one had ever thought of the 
concept of making the executable an icon as well as a directory with all 
associated files in it. Nobody had thought of (or at least implemented), 
click and drag, single click, and double click consitent through the 
entire interface. Apple was first.

-- 
George Graves
The easiest thing for one to be is "fashionable." It requires no thought, 
no intelligence, and no creativity. Just watch, listen to, and do what 
everybody else does and you're part of the "in crowd." 

Tom Scales wrote:

> 
> "Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
> news:021220061524505203%rag@nospam.techline.com...
>> In article <L2nch.3064$H22.1253@trndny09>, Bob Levine
>> <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> A true BS argument if I've ever heard one. Why do IT people lock Macs
>>> down? Even better...why have anything but admin rights on a Mac if
>>> they're so safe?
>>
>> Pssst...hey rocket scientist...there are not viruses or spyware for the
>> Macintosh.
> 
> That's only because the market share doesn't make it worthwhile.  

Bullshit argument. Both linux and OSX are much harder to attack because of
several design decisions inherent in Unix-like systems. They don't run, for
example, some idiotic attachment like "Naked-Tennis-Star.jpg.bmp.exe" just
because the file-extension is indicating "executeable" file
*That* monstrously dumb design-decision by MS makes most of the exploits
easy to do for windows, and extremely difficult to overcome for unix-like
systems, because they don't have that lunatic design. Attachments in emails
do not have the "exec-bit" set and are therefore only *data* you can't run
without manual intervention

Lets talk about linux. It has about half of the internet sites. 
Tell us, Oh Really Stupid One, why are those servers not attacked more
often?

> You 
> don't honestly believe there are NO security holes, do you? Then why does
> Apple keep release security fixes?

Because bugs are present, and need to be plugged?
The few malware attempts for OSX show that there is at least a /theoretical/
risk, albeit a very small one
-- 
Any idiot can run XP. And usually does.

In article <pdnch.100$QD3.36@trndny01>,
 Bob Levine <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:

> Tom Scales wrote:
> 
> > So in other words, to do the real work requires booting your Mac (notice 
> > the 
> > proper upper/lower case) into Windows 
> 
> Parallels is nice piece of work but if I'm going to work in Windows, I 
> want work in Windows.
> 
> Bob

And work around malware. Tell us, how much does malware and/or AV and 
anti-malware shit cut into your productivity?

"Jim Lee Jr." wrote:
> 
> In article <pdnch.100$QD3.36@trndny01>,
>  Bob Levine <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > Tom Scales wrote:
> >
> > > So in other words, to do the real work requires booting your Mac (notice
> > > the
> > > proper upper/lower case) into Windows
> >
> > Parallels is nice piece of work but if I'm going to work in Windows, I
> > want work in Windows.
> >
> > Bob
> 
> And work around malware. Tell us, how much does malware and/or AV and
> anti-malware shit cut into your productivity?

ZnU wrote:

> In article <zjkch.23774$Q7.12470@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
>  TheLetterK <none@none.net> wrote:
> 
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> > On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 10:23:18 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>> > 
>> >> "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Like Apple has ever had  an original idea?
>> >>>
>> >>> Just ask Xerox
>> >> but apple didn't "copy" anything from xerox -- so you need to keep
>> >> that in mind.
>> > 
>> > While there is some argument as to whether or not apple licensed
>> > technology
>> > from Xerox, there's no doubt that OSX is not an original product. 
>> > Darwin is largely derived from FreeBSD, and Safari/Webkit is largely
>> > derived from KHTML.
>> 
>> It's KHTML with the KDE/QT dependencies ripped out.
> 
> That was the basis of it. Apple has done a *huge* amount of work on it.
> I would suspect the total number of man hours invested in WebKit by
> Apple probably exceeds the number of man hours invested in the code it
> contains by all other parties. This is impossible to prove, but, well,
> read the development blog.
> 

Only Mac-fanbois would make such a stupid assertion
Why don't you read the KDE-mailing lists on that subject before making such
dumb claims? Do you have any idea about the amount of work which was done
*before* apple started using KHTML?

< snip >
-- 
Klingon function calls do not have 'parameters' - 
they have 'arguments' - and they ALWAYS WIN THEM.

In article <4571c5c6$0$32598$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
 Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <u4jch.3252$Yy1.131@textfe.usenetserver.com>,
>  yttrx@yttrx.net (yttrx) wrote:
> 
> > No, its largely derived from NeXTStep, and somewhat derived from BSD, as
> > NeXTStep was.
> 
> In fact, OS X 10.0 was a direct port of NeXt.

Um... no. Mac OS X Server 1.0, released in 1999, IIRC, and never billed 
as a replacement for OS 9, was a fairly direct port of NeXTSTEP, with 
the interface made a bit more Mac-like.

Mac OS X 10.0, released in 2001, was *based* on NeXTSTEP, but it was 
very seriously overhauled. It was moved to reengineered kernel, and the 
graphics and audio systems were replaced outright, as were the user 
interface and the whole device driver architecture. Also, the Carbon API 
was implemented on the system. And practically everything that was left 
got a major update.

-- 
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
          -- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005

Tom Scales wrote:

> 
> "Jim Lee Jr." <peejster01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> news:peejster01-83C09B.17253002122006@news.isp.giganews.com...
>> In article <hFlch.3058$H22.2368@trndny09>,
>> Bob Levine <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Lee Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>> > In article <wJkch.6475$7T5.4141@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
>>> >  "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>You mean all that work I do in Photoshop to print to my Epson 7600 to
>>> >>print
>>> >>24"x36" prints really didn't happen?  My use of the PC as my 'tivo'
>>> >>(where
>>> >>PCs clearly excel compared to Macs) didn't happen?
>>> >>
>>> >>They're just tools folks.  There are good PCs.  There are good Macs.
>>> >>Almost
>>> >>everything can be done on either platform these days.
>>> >>
>>> >>Tom
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Name us one Mac virus in the wild.
>>>
>>> That has got to be one of the most tired arguments around. Find
>>> something else. The subject is using them as tools.
>>>
>>> Tell me one thing you can do on a Mac that can't be done on Windows.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>
>> Get malware. Again, show us one piece of Mac malware in the wild.
>> While Windoze users look over their shoulders and load tons of AV and
>> anti-spyware shit on their PCs, Mac users are being more productive.
> 
> Exactly how are you being more productive?  Any security/virus/malware
> software I run isn't intrusive.

No. It just slows down your machine. A *lot*
-- 
Linux: Because rebooting is for adding new hardware

In article <Fgnch.36550$K9.23749@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
 "zara" <zspook@aol.com> wrote:

> "George Graves" <gmgraves@pacbell.net> wrote in message 
> news:gmgraves-C6BFF7.12091902122006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> > In article <O8kch.336$4p2.199@trndny07>,
> > Bob Levine <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Steve Gary wrote:
> >>
> >> > C'mon, did they really expect that no one would notice that EVERY 
> >> > SINGLE
> >> > ONE of the major feature upgrades - aside from the 
> >> > virus/spyware/security
> >> > make-goods which are irrelevant to Mac OS - is a renamed version of
> >> > something Apple developed for OS X?
> >> >
> >> > The funniest thing would be if the Rip Off Apple strategy backfired 
> >> > this
> >> > time around, and just made people switch to OS X... the playing field 
> >> > is a
> >> > lot different now than it was the last time the Microsoft crooks tried 
> >> > it.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> I don't normally feed trolls, but you know what? You're absolutely
> >> right. They copied many of the nicer features of OSX. And just like I
> >> figured all the Mac biggots out there that have been touting how much
> >> better OSX is are now complaining because Windows is more like it. Make
> >> up your mind.
> >
> > We have.
> > 1) Why use a copy when the original will always be ahead. Leopard will
> > introduce features that M$ won't get to copy until the NEXT version of
> > Windows. How long will that be? Another 6-years?
> 
> 
> Talk about the "original", how old is OSX again??  When is OSXI coming out 
> anyway.?  Leopard is a Service Pack - nothing more.
> 
> 
> >
> > 2) While many of the features will be similar, that's not all there is
> > to an OS. There's the interface, and Vista's interface, like all Windows
> > versions before it, is inferior to the Mac's (IMHO, of course).
> 
> Buy whose standard, yours?  Have you even seen it?

What the hell do you thing "IMHO" means? Of course it's by my standards. 
You wouldn't want me to lower my standards to your level, would you? And 
yes, I've seen it. I have a friend who has the final public beta 
installed on his machine. To say that its less than impressive would be 
an understatement. You can put gold leaf on a dried dog turd, but it's 
still a dried dog turd under all the glitter.

-- 
George Graves
The easiest thing for one to be is "fashionable." It requires no thought, 
no intelligence, and no creativity. Just watch, listen to, and do what 
everybody else does and you're part of the "in crowd." 

In article <1tlch.3055$H22.759@trndny09>,
 Bob Levine <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:

> George Graves wrote:
> 
> > We have.
> > 1) Why use a copy when the original will always be ahead. Leopard will 
> > introduce features that M$ won't get to copy until the NEXT version of 
> > Windows. How long will that be? Another 6-years?
> > 
> > 2) While many of the features will be similar, that's not all there is 
> > to an OS. There's the interface, and Vista's interface, like all Windows 
> > versions before it, is inferior to the Mac's (IMHO, of course).
> 
> How can the UI of either be superior to the other? Like many other 
> things in life this completely subjective. There's no way to measure how 
> good one is. Can you honestly tell me there's something you can do on a 
> Mac that can't be done on Windows?

Yes, I can.

> >>So what if it Mac users start loading Windows on the new Mactels and 
> >>discover that it's acutally better?
> > 
> > 
> > There's no accounting for taste, but since Vista nowhere as good as OSX, 
> > the only people likely to follow your scenario are 1) Those ex-Windows 
> > users who bought a Mac, and because it doesn't work like Windows, have 
> > decided that they don't like it as well, 2) and some general malcontents 
> > who have never used either before and for some unfathomable reason find 
> > Windows easier to understand (I know that's almost an impossibility, but 
> > it is, nonetheless true. I knew someone who fits that scenario). 
> 
> Again...very subjective. I use both. I prefer Windows. My next laptop 
> will be a Mac only because it can run both but that won't be until Adobe 
> releases CS3.
> 
> >>Rosetta is a complete abortion when 
> >>trying to run non UB apps and loading Windows along with the Win version 
> >>is far superior.
> > 
> > 
> > Rosetta, is apparently much faster now than it was originally (I 
> > wouldn't know, I don't own an Intel Mac, nor am I likely to for some 
> > time). Some say it equals a dual 2-gig G5 in speed on many things. If 
> > so, it will certainly do until Adobe and M$ get their intel Mac acts 
> > together.
> 
> Then there are other who curse its very existance and don't know who to 
> blame for lousy software performance first Adobe or Apple. In the mean 
> time, they can't get anything done.

That's why I tell people to wait a few years before exchanging their PPC 
machines for Intel Macs. Not ready for primetime.

-- 
George Graves
The easiest thing for one to be is "fashionable." It requires no thought, 
no intelligence, and no creativity. Just watch, listen to, and do what 
everybody else does and you're part of the "in crowd." 

George Graves wrote:
> 
> In article <1tlch.3055$H22.759@trndny09>,
>  Bob Levine <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > George Graves wrote:
> >
> > > We have.
> > > 1) Why use a copy when the original will always be ahead. Leopard will
> > > introduce features that M$ won't get to copy until the NEXT version of
> > > Windows. How long will that be? Another 6-years?
> > >
> > > 2) While many of the features will be similar, that's not all there is
> > > to an OS. There's the interface, and Vista's interface, like all Windows
> > > versions before it, is inferior to the Mac's (IMHO, of course).
> >
> > How can the UI of either be superior to the other? Like many other
> > things in life this completely subjective. There's no way to measure how
> > good one is. Can you honestly tell me there's something you can do on a
> > Mac that can't be done on Windows?
> 
> Yes, I can.
> 
> > >>So what if it Mac users start loading Windows on the new Mactels and
> > >>discover that it's acutally better?
> > >
> > >
> > > There's no accounting for taste, but since Vista nowhere as good as OSX,
> > > the only people likely to follow your scenario are 1) Those ex-Windows
> > > users who bought a Mac, and because it doesn't work like Windows, have
> > > decided that they don't like it as well, 2) and some general malcontents
> > > who have never used either before and for some unfathomable reason find
> > > Windows easier to understand (I know that's almost an impossibility, but
> > > it is, nonetheless true. I knew someone who fits that scenario).
> >
> > Again...very subjective. I use both. I prefer Windows. My next laptop
> > will be a Mac only because it can run both but that won't be until Adobe
> > releases CS3.
> >
> > >>Rosetta is a complete abortion when
> > >>trying to run non UB apps and loading Windows along with the Win version
> > >>is far superior.
> > >
> > >
> > > Rosetta, is apparently much faster now than it was originally (I
> > > wouldn't know, I don't own an Intel Mac, nor am I likely to for some
> > > time). Some say it equals a dual 2-gig G5 in speed on many things. If
> > > so, it will certainly do until Adobe and M$ get their intel Mac acts
> > > together.
> >
> > Then there are other who curse its very existance and don't know who to
> > blame for lousy software performance first Adobe or Apple. In the mean
> > time, they can't get anything done.
> 
> That's why I tell people to wait a few years before exchanging their PPC
> machines for Intel Macs. Not ready for primetime.
> 
> --
> George Graves
> The easiest thing for one to be is "fashionable." It requires no thought,
> no intelligence, and no creativity. Just watch, listen to, and do what
> everybody else does and you're part of the "in crowd."

George Graves wrote:
> 
> In article <Fgnch.36550$K9.23749@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
>  "zara" <zspook@aol.com> wrote:
> 
> > "George Graves" <gmgraves@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > news:gmgraves-C6BFF7.12091902122006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> > > In article <O8kch.336$4p2.199@trndny07>,
> > > Bob Levine <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Steve Gary wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > C'mon, did they really expect that no one would notice that EVERY
> > >> > SINGLE
> > >> > ONE of the major feature upgrades - aside from the
> > >> > virus/spyware/security
> > >> > make-goods which are irrelevant to Mac OS - is a renamed version of
> > >> > something Apple developed for OS X?
> > >> >
> > >> > The funniest thing would be if the Rip Off Apple strategy backfired
> > >> > this
> > >> > time around, and just made people switch to OS X... the playing field
> > >> > is a
> > >> > lot different now than it was the last time the Microsoft crooks tried
> > >> > it.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> I don't normally feed trolls, but you know what? You're absolutely
> > >> right. They copied many of the nicer features of OSX. And just like I
> > >> figured all the Mac biggots out there that have been touting how much
> > >> better OSX is are now complaining because Windows is more like it. Make
> > >> up your mind.
> > >
> > > We have.
> > > 1) Why use a copy when the original will always be ahead. Leopard will
> > > introduce features that M$ won't get to copy until the NEXT version of
> > > Windows. How long will that be? Another 6-years?
> >
> >
> > Talk about the "original", how old is OSX again??  When is OSXI coming out
> > anyway.?  Leopard is a Service Pack - nothing more.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > 2) While many of the features will be similar, that's not all there is
> > > to an OS. There's the interface, and Vista's interface, like all Windows
> > > versions before it, is inferior to the Mac's (IMHO, of course).
> >
> > Buy whose standard, yours?  Have you even seen it?
> 
> What the hell do you thing "IMHO" means? Of course it's by my standards.
> You wouldn't want me to lower my standards to your level, would you? And
> yes, I've seen it. I have a friend who has the final public beta
> installed on his machine. To say that its less than impressive would be
> an understatement. You can put gold leaf on a dried dog turd, but it's
> still a dried dog turd under all the glitter.
> 
> --
> George Graves
> The easiest thing for one to be is "fashionable." It requires no thought,
> no intelligence, and no creativity. Just watch, listen to, and do what
> everybody else does and you're part of the "in crowd."

In article <hFlch.3058$H22.2368@trndny09>, Bob Levine
<robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:

> Tell me one thing you can do on a Mac that can't be done on Windows.

Confidently connect to the internet without active virus and malware
protection.

TESTIFY!

In article <AOnch.6492$7T5.3434@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
 "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Jim Lee Jr." <peejster01@insightbb.com> wrote in message 
> news:peejster01-9657AB.17124002122006@news.isp.giganews.com...
> > In article <Fgnch.36550$K9.23749@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
> > "zara" <zspook@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> How old is OS X again?
> >
> > You tell us, Twink Ass.
> >
> >> When is OS XI coming out anyway?
> >
> > You tell us, Twink Ass.
> >
> >> Leopard is a service pack, nothing more.
> >
> > I don't think so, Twink Ass.
> 
> Ah the refuge of  someone out of arguments.
> 
> Twink Ass.
> 
> Love  it 

Are you a twink lover? Don't tell zara, he may get excited thinking 
about you.

"Jim Lee Jr." <peejster01@insightbb.com> wrote in message 
news:peejster01-6671A3.17301402122006@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article <GEmch.6483$7T5.669@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> OK.
>>
>> Show me a 10 tuner -- 5 OTA HD and 5 Cable SD system using a Mac.  A Mac
>> that costs less that $800.
>
> Admitting to being a cheap mamzer? Figures.
>
>> I do it with an older PC machine.
>
> Before or after spending a day scanning and cleaning up after malware or
> wiping and reinstallling Windoze because of said malware? You must like
> being less productive courtesy of Billy Boy Gates and Monkey Boy Ballmer.

I don't have to do those things.  No one that knows how to setup up Windows 
does.  Setup and forget.

I know how to properly protect a machine. Sounds like you don't.  That must 
be frustrating for you. 

"George Graves" <gmgraves@pacbell.net> wrote in message 
news:gmgraves-CDF71C.15375402122006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
 truth :)
>
> I'm not "arguing" with anyone. I'm telling YOU the truth from someone
> who was actually THERE. Now, you can continue to believe urban mythology
> and lies if you wish to, but you can't say that nobody's explained the
> actual facts to you. :-)
>
> -- 
> George Graves

Scan your old ID card and post it.  Then we'll believe you.

I once walked on the moon.  Oh wait, maybe that was Tuscon. 

"Jim Lee Jr." <peejster01@insightbb.com> wrote in message 
news:peejster01-F8357C.17431502122006@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article <GGmch.6486$7T5.3370@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So the solution to Mac weaknesses is software that let's it be a PC?
>>
>> Made me laugh
>
> You misspelled "lets." "Let's" is a contraction of "Let us."

Again, grammar.  I love it when that's (or is it  thats) what you have to 
resort to.  (uh oh, I ended it with a TO) 

"Jim Lee Jr." <peejster01@insightbb.com> wrote in message 
news:peejster01-A198A7.17452402122006@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article <pdnch.100$QD3.36@trndny01>,
> Bob Levine <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Tom Scales wrote:
>>
>> > So in other words, to do the real work requires booting your Mac 
>> > (notice
>> > the
>> > proper upper/lower case) into Windows
>>
>> Parallels is nice piece of work but if I'm going to work in Windows, I
>> want work in Windows.
>>
>> Bob
>
> And work around malware. Tell us, how much does malware and/or AV and
> anti-malware shit cut into your productivity?

None.  I don't get viruses or malware.  I have a properly secured and 
protected machine on a properly configured LAN/WAN.

I've never gotten a virus.  Not one.  No malware.

Nice  clean safe  computing. 

In article <dIkch.6474$7T5.905@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
 "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:

> ""Peter Bj�rn Perls�"" <peter@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message 
> news:1hpqi5f.xrct8t1qp54qoN%peter@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk...
> > Tom Scales <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "yttrx" <yttrx@yttrx.net> wrote in message
> >> news:jHich.3247$Yy1.3244@textfe.usenetserver.com...
> >> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tom Scales <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "Steve Gary" <stevegary@hotlejrkw.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:Xns988D5A7E4D80332ju44k2j3k@217.22.228.20...
> >> >>> C'mon, did they really expect that no one would notice that EVERY 
> >> >>> SINGLE
> >> >>> ONE of the major feature upgrades - aside from the
> >> >>> virus/spyware/security
> >> >>> make-goods which are irrelevant to Mac OS - is a renamed version of
> >> >>> something Apple developed for OS X?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The funniest thing would be if the Rip Off Apple strategy backfired 
> >> >>> this
> >> >>> time around, and just made people switch to OS X... the playing field 
> >> >>> is
> >> >>> a
> >> >>> lot different now than it was the last time the Microsoft crooks 
> >> >>> tried
> >> >>> it.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> -- 
> >> >>> http://homepage.mac.com/vito/real_vista_episode_1.mov
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Like Apple has ever had  an original idea?
> >> >>
> >> >> Just ask Xerox
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > This is an old and stupid argument, particularly for those of us who
> >> > actually remember those days.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > -----yttrx
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > -- 
> >> > http://www.yttrx.net
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Some of us DO remember it.  Is it stupid just because it is accurate?
> >
> > No. it is stupid to the degree of boneheadedness, because Apple didn't
> > "rip off" Xerox - they made a deal, quid pro quo, where Xerox got Apple
> > shares, and Apple got to use Xerox's ideas.
> >
> 
> 
> Where did I say anything about stealing?
> 
> My point, which was quite clear, was that Apple is rarely an innovator. 
> They often have good implementations of an existing idea.  The Ipod is an 
> excellent example.  They clearly didn't invent the mp3 player, but they 
> certainly do make excellent ones.  I have one myself and like it a lot.
> 
> I find it funny to point fingers at MS and say "look they're copying the UI" 
> when that is exactly what Apple did.

But you see, Apple did not copy anything. Jobs carried away from his 
tour of PARC the basic concept of the GUI. He took no notes, he didn't 
reverse engineer anything, he just explained the concept to his 
engineers and they came up with a REAL GUI based on that. 
> 
> I'm also not saying its wrong -- I just love the Apple bigots that can't see 
> the big picture or the history.

I'm not a Mac bigot, but I have used both the Mac and the PARC Alto, and 
I can tell you they have no more in common than the Duryea brothers had 
with Gottlieb Daimler when they read that he had put an internal 
combustion engine in a coach. They did likewise, but their horseless 
carriage was entirely different from Daimler's (didn't even have the 
same number of wheels). 

If you want me to say that Jobs got the inspiration for a computer 
operating system that was almost totally GUI controlled from seeing the 
extremely primitive Alto, I agree. But to say that Apple COPIED that 
system (as you did in an earlier post), is simply in error.

-- 
George Graves
The easiest thing for one to be is "fashionable." It requires no thought, 
no intelligence, and no creativity. Just watch, listen to, and do what 
everybody else does and you're part of the "in crowd." 

In article <021220061155140392%rag@nospam.techline.com>,
 Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:

> In article <Xns988D5A7E4D80332ju44k2j3k@217.22.228.20>, Steve Gary
> <stevegary@hotlejrkw.com> wrote:
> 
> > C'mon, did they really expect that no one would notice that EVERY SINGLE 
> > ONE of the major feature upgrades - aside from the virus/spyware/security 
> > make-goods which are irrelevant to Mac OS - is a renamed version of 
> > something Apple developed for OS X?
> > 
> > The funniest thing would be if the Rip Off Apple strategy backfired this 
> > time around, and just made people switch to OS X... the playing field is a 
> > lot different now than it was the last time the Microsoft crooks tried it.
> 
> I haven't seen the final release version yet, but I've seen the betas.
> It's awful. Granted, they stole stuff from OS X but implemented them
> quite poorly.

I agree. But that's Microsoft for you. Vista is to OSX what a Zune is to 
an iPod and for the same reason.

-- 
George Graves
The easiest thing for one to be is "fashionable." It requires no thought, 
no intelligence, and no creativity. Just watch, listen to, and do what 
everybody else does and you're part of the "in crowd." 

In article <021220061529151126%rag@nospam.techline.com>,
 Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:

> In article <yunch.42461$Fg.27983@tornado.socal.rr.com>, Steve de Mena
> <steven@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> 
> > The betas were just that, betas.  If you haven't 
> > seen the Release Candidates, or the RTM, you 
> > shouldn't comment.
> 
> Uh-huh. I've seen and used enough M$ operating systems through the
> years, and while the betas may have had performance issues, the idea
> remains the same. They actually came up with something that sucks more
> than XP.

Amazing isn't it?

-- 
George Graves
The easiest thing for one to be is "fashionable." It requires no thought, 
no intelligence, and no creativity. Just watch, listen to, and do what 
everybody else does and you're part of the "in crowd." 

In article <Bwnch.42463$Fg.34296@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
 Steve de Mena <steven@stevedemena.com> wrote:

> Let's see, Vista RC 1 and 2, and the RTM, have been out for a couple 
> of months now.  Have any security fixes been released so far?  

Security fixes for pre-release software?  They don't bother with that.  
How many security fixes were in RC 2?  How many will be in the final 
release to fix problems in RC 2 (and maybe RC 1 for that matter)?  Of 
course we don't know the answer to that second question yet, but keep in 
in mind.  And then we'll have to see what security lapses and other 
shortcomings there are in the release versions.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <Fgnch.36550$K9.23749@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
 "zara" <zspook@aol.com> wrote:

> Leopard is a Service Pack - nothing more.

The same way that Vista is a service pack.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <pdnch.100$QD3.36@trndny01>,
 Bob Levine <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:

> Parallels is nice piece of work but if I'm going to work in Windows, 
> I want work in Windows.

With Parallels, you will be working in Windows.  You will need to 
install Windows after you install Parallels in order to run Windows 
software.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

"Jim Lee Jr." <peejster01@insightbb.com> wrote in message 
news:peejster01-41AD48.17175302122006@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article <WHmch.6487$7T5.1020@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Jim Lee Jr." <peejster01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
>> news:peejster01-11BFA3.14484802122006@news.isp.giganews.com...
>> > In article <%okch.6868$Ig1.3909@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
>> > "the Bede" <rspwsownthebede@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> if only everyone would switch to Unix. Then the world would be 
>> >> perfect.
>> >
>> > Would that not make Steve Ballmer and his fanbois jealous?
>>
>>
>> I just love Mac people.  When their arguments get weak they start name
>> calling.
>
> Look at posts by the likes of zara, MuahMan and their ilk, and tell us
> why I resort to namecalling. If the Wintrolls posted intelligently, the
> namecalling would be at a minimum. Now go back to gawking at Steve
> Ballmer photos.

"Now go back to gawking at Steve  Ballmer photos".  "Intelligent"?  Like 
that? 

Michelle Steiner wrote:

> In article <pdnch.100$QD3.36@trndny01>,
>  Bob Levine <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Parallels is nice piece of work but if I'm going to work in Windows, 
>>I want work in Windows.
> 
> 
> With Parallels, you will be working in Windows.  You will need to 
> install Windows after you install Parallels in order to run Windows 
> software.
> 

I'm well aware of that. I prefer bootcamp and booting into Windows.

Bob

"Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:AOnch.6492$7T5.3434@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Jim Lee Jr." <peejster01@insightbb.com> wrote in message 
> news:peejster01-9657AB.17124002122006@news.isp.giganews.com...
>> In article <Fgnch.36550$K9.23749@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
>> "zara" <zspook@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> How old is OS X again?
>>
>> You tell us, Twink Ass.
>>
>>> When is OS XI coming out anyway?
>>
>> You tell us, Twink Ass.
>>
>>> Leopard is a service pack, nothing more.
>>
>> I don't think so, Twink Ass.
>
> Ah the refuge of  someone out of arguments.

Pay him no mind - he's only a pimple faced dweeb.  But it's entertaining 
watching him spin, like an out of control top. 

"George Graves" <gmgraves@pacbell.net> wrote in message 
news:gmgraves-1DC34C.15483602122006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <Fgnch.36550$K9.23749@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
> "zara" <zspook@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> "George Graves" <gmgraves@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:gmgraves-C6BFF7.12091902122006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
>> > In article <O8kch.336$4p2.199@trndny07>,
>> > Bob Levine <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Steve Gary wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > C'mon, did they really expect that no one would notice that EVERY
>> >> > SINGLE
>> >> > ONE of the major feature upgrades - aside from the
>> >> > virus/spyware/security
>> >> > make-goods which are irrelevant to Mac OS - is a renamed version of
>> >> > something Apple developed for OS X?
>> >> >
>> >> > The funniest thing would be if the Rip Off Apple strategy backfired
>> >> > this
>> >> > time around, and just made people switch to OS X... the playing 
>> >> > field
>> >> > is a
>> >> > lot different now than it was the last time the Microsoft crooks 
>> >> > tried
>> >> > it.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I don't normally feed trolls, but you know what? You're absolutely
>> >> right. They copied many of the nicer features of OSX. And just like I
>> >> figured all the Mac biggots out there that have been touting how much
>> >> better OSX is are now complaining because Windows is more like it. 
>> >> Make
>> >> up your mind.
>> >
>> > We have.
>> > 1) Why use a copy when the original will always be ahead. Leopard will
>> > introduce features that M$ won't get to copy until the NEXT version of
>> > Windows. How long will that be? Another 6-years?
>>
>>
>> Talk about the "original", how old is OSX again??  When is OSXI coming 
>> out
>> anyway.?  Leopard is a Service Pack - nothing more.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > 2) While many of the features will be similar, that's not all there is
>> > to an OS. There's the interface, and Vista's interface, like all 
>> > Windows
>> > versions before it, is inferior to the Mac's (IMHO, of course).
>>
>> Buy whose standard, yours?  Have you even seen it?
>
> What the hell do you thing "IMHO" means? Of course it's by my standards.
> You wouldn't want me to lower my standards to your level, would you? And
> yes, I've seen it. I have a friend who has the final public beta
> installed on his machine. To say that its less than impressive would be
> an understatement. You can put gold leaf on a dried dog turd, but it's
> still a dried dog turd under all the glitter.

You never answered part one of the question:   "Talk about the "original", 
how old is OSX again? When is OSXI coming out
 anyway.? "
And you saw a beta. Big fucking deal.  A beta is not the "real" thing. 
You're getting as bad as Jimmy - this thread has you spinning like a top 
also. 

"Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message 
news:michelle-B27903.17102902122006@news.west.cox.net...
> In article <Fgnch.36550$K9.23749@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
> "zara" <zspook@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Leopard is a Service Pack - nothing more.
>
> The same way that Vista is a service pack.

Nice try - but old. 

In article <Q_nch.6498$7T5.111@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, Tom Scales
<tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:

> That's only because the market share doesn't make it worthwhile.  You don't 
> honestly believe there are NO security holes, do you? Then why does Apple 
> keep release security fixes?

The reason there are no viruses or spyware for the Mac has nothing to
do with market share. It's because Windows is designed crappy and by
default, you're the admin with root access. DUH!

In article <S6och.411829$R63.154855@pd7urf1no>, Rockboy
<rockboy@rockboy.net> wrote:

> Good. Randall seems to think he doesn't need one.

Nope. The OS X firewall is off, off in my DSL modem, off in my Airport
Base Station.

In article <CYoch.9625$f8.3077@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, zara
<zspook@aol.com> wrote:

> You never answered part one of the question:   "Talk about the "original", 
> how old is OSX again? When is OSXI coming out
>  anyway.? "

OS X came out in the spring of 2001, the next version will be out in a
couple months. So what!

> And you saw a beta. Big fucking deal.  A beta is not the "real" thing. 
> You're getting as bad as Jimmy - this thread has you spinning like a top 
> also. 

I saw several betas and they all sucked worse than XP and
ME...something I didn't think was possible.

In article
<gmgraves-4C1BB7.16011402122006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, George
Graves <gmgraves@pacbell.net> wrote:

> I agree. But that's Microsoft for you. Vista is to OSX what a Zune is to 
> an iPod and for the same reason.

Hey, I saw a Zune this morning. But it wasn't in the wild...it was
locked in a case at Wally World. Nobody scrambling to buy them like
they do iPods.

"George Graves" <gmgraves@pacbell.net> wrote in message 
news:gmgraves-CF78D3.15594202122006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <dIkch.6474$7T5.905@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ""Peter Bj�rn Perls�"" <peter@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message
>> news:1hpqi5f.xrct8t1qp54qoN%peter@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk...
>> > Tom Scales <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "yttrx" <yttrx@yttrx.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:jHich.3247$Yy1.3244@textfe.usenetserver.com...
>> >> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tom Scales <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Steve Gary" <stevegary@hotlejrkw.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:Xns988D5A7E4D80332ju44k2j3k@217.22.228.20...
>> >> >>> C'mon, did they really expect that no one would notice that EVERY
>> >> >>> SINGLE
>> >> >>> ONE of the major feature upgrades - aside from the
>> >> >>> virus/spyware/security
>> >> >>> make-goods which are irrelevant to Mac OS - is a renamed version 
>> >> >>> of
>> >> >>> something Apple developed for OS X?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> The funniest thing would be if the Rip Off Apple strategy 
>> >> >>> backfired
>> >> >>> this
>> >> >>> time around, and just made people switch to OS X... the playing 
>> >> >>> field
>> >> >>> is
>> >> >>> a
>> >> >>> lot different now than it was the last time the Microsoft crooks
>> >> >>> tried
>> >> >>> it.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> -- 
>> >> >>> http://homepage.mac.com/vito/real_vista_episode_1.mov
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Like Apple has ever had  an original idea?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Just ask Xerox
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > This is an old and stupid argument, particularly for those of us who
>> >> > actually remember those days.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > -----yttrx
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > -- 
>> >> > http://www.yttrx.net
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Some of us DO remember it.  Is it stupid just because it is accurate?
>> >
>> > No. it is stupid to the degree of boneheadedness, because Apple didn't
>> > "rip off" Xerox - they made a deal, quid pro quo, where Xerox got Apple
>> > shares, and Apple got to use Xerox's ideas.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Where did I say anything about stealing?
>>
>> My point, which was quite clear, was that Apple is rarely an innovator.
>> They often have good implementations of an existing idea.  The Ipod is an
>> excellent example.  They clearly didn't invent the mp3 player, but they
>> certainly do make excellent ones.  I have one myself and like it a lot.
>>
>> I find it funny to point fingers at MS and say "look they're copying the 
>> UI"
>> when that is exactly what Apple did.
>
> But you see, Apple did not copy anything. Jobs carried away from his
> tour of PARC the basic concept of the GUI. He took no notes, he didn't
> reverse engineer anything, he just explained the concept to his
> engineers and they came up with a REAL GUI based on that.
>>
>> I'm also not saying its wrong -- I just love the Apple bigots that can't 
>> see
>> the big picture or the history.
>
> I'm not a Mac bigot, but I have used both the Mac and the PARC Alto, and
> I can tell you they have no more in common than the Duryea brothers had
> with Gottlieb Daimler when they read that he had put an internal
> combustion engine in a coach. They did likewise, but their horseless
> carriage was entirely different from Daimler's (didn't even have the
> same number of wheels).
>
> If you want me to say that Jobs got the inspiration for a computer
> operating system that was almost totally GUI controlled from seeing the
> extremely primitive Alto, I agree. But to say that Apple COPIED that
> system (as you did in an earlier post), is simply in error.
>
> -- 
> George Graves


Semantics.  It wasn't original work. 

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message 
news:021220061644134686%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <CYoch.9625$f8.3077@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, zara
> <zspook@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> You never answered part one of the question:   "Talk about the 
>> "original",
>> how old is OSX again? When is OSXI coming out
>>  anyway.? "
>
> OS X came out in the spring of 2001, the next version will be out in a
> couple months. So what!
>
>> And you saw a beta. Big fucking deal.  A beta is not the "real" thing.
>> You're getting as bad as Jimmy - this thread has you spinning like a top
>> also.
>
> I saw several betas and they all sucked worse than XP and
> ME...something I didn't think was possible.

You 'saw' them.  What  exactly was your in-depth testing? How exactly did 
they suck?  Do tell. 

Tom Scales wrote:

> 
> "Jim Lee Jr." <peejster01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> news:peejster01-A198A7.17452402122006@news.isp.giganews.com...
>> In article <pdnch.100$QD3.36@trndny01>,
>> Bob Levine <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Tom Scales wrote:
>>>
>>> > So in other words, to do the real work requires booting your Mac
>>> > (notice
>>> > the
>>> > proper upper/lower case) into Windows
>>>
>>> Parallels is nice piece of work but if I'm going to work in Windows, I
>>> want work in Windows.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>
>> And work around malware. Tell us, how much does malware and/or AV and
>> anti-malware shit cut into your productivity?
> 
> None.  I don't get viruses or malware.  I have a properly secured and
> protected machine on a properly configured LAN/WAN.
> 
> I've never gotten a virus.  Not one.  No malware.
> 
> Nice  clean safe  computing.

Yes. And earth is flat, too
-- 
Warning: You have moved the mouse. 
Windows will reboot now to make the change permanent

Lord Hatred wrote:

>>> Name us one Mac virus in the wild.
>> That has got to be one of the most tired arguments around. Find 
>> something else. The subject is using them as tools.
>>
>> Tell me one thing you can do on a Mac that can't be done on Windows.
>>
> 
> 
>    Go to porn sites and not get a virus. 

Nope.

Try again.

Steve

Liam Slider wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 22:53:44 +0000, Steve de Mena wrote:
> 
>> Liam Slider wrote:
>>
>>>> what if I'm on a DSL and all I do is download porn and troll usenet?
>>> Considering the amount of viruses and trojans that porn sites try to load
>>> onto Windows computers...definitely not a good idea.
>> Newsflash!
>>
>> There are simple tools to make this a non issue. 
>> I am using a Mac now but up until a couple of 
>> months ago all my web browsing was on an XP 
>> laptop, and I actually made it a point to 
>> intentionally click on "bad" things to let them 
>> try and do what they could.  I used Firefox with 
>> scripting disabled by default, had Symantec 
>> Anti-Virus, Windows Defender, and had Windows 
>> Automatic Updates enabled.
>>
>> Steve
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you notice what a pain in the ass all those various "protection"
> tools were, especially the hogging of system resources? I certainly
> noticed when I had XP on *this* laptop. Total pain in the ass...almost
> rather get the damn viruses.

I found Firefox more stable than IE.  Symantec 
Anti-Virus corporate version didn't have resource 
issues for me.  We used it on a few (125,000) 
systems at work too, with great results. Windows 
Defender I didn't use that much and I don't really 
remember,  but I was never aware of it.  Windows 
Update ran in the middle of the night and so of 
course had zero impact.

Steve

Peter Bj�rn Perls� wrote:
> Liam Slider <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 22:53:44 +0000, Steve de Mena wrote:
>>
>>> Liam Slider wrote:
>>>
>>>>> what if I'm on a DSL and all I do is download porn and troll usenet?
>>>> Considering the amount of viruses and trojans that porn sites try to load
>>>> onto Windows computers...definitely not a good idea.
>>> Newsflash!
>>>
>>> There are simple tools to make this a non issue. 
>>> I am using a Mac now but up until a couple of 
>>> months ago all my web browsing was on an XP 
>>> laptop, and I actually made it a point to 
>>> intentionally click on "bad" things to let them 
>>> try and do what they could.  I used Firefox with 
>>> scripting disabled by default, had Symantec 
>>> Anti-Virus, Windows Defender, and had Windows 
>>> Automatic Updates enabled.
>>>
>>> Steve
>>
>>
>> Didn't you notice what a pain in the ass all those various "protection"
>> tools were, especially the hogging of system resources? I certainly
>> noticed when I had XP on *this* laptop. Total pain in the ass...almost
>> rather get the damn viruses.
> 
> NSW/NAV increases boot time significantly until the system is ready for
> use, and just about doubles OS memory use.
> 

Symantec Anti-Virus (Corporate edition, version 
10) gives me zero indication that is adding any 
time to bootup.  I have not heard this one before.

I show it (all 3 processes) using about 46 
Megabytes total on a Windows Server 2003 system 
here.  Hardly "double of OS memory use".

Steve

In article <0bpch.6507$7T5.1928@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, Tom Scales
<tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:

> You 'saw' them.  What  exactly was your in-depth testing? How exactly did 
> they suck?  Do tell. 

OK, I did more than see them...I used them. Well, I never really used
ME because it sucked way too much. But I worked in a computer store for
many years, built hundreds of systems, and installed all versions of
Windows 9x countless times (as well as DOS/Windows 3.x before that) and
also installed a lot of Windows 2000/XP as well as used them for work.
At my present job, I have to use XP daily. Years ago, I passed the
Server/Workstation tests. I know what I'm talking about and know stuff
that sucks when I see it.

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message 
news:021220061721200907%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <0bpch.6507$7T5.1928@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, Tom Scales
> <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You 'saw' them.  What  exactly was your in-depth testing? How exactly did
>> they suck?  Do tell.
>
> OK, I did more than see them...I used them. Well, I never really used
> ME because it sucked way too much. But I worked in a computer store for
> many years, built hundreds of systems, and installed all versions of
> Windows 9x countless times (as well as DOS/Windows 3.x before that) and
> also installed a lot of Windows 2000/XP as well as used them for work.
> At my present job, I have to use XP daily. Years ago, I passed the
> Server/Workstation tests. I know what I'm talking about and know stuff
> that sucks when I see it.

That wasn't the  question and  you know it.

Vista.

In article <aToch.9623$f8.3766@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
 "zara" <zspook@aol.com> wrote:

> Pay him no mind, he's only a pimple faced dweeb.  

Better to be a pimple faced dweeb than a skinny, girlie assed twink.

In article <Dpoch.5592$yj1.1911@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
 "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Jim Lee Jr." <peejster01@insightbb.com> wrote in message 
> news:peejster01-F8357C.17431502122006@news.isp.giganews.com...
> > In article <GGmch.6486$7T5.3370@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> > "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> So the solution to Mac weaknesses is software that let's it be a PC?
> >>
> >> Made me laugh
> >
> > You misspelled "lets." "Let's" is a contraction of "Let us."
> 
> Again, grammar.  I love it when that's (or is it  thats) what you have to 
> resort to.  (uh oh, I ended it with a TO) 

Admitting your grammar is shitty? If so, sign up for a remedial English 
course.

In article <Eqoch.5353$%u3.4225@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
 "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Jim Lee Jr." <peejster01@insightbb.com> wrote in message 

> > And work around malware. Tell us, how much does malware and/or AV and
> > anti-malware shit cut into your productivity?
> 
> None.  I don't get viruses or malware.  I have a properly secured and 
> protected machine on a properly configured LAN/WAN.
> 
> I've never gotten a virus.  Not one.  No malware.
> 
> Nice  clean safe  computing. 

Try turning your PC on first. Or don't you know how to do that?

In article <021220061753556427%dontbother@dot.net>,
 DB <dontbother@dot.net> wrote:

> In article <hFlch.3058$H22.2368@trndny09>, Bob Levine
> <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > Tell me one thing you can do on a Mac that can't be done on Windows.
> 
> Confidently connect to the internet without active virus and malware
> protection.
> 
> TESTIFY!

Lay off the hallucinagetic drugs.

In article <ekt384$j2g$03$2@news.t-online.com>,
 Peter Kohlmann <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> ZnU wrote:
> 
> > In article <zjkch.23774$Q7.12470@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
> >  TheLetterK <none@none.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 10:23:18 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Like Apple has ever had  an original idea?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Just ask Xerox
> >> >> but apple didn't "copy" anything from xerox -- so you need to keep
> >> >> that in mind.
> >> > 
> >> > While there is some argument as to whether or not apple licensed
> >> > technology
> >> > from Xerox, there's no doubt that OSX is not an original product. 
> >> > Darwin is largely derived from FreeBSD, and Safari/Webkit is largely
> >> > derived from KHTML.
> >> 
> >> It's KHTML with the KDE/QT dependencies ripped out.
> > 
> > That was the basis of it. Apple has done a *huge* amount of work on it.
> > I would suspect the total number of man hours invested in WebKit by
> > Apple probably exceeds the number of man hours invested in the code it
> > contains by all other parties. This is impossible to prove, but, well,
> > read the development blog.
> > 
> 
> Only Mac-fanbois would make such a stupid assertion
> Why don't you read the KDE-mailing lists on that subject before making such
> dumb claims? Do you have any idea about the amount of work which was done
> *before* apple started using KHTML?

Apple is largely not integrating KHTML changes into WebCore on an 
ongoing basis, because the project goals have diverged. This means that 
for the number of man hours Apple has put in to exceed the number of man 
hours others have put in, all that is required, to a decent first 
approximation, is that Apple developers have contributed more man hours 
to WebCore than had been invested in KHTML circa 2003.

Given that Apple has had something like a dozen developers working 
full-time on WebCore* for four years, and KHTML was basically a 
second-tier engine without major commercial support in 2003, this does 
not seem at all unlikely.

*Source: http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/1049

By the way, I see you're still playing your immature little "get the 
last word" followup-changing games. At least you're consistently 
obnoxious.

-- 
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
          -- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005

In article <v9pch.5597$yj1.2824@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
 "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:

> "George Graves" <gmgraves@pacbell.net> wrote in message 
> news:gmgraves-CF78D3.15594202122006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> > In article <dIkch.6474$7T5.905@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> > "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> ""Peter Bj�rn Perls�"" <peter@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message
> >> news:1hpqi5f.xrct8t1qp54qoN%peter@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk...
> >> > Tom Scales <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "yttrx" <yttrx@yttrx.net> wrote in message
> >> >> news:jHich.3247$Yy1.3244@textfe.usenetserver.com...
> >> >> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tom Scales <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Steve Gary" <stevegary@hotlejrkw.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> news:Xns988D5A7E4D80332ju44k2j3k@217.22.228.20...
> >> >> >>> C'mon, did they really expect that no one would notice that EVERY
> >> >> >>> SINGLE
> >> >> >>> ONE of the major feature upgrades - aside from the
> >> >> >>> virus/spyware/security
> >> >> >>> make-goods which are irrelevant to Mac OS - is a renamed version 
> >> >> >>> of
> >> >> >>> something Apple developed for OS X?
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> The funniest thing would be if the Rip Off Apple strategy 
> >> >> >>> backfired
> >> >> >>> this
> >> >> >>> time around, and just made people switch to OS X... the playing 
> >> >> >>> field
> >> >> >>> is
> >> >> >>> a
> >> >> >>> lot different now than it was the last time the Microsoft crooks
> >> >> >>> tried
> >> >> >>> it.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> -- 
> >> >> >>> http://homepage.mac.com/vito/real_vista_episode_1.mov
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Like Apple has ever had  an original idea?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Just ask Xerox
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This is an old and stupid argument, particularly for those of us who
> >> >> > actually remember those days.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > -----yttrx
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > -- 
> >> >> > http://www.yttrx.net
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Some of us DO remember it.  Is it stupid just because it is accurate?
> >> >
> >> > No. it is stupid to the degree of boneheadedness, because Apple didn't
> >> > "rip off" Xerox - they made a deal, quid pro quo, where Xerox got Apple
> >> > shares, and Apple got to use Xerox's ideas.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Where did I say anything about stealing?
> >>
> >> My point, which was quite clear, was that Apple is rarely an innovator.
> >> They often have good implementations of an existing idea.  The Ipod is an
> >> excellent example.  They clearly didn't invent the mp3 player, but they
> >> certainly do make excellent ones.  I have one myself and like it a lot.
> >>
> >> I find it funny to point fingers at MS and say "look they're copying the 
> >> UI"
> >> when that is exactly what Apple did.
> >
> > But you see, Apple did not copy anything. Jobs carried away from his
> > tour of PARC the basic concept of the GUI. He took no notes, he didn't
> > reverse engineer anything, he just explained the concept to his
> > engineers and they came up with a REAL GUI based on that.
> >>
> >> I'm also not saying its wrong -- I just love the Apple bigots that can't 
> >> see
> >> the big picture or the history.
> >
> > I'm not a Mac bigot, but I have used both the Mac and the PARC Alto, and
> > I can tell you they have no more in common than the Duryea brothers had
> > with Gottlieb Daimler when they read that he had put an internal
> > combustion engine in a coach. They did likewise, but their horseless
> > carriage was entirely different from Daimler's (didn't even have the
> > same number of wheels).
> >
> > If you want me to say that Jobs got the inspiration for a computer
> > operating system that was almost totally GUI controlled from seeing the
> > extremely primitive Alto, I agree. But to say that Apple COPIED that
> > system (as you did in an earlier post), is simply in error.
> >
> > -- 
> > George Graves
> 
> 
> Semantics.  It wasn't original work. 

Nothing is original work. As the Carl Sagan quote goes, "If you want to 
make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe."

The invention of the GUI is not something that can be reasonably 
credited to any single individual or company. The "Apple stole the GUI 
from Xerox" framework is basically just a bit of slander propagated by 
Apple's detractors with the intent of trivializing the huge 
contributions Apple made toward shaping the GUI as we know it today.

-- 
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
          -- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005

In article 
<gmgraves-CF78D3.15594202122006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
 George Graves <gmgraves@pacbell.net> wrote:

> In article <dIkch.6474$7T5.905@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
>  "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > ""Peter Bj�rn Perls�"" <peter@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message 
> > news:1hpqi5f.xrct8t1qp54qoN%peter@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk...
> > > Tom Scales <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> "yttrx" <yttrx@yttrx.net> wrote in message 
> > >> news:jHich.3247$Yy1.3244@textfe.usenetserver.com...
> > >> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tom Scales <tjscales@gmail.com> 
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> "Steve Gary" <stevegary@hotlejrkw.com> wrote in message 
> > >> >> news:Xns988D5A7E4D80332ju44k2j3k@217.22.228.20...
> > >> >>> C'mon, did they really expect that no one would notice that 
> > >> >>> EVERY SINGLE ONE of the major feature upgrades - aside from 
> > >> >>> the virus/spyware/security make-goods which are irrelevant 
> > >> >>> to Mac OS - is a renamed version of something Apple 
> > >> >>> developed for OS X?
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> The funniest thing would be if the Rip Off Apple strategy 
> > >> >>> backfired this time around, and just made people switch to 
> > >> >>> OS X... the playing field is a lot different now than it was 
> > >> >>> the last time the Microsoft crooks tried it.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> -- http://homepage.mac.com/vito/real_vista_episode_1.mov
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Like Apple has ever had  an original idea?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Just ask Xerox
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> > This is an old and stupid argument, particularly for those of 
> > >> > us who actually remember those days.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > -----yttrx
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > -- http://www.yttrx.net
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Some of us DO remember it.  Is it stupid just because it is 
> > >> accurate?
> > >
> > > No. it is stupid to the degree of boneheadedness, because Apple 
> > > didn't "rip off" Xerox - they made a deal, quid pro quo, where 
> > > Xerox got Apple shares, and Apple got to use Xerox's ideas.
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > Where did I say anything about stealing?
> > 
> > My point, which was quite clear, was that Apple is rarely an 
> > innovator. They often have good implementations of an existing 
> > idea.  The Ipod is an excellent example.  They clearly didn't 
> > invent the mp3 player, but they certainly do make excellent ones.  
> > I have one myself and like it a lot.
> > 
> > I find it funny to point fingers at MS and say "look they're 
> > copying the UI" when that is exactly what Apple did.
> 
> But you see, Apple did not copy anything. Jobs carried away from his 
> tour of PARC the basic concept of the GUI. He took no notes, he 
> didn't reverse engineer anything, he just explained the concept to 
> his engineers and they came up with a REAL GUI based on that. 

No, Steve and his engineers were already working on a GUI. The folks at 
Xerox heard about it, figured that Apple would be a good company to 
partner with, and invited them over for show and tell. 

> > I'm also not saying its wrong -- I just love the Apple bigots that 
> > can't see the big picture or the history.
> 
> I'm not a Mac bigot, but I have used both the Mac and the PARC Alto, 
> and I can tell you they have no more in common than the Duryea 
> brothers had with Gottlieb Daimler when they read that he had put an 
> internal combustion engine in a coach. They did likewise, but their 
> horseless carriage was entirely different from Daimler's (didn't even 
> have the same number of wheels). 
> 
> If you want me to say that Jobs got the inspiration for a computer 
> operating system that was almost totally GUI controlled from seeing 
> the extremely primitive Alto, I agree. But to say that Apple COPIED 
> that system (as you did in an earlier post), is simply in error.

For example, one thing Macintosh has that Alto did not was overlapping 
windows.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
It's easy to say a war is so important your neighbor should go fight it for you.

"ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message 
news:znu-72A759.20495302122006@individual.net...
> In article <v9pch.5597$yj1.2824@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "George Graves" <gmgraves@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:gmgraves-CF78D3.15594202122006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
>> > In article <dIkch.6474$7T5.905@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
>> > "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> ""Peter Bj�rn Perls�"" <peter@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message
>> >> news:1hpqi5f.xrct8t1qp54qoN%peter@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk...
>> >> > Tom Scales <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "yttrx" <yttrx@yttrx.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:jHich.3247$Yy1.3244@textfe.usenetserver.com...
>> >> >> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tom Scales <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "Steve Gary" <stevegary@hotlejrkw.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> news:Xns988D5A7E4D80332ju44k2j3k@217.22.228.20...
>> >> >> >>> C'mon, did they really expect that no one would notice that 
>> >> >> >>> EVERY
>> >> >> >>> SINGLE
>> >> >> >>> ONE of the major feature upgrades - aside from the
>> >> >> >>> virus/spyware/security
>> >> >> >>> make-goods which are irrelevant to Mac OS - is a renamed 
>> >> >> >>> version
>> >> >> >>> of
>> >> >> >>> something Apple developed for OS X?
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> The funniest thing would be if the Rip Off Apple strategy
>> >> >> >>> backfired
>> >> >> >>> this
>> >> >> >>> time around, and just made people switch to OS X... the playing
>> >> >> >>> field
>> >> >> >>> is
>> >> >> >>> a
>> >> >> >>> lot different now than it was the last time the Microsoft 
>> >> >> >>> crooks
>> >> >> >>> tried
>> >> >> >>> it.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> -- 
>> >> >> >>> http://homepage.mac.com/vito/real_vista_episode_1.mov
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Like Apple has ever had  an original idea?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Just ask Xerox
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > This is an old and stupid argument, particularly for those of us 
>> >> >> > who
>> >> >> > actually remember those days.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > -----yttrx
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > -- 
>> >> >> > http://www.yttrx.net
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Some of us DO remember it.  Is it stupid just because it is 
>> >> >> accurate?
>> >> >
>> >> > No. it is stupid to the degree of boneheadedness, because Apple 
>> >> > didn't
>> >> > "rip off" Xerox - they made a deal, quid pro quo, where Xerox got 
>> >> > Apple
>> >> > shares, and Apple got to use Xerox's ideas.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Where did I say anything about stealing?
>> >>
>> >> My point, which was quite clear, was that Apple is rarely an 
>> >> innovator.
>> >> They often have good implementations of an existing idea.  The Ipod is 
>> >> an
>> >> excellent example.  They clearly didn't invent the mp3 player, but 
>> >> they
>> >> certainly do make excellent ones.  I have one myself and like it a 
>> >> lot.
>> >>
>> >> I find it funny to point fingers at MS and say "look they're copying 
>> >> the
>> >> UI"
>> >> when that is exactly what Apple did.
>> >
>> > But you see, Apple did not copy anything. Jobs carried away from his
>> > tour of PARC the basic concept of the GUI. He took no notes, he didn't
>> > reverse engineer anything, he just explained the concept to his
>> > engineers and they came up with a REAL GUI based on that.
>> >>
>> >> I'm also not saying its wrong -- I just love the Apple bigots that 
>> >> can't
>> >> see
>> >> the big picture or the history.
>> >
>> > I'm not a Mac bigot, but I have used both the Mac and the PARC Alto, 
>> > and
>> > I can tell you they have no more in common than the Duryea brothers had
>> > with Gottlieb Daimler when they read that he had put an internal
>> > combustion engine in a coach. They did likewise, but their horseless
>> > carriage was entirely different from Daimler's (didn't even have the
>> > same number of wheels).
>> >
>> > If you want me to say that Jobs got the inspiration for a computer
>> > operating system that was almost totally GUI controlled from seeing the
>> > extremely primitive Alto, I agree. But to say that Apple COPIED that
>> > system (as you did in an earlier post), is simply in error.
>> >
>> > -- 
>> > George Graves
>>
>>
>> Semantics.  It wasn't original work.
>
> Nothing is original work. As the Carl Sagan quote goes, "If you want to
> make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe."
>
> The invention of the GUI is not something that can be reasonably
> credited to any single individual or company. The "Apple stole the GUI
> from Xerox" framework is basically just a bit of slander propagated by
> Apple's detractors with the intent of trivializing the huge
> contributions Apple made toward shaping the GUI as we know it today.
>
Slander?
Truth 

In article <v9pch.5597$yj1.2824@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
 "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:

> "George Graves" <gmgraves@pacbell.net> wrote in message 
> news:gmgraves-CF78D3.15594202122006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...

> > But you see, Apple did not copy anything. Jobs carried away from his
> > tour of PARC the basic concept of the GUI. He took no notes, he didn't
> > reverse engineer anything, he just explained the concept to his
> > engineers and they came up with a REAL GUI based on that.
> >>
> >> I'm also not saying its wrong -- I just love the Apple bigots that can't 
> >> see
> >> the big picture or the history.
> >
> > I'm not a Mac bigot, but I have used both the Mac and the PARC Alto, and
> > I can tell you they have no more in common than the Duryea brothers had
> > with Gottlieb Daimler when they read that he had put an internal
> > combustion engine in a coach. They did likewise, but their horseless
> > carriage was entirely different from Daimler's (didn't even have the
> > same number of wheels).
> >
> > If you want me to say that Jobs got the inspiration for a computer
> > operating system that was almost totally GUI controlled from seeing the
> > extremely primitive Alto, I agree. But to say that Apple COPIED that
> > system (as you did in an earlier post), is simply in error.
> >
> > -- 
> > George Graves
> 
> 
> Semantics.  It wasn't original work. 

Which is why we have to correct wrong retellings. Apple was already 
working on a GUI when they visited Xerox. 

Semantics. Much of it was.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
It's easy to say a war is so important your neighbor should go fight it for you.

In article <021220061644134686%rag@nospam.techline.com>,
 Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:

> In article <CYoch.9625$f8.3077@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, zara
> <zspook@aol.com> wrote:
> 
> > You never answered part one of the question:   "Talk about the "original", 
> > how old is OSX again? When is OSXI coming out
> >  anyway.? "
> 
> OS X came out in the spring of 2001, the next version will be out in a
> couple months. So what!

Why is Zara still asking that stupid question?

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
It's easy to say a war is so important your neighbor should go fight it for you.

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 18:28:39 -0500, ZnU wrote:

>> It's KHTML with the KDE/QT dependencies ripped out.
> 
> That was the basis of it. Apple has done a *huge* amount of work on it. 
> I would suspect the total number of man hours invested in WebKit by 
> Apple probably exceeds the number of man hours invested in the code it 
> contains by all other parties. This is impossible to prove, but, well, 
> read the development blog.

That doesn't change the fact that it wasn't an original piece of software.

>> Dashboard is almost a direct clone of a formerly popular Mac app called 
>> Konfabulator. Right down to the widget styles. AFAIK, Apple never paid 
>> the developers of Konfabulator a penny.
> 
> Dashboard and Konfabulator are substantially different internally. If 
> you look at the people behind Dashboard, it's likely it actually owes 
> more to Firefox than to Konfabulator.

Are you claiming then that all the things Apple fans claim Microsoft copied
are "substantially" the same implementation internally as the Mac version?

If not, that kind of blows your argument.

> The concept of little utilities that the user can easily pop up and 
> dismiss dates back to desk accessories, which were first implemented 
> within Apple in 1982.

Dashboard, and Konfab and Widgets, and Gadgets may all have basis in ideas
from an earlier time,but they all sure look and act a lot alike, don't
they?  Is that coincidence?

"Timberwoof" <timberwoof.spam@infernosoft.com> wrote in message 
news:timberwoof.spam-A90DD4.17534102122006@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net...

> Which is why we have to correct wrong retellings. Apple was already
> working on a GUI when they visited Xerox.
>
> Semantics. Much of it was.


Really?  Reference links? 

In article <p6qch.6514$7T5.1727@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
 "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:

> > The invention of the GUI is not something that can be reasonably
> > credited to any single individual or company. The "Apple stole the GUI
> > from Xerox" framework is basically just a bit of slander propagated by
> > Apple's detractors with the intent of trivializing the huge
> > contributions Apple made toward shaping the GUI as we know it today.
> >
> Slander?
> Truth 

It may not be slander, but it certainly isn't the truth.  There's about 
as much truth to it as Bush's claims about Iraq having weapons of mass 
destruction.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <fZoch.9626$f8.681@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
 "zara" <zspook@aol.com> wrote:

> >> Leopard is a Service Pack - nothing more.
> >
> > The same way that Vista is a service pack.
> 
> Nice try - but old. 

But accurate.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article 
<gmgraves-CF78D3.15594202122006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
 George Graves <gmgraves@pacbell.net> wrote:

> In article <dIkch.6474$7T5.905@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
>  "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > ""Peter Bj�rn Perls�"" <peter@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message 
> > news:1hpqi5f.xrct8t1qp54qoN%peter@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk...
> > > Tom Scales <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> "yttrx" <yttrx@yttrx.net> wrote in message
> > >> news:jHich.3247$Yy1.3244@textfe.usenetserver.com...
> > >> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tom Scales <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> "Steve Gary" <stevegary@hotlejrkw.com> wrote in message
> > >> >> news:Xns988D5A7E4D80332ju44k2j3k@217.22.228.20...
> > >> >>> C'mon, did they really expect that no one would notice that EVERY 
> > >> >>> SINGLE
> > >> >>> ONE of the major feature upgrades - aside from the
> > >> >>> virus/spyware/security
> > >> >>> make-goods which are irrelevant to Mac OS - is a renamed version of
> > >> >>> something Apple developed for OS X?
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> The funniest thing would be if the Rip Off Apple strategy backfired 
> > >> >>> this
> > >> >>> time around, and just made people switch to OS X... the playing 
> > >> >>> field 
> > >> >>> is
> > >> >>> a
> > >> >>> lot different now than it was the last time the Microsoft crooks 
> > >> >>> tried
> > >> >>> it.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> -- 
> > >> >>> http://homepage.mac.com/vito/real_vista_episode_1.mov
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Like Apple has ever had  an original idea?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Just ask Xerox
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> > This is an old and stupid argument, particularly for those of us who
> > >> > actually remember those days.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > -----yttrx
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > -- 
> > >> > http://www.yttrx.net
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Some of us DO remember it.  Is it stupid just because it is accurate?
> > >
> > > No. it is stupid to the degree of boneheadedness, because Apple didn't
> > > "rip off" Xerox - they made a deal, quid pro quo, where Xerox got Apple
> > > shares, and Apple got to use Xerox's ideas.
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > Where did I say anything about stealing?
> > 
> > My point, which was quite clear, was that Apple is rarely an innovator. 
> > They often have good implementations of an existing idea.  The Ipod is an 
> > excellent example.  They clearly didn't invent the mp3 player, but they 
> > certainly do make excellent ones.  I have one myself and like it a lot.
> > 
> > I find it funny to point fingers at MS and say "look they're copying the 
> > UI" 
> > when that is exactly what Apple did.
> 
> But you see, Apple did not copy anything. Jobs carried away from his 
> tour of PARC the basic concept of the GUI. He took no notes, he didn't 
> reverse engineer anything, he just explained the concept to his 
> engineers and they came up with a REAL GUI based on that. 

Actually, it's even better than that:

Apple already had people working on GUI stuff and they urged Jobs to go 
and check out Xerox PARC in order to get him excited about it. They also 
visited and learned more about what Xerox was doing, but they invented 
lots of the common metaphors we take for granted all by themselves.

> > 
> > I'm also not saying its wrong -- I just love the Apple bigots that can't 
> > see 
> > the big picture or the history.
> 
> I'm not a Mac bigot, but I have used both the Mac and the PARC Alto, and 
> I can tell you they have no more in common than the Duryea brothers had 
> with Gottlieb Daimler when they read that he had put an internal 
> combustion engine in a coach. They did likewise, but their horseless 
> carriage was entirely different from Daimler's (didn't even have the 
> same number of wheels). 
> 
> If you want me to say that Jobs got the inspiration for a computer 
> operating system that was almost totally GUI controlled from seeing the 
> extremely primitive Alto, I agree. But to say that Apple COPIED that 
> system (as you did in an earlier post), is simply in error.

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

In article <CYoch.9625$f8.3077@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
 "zara" <zspook@aol.com> wrote:

> You never answered part one of the question:   "Talk about the "original", 
> how old is OSX again? When is OSXI coming out
>  anyway.? "

Apple decided to name it OS X 10.2 instead of OS XI; and to name it OS X 
10.3 instead of OS XII; and to name it OS X 10.4 instead of OS XIII.  
So, to answer your question, OS XI came out about three years ago, but 
it had a different name.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <Iolch.409498$R63.351835@pd7urf1no>,
 Rockboy <rockboy@rockboy..net> wrote:

> George Graves wrote:
> 
> >> Some of us DO remember it.  Is it stupid just because it is accurate? 
> > 
> > It's stupid because it has NO relation to reality. I worked for Xerox 
> > PARC in those days, I ought to know!
> 
> I can make up stories too.

That fact that you *can* doesn't mean he *is*.

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

In article <zPoch.104$QD3.88@trndny01>,
 Bob Levine <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:

> >>Parallels is nice piece of work but if I'm going to work in 
> >>Windows, I want work in Windows.
> > 
> > With Parallels, you will be working in Windows.  You will need to 
> > install Windows after you install Parallels in order to run Windows 
> > software.
> 
> I'm well aware of that. I prefer bootcamp and booting into Windows.

Either way, you'll be working in Windows; it's a matter of preference 
which way you want to do it, is all.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <wjicncaizymo$.dlg@funkenbusch.com>,
 Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 18:28:39 -0500, ZnU wrote:
> 
> >> It's KHTML with the KDE/QT dependencies ripped out.
> > 
> > That was the basis of it. Apple has done a *huge* amount of work on it. 
> > I would suspect the total number of man hours invested in WebKit by 
> > Apple probably exceeds the number of man hours invested in the code it 
> > contains by all other parties. This is impossible to prove, but, well, 
> > read the development blog.
> 
> That doesn't change the fact that it wasn't an original piece of software.

Correct. I'm not sure why that's supposed to be a criticism, as many 
people in this thread seem to be treating it.

> >> Dashboard is almost a direct clone of a formerly popular Mac app called 
> >> Konfabulator. Right down to the widget styles. AFAIK, Apple never paid 
> >> the developers of Konfabulator a penny.
> > 
> > Dashboard and Konfabulator are substantially different internally. If 
> > you look at the people behind Dashboard, it's likely it actually owes 
> > more to Firefox than to Konfabulator.
> 
> Are you claiming then that all the things Apple fans claim Microsoft copied
> are "substantially" the same implementation internally as the Mac version?
> 
> If not, that kind of blows your argument.

In this case, the implementation is important because it provides 
evidence for the lineage. I could have phrased my previous reply to make 
this a little more clear, sorry.

> > The concept of little utilities that the user can easily pop up and 
> > dismiss dates back to desk accessories, which were first implemented 
> > within Apple in 1982.
> 
> Dashboard, and Konfab and Widgets, and Gadgets may all have basis in ideas
> from an earlier time,but they all sure look and act a lot alike, don't
> they?  Is that coincidence?

No, but it's not necessarily thievery either.

As far as appearance, Konfabulator widgets were designed to fit into OS 
X's glossy style. There's nothing wrong with this, of course -- third 
party developers *should* match the UI style of the OS. And, of course, 
it's extremely unsurprising that when Apple decided to implement a 
widget environment, Apple also matched the style of their own OS.

Microsoft's gadgets look similar because they're designed to fit into 
the glossy style of Vista. Now, where Microsoft hit on the idea of 
glossy user interfaces in the first place... one could make the case 
there's a bit of thievery involved there.

-- 
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
          -- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005

In article <znu-37B3FA.18314302122006@individual.net>,
 ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> In article <1tlch.3055$H22.759@trndny09>,
>  Bob Levine <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > George Graves wrote:
> > 
> > > We have.
> > > 1) Why use a copy when the original will always be ahead. Leopard will 
> > > introduce features that M$ won't get to copy until the NEXT version of 
> > > Windows. How long will that be? Another 6-years?
> > > 
> > > 2) While many of the features will be similar, that's not all there is 
> > > to an OS. There's the interface, and Vista's interface, like all Windows 
> > > versions before it, is inferior to the Mac's (IMHO, of course).
> > 
> > How can the UI of either be superior to the other? 

By enumerating the general rules and the specific actions and analyzing 
that for inconsistencies, you can get metrics for complexity and 
consistency. Given equivalent functionality, if one given GUI is more 
complex or less consistent than another, then it is inferior. 


> > Like many other 
> > things in life this completely subjective. 

Yeah, it's completely subjective that putting five big fat buttons on 
the dashboard labeled Park Drive Low Neutral Reverse in a row right 
above five other big fat buttons labeled Defrost Warm Fresh Off Cold is 
a Bad Idea. 

> > There's no way to measure how 
> > good one is. 

Yes, there is.  You can do it analytically, as I described above (and 
have done), or you can get users to sit down at computers, use them, and 
talk about what they're thinking when they interact with them. You can 
get very useful statistics about what kinds of things work and what 
kinds don't. 

> > Can you honestly tell me there's something you can do on a 
> > Mac that can't be done on Windows?

That's  not the same question. Sure, you can get anywhere in a Chevrolet 
as you can in a Mercedes, but one experience will be more pleasant. 
(Mercedes is a good example because they studied UI design before anyone 
called it that. It was Mercedes who settled on round dials with white 
Helvetica numbers on a black background; they invented the PRNDL order 
for automatic transmissions. They paid attention to the feel of a switch 
-- the idea that the switch should let you know whether it did 
something.) 

Windows and Macintosh are theoretically both general-purpose computing 
machines with modern user interfaces on them. Any application written 
for one could in theory be ported to the other. However, I find OS X 
much nicer in many ways than Windows. 

For instance, OS X has really good location management, which makes 
network debugging  a snap. MAke one location for every network you could 
connect to, and when you get to the server room or wherever, you just 
select it from a menu. Done. All your parameters are reset for the 
network you selected. Windows doesn't do that very well. It could, in 
theory. Perhaps there's some nifty shareware app that does that. But on 
OS X it's built in. 

For another example are what Americans quaintly refer to as "special" 
characters: things like �, �, � and �curly� quotes. (Did you know that 
there are three kinds of dashes and specific times to use each?) 
Macintosh makes it easy to make those characters; on Windows you have to 
remember special three-digit codes for each one. One gets the impression 
that had the QWERTY keyboard not been invented, Windows would have made 
you memorize the ASCII  table. ;-) 

> If UI is entirely subjective, why is there an entire field of study 
> centered around interaction design?

Oh, ZnU, don't confuse them. Their world doesn't need such experts. 
They're happy to step into showers where hot is on the right and cold is 
on the left. }: )

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
It's easy to say a war is so important your neighbor should go fight it for you.

In article <v9pch.5597$yj1.2824@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
 "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:

> "George Graves" <gmgraves@pacbell.net> wrote in message 
> news:gmgraves-CF78D3.15594202122006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> > In article <dIkch.6474$7T5.905@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> > "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> ""Peter Bj�rn Perls�"" <peter@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message
> >> news:1hpqi5f.xrct8t1qp54qoN%peter@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk...
> >> > Tom Scales <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "yttrx" <yttrx@yttrx.net> wrote in message
> >> >> news:jHich.3247$Yy1.3244@textfe.usenetserver.com...
> >> >> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tom Scales <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Steve Gary" <stevegary@hotlejrkw.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> news:Xns988D5A7E4D80332ju44k2j3k@217.22.228.20...
> >> >> >>> C'mon, did they really expect that no one would notice that EVERY
> >> >> >>> SINGLE
> >> >> >>> ONE of the major feature upgrades - aside from the
> >> >> >>> virus/spyware/security
> >> >> >>> make-goods which are irrelevant to Mac OS - is a renamed version 
> >> >> >>> of
> >> >> >>> something Apple developed for OS X?
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> The funniest thing would be if the Rip Off Apple strategy 
> >> >> >>> backfired
> >> >> >>> this
> >> >> >>> time around, and just made people switch to OS X... the playing 
> >> >> >>> field
> >> >> >>> is
> >> >> >>> a
> >> >> >>> lot different now than it was the last time the Microsoft crooks
> >> >> >>> tried
> >> >> >>> it.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> -- 
> >> >> >>> http://homepage.mac.com/vito/real_vista_episode_1.mov
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Like Apple has ever had  an original idea?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Just ask Xerox
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This is an old and stupid argument, particularly for those of us who
> >> >> > actually remember those days.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > -----yttrx
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > -- 
> >> >> > http://www.yttrx.net
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Some of us DO remember it.  Is it stupid just because it is accurate?
> >> >
> >> > No. it is stupid to the degree of boneheadedness, because Apple didn't
> >> > "rip off" Xerox - they made a deal, quid pro quo, where Xerox got Apple
> >> > shares, and Apple got to use Xerox's ideas.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Where did I say anything about stealing?
> >>
> >> My point, which was quite clear, was that Apple is rarely an innovator.
> >> They often have good implementations of an existing idea.  The Ipod is an
> >> excellent example.  They clearly didn't invent the mp3 player, but they
> >> certainly do make excellent ones.  I have one myself and like it a lot.
> >>
> >> I find it funny to point fingers at MS and say "look they're copying the 
> >> UI"
> >> when that is exactly what Apple did.
> >
> > But you see, Apple did not copy anything. Jobs carried away from his
> > tour of PARC the basic concept of the GUI. He took no notes, he didn't
> > reverse engineer anything, he just explained the concept to his
> > engineers and they came up with a REAL GUI based on that.
> >>
> >> I'm also not saying its wrong -- I just love the Apple bigots that can't 
> >> see
> >> the big picture or the history.
> >
> > I'm not a Mac bigot, but I have used both the Mac and the PARC Alto, and
> > I can tell you they have no more in common than the Duryea brothers had
> > with Gottlieb Daimler when they read that he had put an internal
> > combustion engine in a coach. They did likewise, but their horseless
> > carriage was entirely different from Daimler's (didn't even have the
> > same number of wheels).
> >
> > If you want me to say that Jobs got the inspiration for a computer
> > operating system that was almost totally GUI controlled from seeing the
> > extremely primitive Alto, I agree. But to say that Apple COPIED that
> > system (as you did in an earlier post), is simply in error.
> >
> > -- 
> > George Graves
> 
> 
> Semantics.  It wasn't original work. 

99% of it WAS original work.

-- 
George Graves
The easiest thing for one to be is "fashionable." It requires no thought, 
no intelligence, and no creativity. Just watch, listen to, and do what 
everybody else does and you're part of the "in crowd." 

"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message 
news:alangbaker-88DC81.18082602122006@news.telus.net...
> In article
> Actually, it's even better than that:
>
> Apple already had people working on GUI stuff and they urged Jobs to go
> and check out Xerox PARC in order to get him excited about it. They also
> visited and learned more about what Xerox was doing, but they invented
> lots of the common metaphors we take for granted all by themselves.
>


I don't doubt that is true.  The  timelines would  be  interesting, but the 
only point I was making was that Apple did not independently invent it. 
Others were working  on it too.

Heck, I just brought it up because it is  so much fun having all  the 
clueless Mac bigots  jumping through hoops.  It's like a fish for  Shamu. 
You folks will do anything I want -- all I have to do is challenge your 
beloved Mac.

Made me laugh all evening.

"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message 
news:alangbaker-7FFBF8.18091502122006@news.telus.net...
> In article <Iolch.409498$R63.351835@pd7urf1no>,
> Rockboy <rockboy@rockboy..net> wrote:
>
>> George Graves wrote:
>>
>> >> Some of us DO remember it.  Is it stupid just because it is accurate?
>> >
>> > It's stupid because it has NO relation to reality. I worked for Xerox
>> > PARC in those days, I ought to know!
>>
>> I can make up stories too.
>
> That fact that you *can* doesn't mean he *is*.
>


Might  be  true, might not.  Without proof, it is purely a 'claim'. 

"George Graves" <gmgraves@pacbell.net> wrote in message 
news:gmgraves-F39102.18143102122006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...

> 99% of it WAS original work.
>


While I would  dispute 99%, that still leaves 1%.  My point was  that others 
were working on it and  Apple borrowed, not that Apple stole  the whole 
idea.

Still makes me laugh. 

In article <CYoch.9625$f8.3077@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
 "zara" <zspook@aol.com> wrote:

> "George Graves" <gmgraves@pacbell.net> wrote in message 
> news:gmgraves-1DC34C.15483602122006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> > In article <Fgnch.36550$K9.23749@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
> > "zara" <zspook@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "George Graves" <gmgraves@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> >> news:gmgraves-C6BFF7.12091902122006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> >> > In article <O8kch.336$4p2.199@trndny07>,
> >> > Bob Levine <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Steve Gary wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > C'mon, did they really expect that no one would notice that EVERY
> >> >> > SINGLE
> >> >> > ONE of the major feature upgrades - aside from the
> >> >> > virus/spyware/security
> >> >> > make-goods which are irrelevant to Mac OS - is a renamed version of
> >> >> > something Apple developed for OS X?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The funniest thing would be if the Rip Off Apple strategy backfired
> >> >> > this
> >> >> > time around, and just made people switch to OS X... the playing 
> >> >> > field
> >> >> > is a
> >> >> > lot different now than it was the last time the Microsoft crooks 
> >> >> > tried
> >> >> > it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't normally feed trolls, but you know what? You're absolutely
> >> >> right. They copied many of the nicer features of OSX. And just like I
> >> >> figured all the Mac biggots out there that have been touting how much
> >> >> better OSX is are now complaining because Windows is more like it. 
> >> >> Make
> >> >> up your mind.
> >> >
> >> > We have.
> >> > 1) Why use a copy when the original will always be ahead. Leopard will
> >> > introduce features that M$ won't get to copy until the NEXT version of
> >> > Windows. How long will that be? Another 6-years?
> >>
> >>
> >> Talk about the "original", how old is OSX again??  When is OSXI coming 
> >> out
> >> anyway.?  Leopard is a Service Pack - nothing more.
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > 2) While many of the features will be similar, that's not all there is
> >> > to an OS. There's the interface, and Vista's interface, like all 
> >> > Windows
> >> > versions before it, is inferior to the Mac's (IMHO, of course).
> >>
> >> Buy whose standard, yours?  Have you even seen it?
> >
> > What the hell do you thing "IMHO" means? Of course it's by my standards.
> > You wouldn't want me to lower my standards to your level, would you? And
> > yes, I've seen it. I have a friend who has the final public beta
> > installed on his machine. To say that its less than impressive would be
> > an understatement. You can put gold leaf on a dried dog turd, but it's
> > still a dried dog turd under all the glitter.
> 
> You never answered part one of the question:   "Talk about the "original", 
> how old is OSX again? When is OSXI coming out
>  anyway.? "


We've been over that and over it. Mac "dot upgrades" are the equivalent 
of M$'s Win95, Win98, SE, ME, Win2K, and XP.


> And you saw a beta. Big fucking deal.  A beta is not the "real" thing. 
> You're getting as bad as Jimmy - this thread has you spinning like a top 
> also. 

In my experience, the Final Public Beta in Windows products is 
remarkably like the release. Certainly that was true of XP. The Public 
Beta and the final release looked and felt identical. I have no reason 
to believe that Vista will be any different. At any rate, thaty'd have 
to completely change the interface to make me like it any better, and I 
don't think that even you are dumb enough to believe that they've done 
that in that little time.

-- 
George Graves
The easiest thing for one to be is "fashionable." It requires no thought, 
no intelligence, and no creativity. Just watch, listen to, and do what 
everybody else does and you're part of the "in crowd." 

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 21:12:32 -0500, ZnU wrote:

>> That doesn't change the fact that it wasn't an original piece of software.
> 
> Correct. I'm not sure why that's supposed to be a criticism, as many 
> people in this thread seem to be treating it.

Because Apple are the ones that keep saying things like "Start your
photocopiers".

>> Are you claiming then that all the things Apple fans claim Microsoft copied
>> are "substantially" the same implementation internally as the Mac version?
>> 
>> If not, that kind of blows your argument.
> 
> In this case, the implementation is important because it provides 
> evidence for the lineage. I could have phrased my previous reply to make 
> this a little more clear, sorry.

Lineage is not really relevant.  Let's say you're apple.  And you notice a
competitor talking about a cool idea, or you see a cool tool you want in
OSX.  You're not going to copy the implementation, you're going to use what
tools you already have to implement it your way.  That often means taking
tools you've already created and modifying them to do the new cool thing.

>> Dashboard, and Konfab and Widgets, and Gadgets may all have basis in ideas
>> from an earlier time,but they all sure look and act a lot alike, don't
>> they?  Is that coincidence?
> 
> No, but it's not necessarily thievery either.

Apple seems to be claiming it is.  Why else with the "photocopiers"
schtick?

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 23:13:45 +0000, Tom Scales wrote:

> "Liam Slider" <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote in message 
> news:aFnch.6595$1s6.228@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 22:27:49 +0000, Tom Scales wrote:
>>
>>> "yttrx" <yttrx@yttrx.net> wrote in message
>>> news:qSmch.3258$Yy1.1875@textfe.usenetserver.com...
>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tom Scales <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:kurtullman-37C3D3.16360402122006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx...
>>>>>> In article <hFlch.3058$H22.2368@trndny09>, Bob Levine
>>>>>> <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jim Lee Jr. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > In article <wJkch.6475$7T5.4141@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
>>>>>>> >  "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >>You mean all that work I do in Photoshop to print to my Epson 7600
>>>>>>> >>to print
>>>>>>> >>24"x36" prints really didn't happen?  My use of the PC as my
>>>>>>> >>'tivo' (where
>>>>>>> >>PCs clearly excel compared to Macs) didn't happen?
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>They're just tools folks.  There are good PCs.  There are good
>>>>>>> >>Macs. Almost
>>>>>>> >>everything can be done on either platform these days.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>Tom
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Name us one Mac virus in the wild.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That has got to be one of the most tired arguments around. Find
>>>>>>> something else. The subject is using them as tools.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tell me one thing you can do on a Mac that can't be done on Windows.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> .. or vice versa... (note that it was CAN"T do).
>>>>>
>>>>> OK.
>>>>>
>>>>> Show me a 10 tuner -- 5 OTA HD and 5 Cable SD system using a Mac.  A
>>>>> Mac that costs less that $800.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do it with an older PC machine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, must have client software that also allows me to stream to 5 HDTVs
>>>>> in my
>>>>> house concurrently.
>>>>>
>>>>> While recording.
>>>>>
>>>>> From one SATA drive.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> You are not doing that on an 800 dollar windows box, period.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----yttrx
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> http://www.yttrx.net
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Uh, yes, I am.  I should have clarified, that doesn't include the
>>> capture cards.  They clearly add to the cost.
>>
>>
>> Sure, bet you forgot to include the hard drives too. And the cabling,
>> networking, and all the other stuff. And forgot to include software cost
>> too I bet, because I'm seriously doubting the existence of decent Free
>> Software available for Windows that'll do that. So, $800 was a serious
>> exaggeration yes? How much was the real cost of your system?
> 
> 
> No, not really.   Just not a new machine.  Dell Dimension 8400 with a 300Gb 
> drive is under $400.  Snapstream BeyondTV is $69.  8400 includes Gigabit, so 
> nothing extra for that.
> 
> HD cards are around $80.  SD cards are around $60.  Depending on how many 
> concurrent recordings you want, the price can add up.
> 
> The 8400 is really overkill.  If all you want is HD, then a decent 4550 is 
> fine.  Saw one on  Craigs list today for $100.
> 
> Now which Mac can do this?  With what software?  What HD or SD cards?


How should I know? I'm a Linux user. :-P

In article <Uqqch.5367$%u3.733@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
 "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:

> Made me laugh all evening.

The feeble minded are easily amused.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <6whn2mua984r.dlg@funkenbusch.com>,
 Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 21:12:32 -0500, ZnU wrote:
> 
> >> That doesn't change the fact that it wasn't an original piece of software.
> > 
> > Correct. I'm not sure why that's supposed to be a criticism, as many 
> > people in this thread seem to be treating it.
> 
> Because Apple are the ones that keep saying things like "Start your
> photocopiers".
> 
> >> Are you claiming then that all the things Apple fans claim Microsoft copied
> >> are "substantially" the same implementation internally as the Mac version?
> >> 
> >> If not, that kind of blows your argument.
> > 
> > In this case, the implementation is important because it provides 
> > evidence for the lineage. I could have phrased my previous reply to make 
> > this a little more clear, sorry.
> 
> Lineage is not really relevant.  Let's say you're apple.  And you notice a
> competitor talking about a cool idea, or you see a cool tool you want in
> OSX.  You're not going to copy the implementation, you're going to use what
> tools you already have to implement it your way.  That often means taking
> tools you've already created and modifying them to do the new cool thing.

Lineage is relevant in this case. From a technical standpoint, Dashboard 
widgets are more similar to Firefox sidebar panels which have been freed 
from the browser than they are to Konfabulator widgets. This is probably 
not a coincidence, because Dave Hyatt -- who was heavily involved with 
the technologies in Mozilla related to implementing desktop UI using web 
technologies -- works for Apple now.

Please note, I'm not saying Dashboard doesn't borrow heavily... I'm just 
saying the source of the borrowing probably isn't what everything thinks 
it is.

> >> Dashboard, and Konfab and Widgets, and Gadgets may all have basis in ideas
> >> from an earlier time,but they all sure look and act a lot alike, don't
> >> they?  Is that coincidence?
> > 
> > No, but it's not necessarily thievery either.
> 
> Apple seems to be claiming it is.  Why else with the "photocopiers"
> schtick?

It requires considerable skill to look at the entire world of ideas, 
pick the most valuable ones, and figure out how to implement them in a 
way that actually makes them useful to your customers. This largely 
describes what Apple has historically done.

It requires almost skill to wait for your direct competitors to show you 
which ideas are useful and how to implement them, and then implement the 
same ideas in a substantially similar way.

"Redmond, start your photocopiers" is a reference to Microsoft's 
tendency to do the latter.

Sometimes Microsoft's copying seems almost obsessive -- there's one 
case, for instance, where it looks as if Microsoft actually tracked down 
the stock photography collection from which Apple took some of the 
default OS X user account pictures, and used it as a source for Windows 
user account pictures. It's hard not to make fun of a rival company that 
does stuff like that.

-- 
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
          -- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> In article
> <gmgraves-4C1BB7.16011402122006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, George
> Graves <gmgraves@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > I agree. But that's Microsoft for you. Vista is to OSX what a Zune is to
> > an iPod and for the same reason.
>
> Hey, I saw a Zune this morning. But it wasn't in the wild...it was
> locked in a case at Wally World. Nobody scrambling to buy them like
> they do iPods.

Have any of you ever even used a Zune? Now, before you start flaming
me, I'm not a Wintroll, I have Macbook Pro and an iPod Mini. But I must
say that the Zunes have some neat features. I like how you can send
your music to friends and I also like the big screen. It has a lower
resolution but I'd rather watch a bigger and slightly less better
looking picture than a small better one. But I'm not going to buy a
Zune. Soon Apple will come out with something crazy and innovative that
will be at least as good as the zune (probably better) and will have
better music management software for it. (I don't like Zune's computer
software. It's kind of stupid.)

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message 
news:021220061644134686%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <CYoch.9625$f8.3077@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, zara
> <zspook@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> You never answered part one of the question:   "Talk about the 
>> "original",
>> how old is OSX again? When is OSXI coming out
>>  anyway.? "
>
> OS X came out in the spring of 2001, the next version will be out in a
> couple months. So what!

Newsflash!  A service pack is not a whole new OS.

snip. 

"Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message 
news:michelle-15ABCF.19085302122006@news.west.cox.net...
> In article <CYoch.9625$f8.3077@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
> "zara" <zspook@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> You never answered part one of the question:   "Talk about the 
>> "original",
>> how old is OSX again? When is OSXI coming out
>>  anyway.? "
>
> Apple decided to name it OS X 10.2 instead of OS XI; and to name it OS X
> 10.3 instead of OS XII; and to name it OS X 10.4 instead of OS XIII.
> So, to answer your question, OS XI came out about three years ago, but
> it had a different name.

Nice try - but no dice.  If it were a whole new OS, it would have been named 
as such. - no company is capable of writing four "new" OS's, in 36 months. 
It's the same old mutt, with a few new "add-ons". 

"Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message 
news:michelle-B686AE.19061502122006@news.west.cox.net...
> In article <fZoch.9626$f8.681@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
> "zara" <zspook@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Leopard is a Service Pack - nothing more.
>> >
>> > The same way that Vista is a service pack.
>>
>> Nice try - but old.
>
> But accurate.

Only in the maccie mind. 

George Graves wrote:
> In article <021220061155140392%rag@nospam.techline.com>,
>  Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
> 
>> In article <Xns988D5A7E4D80332ju44k2j3k@217.22.228.20>, Steve Gary
>> <stevegary@hotlejrkw.com> wrote:
>>
>>> C'mon, did they really expect that no one would notice that EVERY SINGLE 
>>> ONE of the major feature upgrades - aside from the virus/spyware/security 
>>> make-goods which are irrelevant to Mac OS - is a renamed version of 
>>> something Apple developed for OS X?
>>>
>>> The funniest thing would be if the Rip Off Apple strategy backfired this 
>>> time around, and just made people switch to OS X... the playing field is a 
>>> lot different now than it was the last time the Microsoft crooks tried it.
>> I haven't seen the final release version yet, but I've seen the betas.
>> It's awful. Granted, they stole stuff from OS X but implemented them
>> quite poorly.
> 
> I agree. But that's Microsoft for you. Vista is to OSX what a Zune is to 
> an iPod and for the same reason.
> 

That is so witty and clever George.

Steve

Jim Lee Jr. wrote:
> In article <Fgnch.36550$K9.23749@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
>  "zara" <zspook@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > How old is OS X again?
>
> You tell us, Twink Ass.
>
> > When is OS XI coming out anyway?
>
> You tell us, Twink Ass.
>
> > Leopard is a service pack, nothing more.
>
> I don't think so, Twink Ass.

That's what I hate about this thread. Everyone is either a Wintroll or
a Macturd or whatever derogatory names people decide to call each
other. Most people's replies offer no evidence to support their
statement or just yell at someone and swear at them. I'd like it if
some people could try to debate like intelligent human beings.

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> In article <yunch.42461$Fg.27983@tornado.socal.rr.com>, Steve de Mena
> <steven@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> 
>> The betas were just that, betas.  If you haven't 
>> seen the Release Candidates, or the RTM, you 
>> shouldn't comment.
> 
> Uh-huh. I've seen and used enough M$ operating systems through the
> years, and while the betas may have had performance issues, the idea
> remains the same. They actually came up with something that sucks more
> than XP.

Yes, your experiences from years ago are really 
valid talking about the here and now.  Zzzzzz......

Steve

In article <12ak0xgey4rzu.dlg@funkenbusch.com>,
 Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
> I'm pretty sure Konfabulator was a Windows only app.  I know it ran on
> Windows, but I never saw a mac version.  It's now called "Yahoo Widgets" or
> something like that since Yahoo bought them.

It came out on February 10, 2003, for OS X *only*.  The Windows version 
came out on November 8, 2004.
 
> However, Konfabulator came out around 2003 as well.  All these apps are
> muddied together, apparently feeding off the other (there is little chance
> so many different apps that did exactly the same things, and looked almost
> exactly the same came out independantly).

The idea for Konfabulator came from a media player in 1998.  Arlo Rose 
saw how the media player was skinned, and thought it would be interested 
to be able to do that for any information you wanted to see on your 
desktop.

-- 
--Tim Smith

In article <YFrch.37215$K9.13542@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
 "zara" <zspook@aol.com> wrote:

> >> >> Leopard is a Service Pack - nothing more.
> >> >
> >> > The same way that Vista is a service pack.
> >>
> >> Nice try - but old.
> >
> > But accurate.
> 
> Only in the maccie mind. 

No, in the real world; give it a try sometime.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <Mooch.5351$%u3.4175@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
 "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:

> "George Graves" <gmgraves@pacbell.net> wrote in message 
> news:gmgraves-CDF71C.15375402122006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
>  truth :)
> >
> > I'm not "arguing" with anyone. I'm telling YOU the truth from someone
> > who was actually THERE. Now, you can continue to believe urban mythology
> > and lies if you wish to, but you can't say that nobody's explained the
> > actual facts to you. :-)
> >
> > -- 
> > George Graves
> 
> Scan your old ID card and post it.  Then we'll believe you.
> 
> I once walked on the moon.  Oh wait, maybe that was Tuscon. 

Since, Alto computers weren't sold in stores, how else do you think I 
would know how one worked? Not a very clever Winnut, are you?

-- 
George Graves
The easiest thing for one to be is "fashionable." It requires no thought, 
no intelligence, and no creativity. Just watch, listen to, and do what 
everybody else does and you're part of the "in crowd." 

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <Bwnch.42463$Fg.34296@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
>  Steve de Mena <steven@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> 
>> Let's see, Vista RC 1 and 2, and the RTM, have been out for a couple 
>> of months now.  Have any security fixes been released so far?  
> 
> Security fixes for pre-release software?  They don't bother with that.  
> How many security fixes were in RC 2?  How many will be in the final 
> release to fix problems in RC 2 (and maybe RC 1 for that matter)?  Of 
> course we don't know the answer to that second question yet, but keep in 
> in mind.  And then we'll have to see what security lapses and other 
> shortcomings there are in the release versions.
> 

The final release was completed a few weeks ago, 
and has been in the hands of MSDN and TechNet Plus 
members like me for about 2 weeks.  So far nothing 
has been released in Windows Update for security 
flaws.   I don't even have any anti-virus software 
installed on my Vista machine.

Steve

In article <hFrch.37214$K9.17220@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
 "zara" <zspook@aol.com> wrote:

> > Apple decided to name it OS X 10.2 instead of OS XI; and to name it 
> > OS X 10.3 instead of OS XII; and to name it OS X 10.4 instead of OS 
> > XIII. So, to answer your question, OS XI came out about three years 
> > ago, but it had a different name.
> 
> Nice try - but no dice.  If it were a whole new OS, it would have 
> been named as such.

Oh, so you're a marketing genius, huh?

 - no company is capable of writing four "new" OS's, in 36 months. 

A competent company, with competent engineers, can.  Not that you would 
know anything about that, considering that you can't count.

> It's the same old mutt, with a few new "add-ons". 

You wish.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <ctqch.5608$yj1.1448@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
 "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:

> "George Graves" <gmgraves@pacbell.net> wrote in message 
> news:gmgraves-F39102.18143102122006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> 
> > 99% of it WAS original work.
> >
> 
> 
> While I would  dispute 99%, that still leaves 1%.  My point was  that others 
> were working on it and  Apple borrowed, not that Apple stole  the whole 
> idea.
> 
> Still makes me laugh. 

Being completely wrong makes you laugh? OK, whatever it takes for you to 
get through the day!

-- 
George Graves
The easiest thing for one to be is "fashionable." It requires no thought, 
no intelligence, and no creativity. Just watch, listen to, and do what 
everybody else does and you're part of the "in crowd." 

In article <1165117127.618052.18500@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 "da newb" <da.newb711@gmail.com> wrote:

> But I must say that the Zunes have some neat features. I like how you 
> can send your music to friends and I also like the big screen. 

Yeah, you can send music between them if they're within BT range, and 
you can play the received song three times; if you want to play it any 
more than that, you have to buy it.  But that's a good thing; otherwise 
piracy would be rampant.

But if you have any music that you downloaded from any other source 
(iTunes, Napster, etc.), it won't play on the Zune.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buKaqRG2SFA>

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <prqch.6515$7T5.5286@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
 "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message 
> news:alangbaker-7FFBF8.18091502122006@news.telus.net...
> > In article <Iolch.409498$R63.351835@pd7urf1no>,
> > Rockboy <rockboy@rockboy..net> wrote:
> >
> >> George Graves wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Some of us DO remember it.  Is it stupid just because it is accurate?
> >> >
> >> > It's stupid because it has NO relation to reality. I worked for Xerox
> >> > PARC in those days, I ought to know!
> >>
> >> I can make up stories too.
> >
> > That fact that you *can* doesn't mean he *is*.
> >
> 
> 
> Might  be  true, might not.  Without proof, it is purely a 'claim'. 

This is how irrational you are being. Altos computers were not widely 
known about. At the time, the only place in the world where one could 
see and/or use one was to actually be *AT* PARC. It if I hadn't been at 
PARC in those days I wouldn't know how one looked or how it worked. That 
I clearly do know both must mean that I *have* used one and the only 
people who could do that were people who worked there. Duh!

-- 
George Graves
The easiest thing for one to be is "fashionable." It requires no thought, 
no intelligence, and no creativity. Just watch, listen to, and do what 
everybody else does and you're part of the "in crowd." 

In article <tZrch.42780$Fg.8164@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
 Steve de Mena <steven@stevedemena.com> wrote:

> The final release was completed a few weeks ago, and has been in the 
> hands of MSDN and TechNet Plus members like me for about 2 weeks.  So 
> far nothing has been released in Windows Update for security flaws.

Oh wow!  Two whole weeks.  If anything had been discovered the day it 
was completed, they wouldn't have had time to release a security patch 
yet.  The flaw would have to be researched, then a fix formulated, 
written, and tested--and adequate testing would have to search for any 
unexpected side effects that might have been introduced.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <hFrch.37214$K9.17220@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
 "zara" <zspook@aol.com> wrote:

> "Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message 
> news:michelle-15ABCF.19085302122006@news.west.cox.net...
> > In article <CYoch.9625$f8.3077@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
> > "zara" <zspook@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> You never answered part one of the question:   "Talk about the 
> >> "original",
> >> how old is OSX again? When is OSXI coming out
> >>  anyway.? "
> >
> > Apple decided to name it OS X 10.2 instead of OS XI; and to name it OS X
> > 10.3 instead of OS XII; and to name it OS X 10.4 instead of OS XIII.
> > So, to answer your question, OS XI came out about three years ago, but
> > it had a different name.
> 
> Nice try - but no dice.  If it were a whole new OS, it would have been named 
> as such. - no company is capable of writing four "new" OS's, in 36 months. 
> It's the same old mutt, with a few new "add-ons". 

You think Vista is a whole new OS? Or XP? Or Win2K? You got rocks in 
your head, boy!

-- 
George Graves
The easiest thing for one to be is "fashionable." It requires no thought, 
no intelligence, and no creativity. Just watch, listen to, and do what 
everybody else does and you're part of the "in crowd." 

In article <Uqqch.5367$%u3.733@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
 "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message 
> news:alangbaker-88DC81.18082602122006@news.telus.net...
> > In article
> > Actually, it's even better than that:
> >
> > Apple already had people working on GUI stuff and they urged Jobs to go
> > and check out Xerox PARC in order to get him excited about it. They also
> > visited and learned more about what Xerox was doing, but they invented
> > lots of the common metaphors we take for granted all by themselves.
> >
> 
> 
> I don't doubt that is true.  The  timelines would  be  interesting, but the 
> only point I was making was that Apple did not independently invent it. 
> Others were working  on it too.
> 
> Heck, I just brought it up because it is  so much fun having all  the 
> clueless Mac bigots  jumping through hoops.  It's like a fish for  Shamu. 
> You folks will do anything I want -- all I have to do is challenge your 
> beloved Mac.
> 
> Made me laugh all evening.

Fools do that. Laugh all evening, I mean.

-- 
George Graves
The easiest thing for one to be is "fashionable." It requires no thought, 
no intelligence, and no creativity. Just watch, listen to, and do what 
everybody else does and you're part of the "in crowd." 

In article <YFrch.37215$K9.13542@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
 "zara" <zspook@aol.com> wrote:

> "Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message 
> news:michelle-B686AE.19061502122006@news.west.cox.net...
> > In article <fZoch.9626$f8.681@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
> > "zara" <zspook@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >> Leopard is a Service Pack - nothing more.
> >> >
> >> > The same way that Vista is a service pack.
> >>
> >> Nice try - but old.
> >
> > But accurate.
> 
> Only in the maccie mind. 

Only in fact, you mean.

-- 
George Graves
The easiest thing for one to be is "fashionable." It requires no thought, 
no intelligence, and no creativity. Just watch, listen to, and do what 
everybody else does and you're part of the "in crowd." 

In article 
<timberwoof.spam-56D61F.17522902122006@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net>,
 Timberwoof <timberwoof.spam@infernosoft.com> wrote:

> In article 
> <gmgraves-CF78D3.15594202122006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
>  George Graves <gmgraves@pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <dIkch.6474$7T5.905@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> >  "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > ""Peter Bj�rn Perls�"" <peter@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote in message 
> > > news:1hpqi5f.xrct8t1qp54qoN%peter@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk...
> > > > Tom Scales <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> "yttrx" <yttrx@yttrx.net> wrote in message 
> > > >> news:jHich.3247$Yy1.3244@textfe.usenetserver.com...
> > > >> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tom Scales <tjscales@gmail.com> 
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> "Steve Gary" <stevegary@hotlejrkw.com> wrote in message 
> > > >> >> news:Xns988D5A7E4D80332ju44k2j3k@217.22.228.20...
> > > >> >>> C'mon, did they really expect that no one would notice that 
> > > >> >>> EVERY SINGLE ONE of the major feature upgrades - aside from 
> > > >> >>> the virus/spyware/security make-goods which are irrelevant 
> > > >> >>> to Mac OS - is a renamed version of something Apple 
> > > >> >>> developed for OS X?
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> The funniest thing would be if the Rip Off Apple strategy 
> > > >> >>> backfired this time around, and just made people switch to 
> > > >> >>> OS X... the playing field is a lot different now than it was 
> > > >> >>> the last time the Microsoft crooks tried it.
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> -- http://homepage.mac.com/vito/real_vista_episode_1.mov
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Like Apple has ever had  an original idea?
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Just ask Xerox
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > This is an old and stupid argument, particularly for those of 
> > > >> > us who actually remember those days.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > -----yttrx
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > -- http://www.yttrx.net
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Some of us DO remember it.  Is it stupid just because it is 
> > > >> accurate?
> > > >
> > > > No. it is stupid to the degree of boneheadedness, because Apple 
> > > > didn't "rip off" Xerox - they made a deal, quid pro quo, where 
> > > > Xerox got Apple shares, and Apple got to use Xerox's ideas.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Where did I say anything about stealing?
> > > 
> > > My point, which was quite clear, was that Apple is rarely an 
> > > innovator. They often have good implementations of an existing 
> > > idea.  The Ipod is an excellent example.  They clearly didn't 
> > > invent the mp3 player, but they certainly do make excellent ones.  
> > > I have one myself and like it a lot.
> > > 
> > > I find it funny to point fingers at MS and say "look they're 
> > > copying the UI" when that is exactly what Apple did.
> > 
> > But you see, Apple did not copy anything. Jobs carried away from his 
> > tour of PARC the basic concept of the GUI. He took no notes, he 
> > didn't reverse engineer anything, he just explained the concept to 
> > his engineers and they came up with a REAL GUI based on that. 
> 
> No, Steve and his engineers were already working on a GUI. The folks at 
> Xerox heard about it, figured that Apple would be a good company to 
> partner with, and invited them over for show and tell. 
> 
> > > I'm also not saying its wrong -- I just love the Apple bigots that 
> > > can't see the big picture or the history.
> > 
> > I'm not a Mac bigot, but I have used both the Mac and the PARC Alto, 
> > and I can tell you they have no more in common than the Duryea 
> > brothers had with Gottlieb Daimler when they read that he had put an 
> > internal combustion engine in a coach. They did likewise, but their 
> > horseless carriage was entirely different from Daimler's (didn't even 
> > have the same number of wheels). 
> > 
> > If you want me to say that Jobs got the inspiration for a computer 
> > operating system that was almost totally GUI controlled from seeing 
> > the extremely primitive Alto, I agree. But to say that Apple COPIED 
> > that system (as you did in an earlier post), is simply in error.
> 
> For example, one thing Macintosh has that Alto did not was overlapping 
> windows.

And that's the least of it!

-- 
George Graves
The easiest thing for one to be is "fashionable." It requires no thought, 
no intelligence, and no creativity. Just watch, listen to, and do what 
everybody else does and you're part of the "in crowd." 

"George Graves" <gmgraves@pacbell.net> wrote in message 
news:gmgraves-FB41C9.19570902122006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <Mooch.5351$%u3.4175@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "George Graves" <gmgraves@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:gmgraves-CDF71C.15375402122006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
>>  truth :)
>> >
>> > I'm not "arguing" with anyone. I'm telling YOU the truth from someone
>> > who was actually THERE. Now, you can continue to believe urban 
>> > mythology
>> > and lies if you wish to, but you can't say that nobody's explained the
>> > actual facts to you. :-)
>> >
>> > -- 
>> > George Graves
>>
>> Scan your old ID card and post it.  Then we'll believe you.
>>
>> I once walked on the moon.  Oh wait, maybe that was Tuscon.
>
> Since, Alto computers weren't sold in stores, how else do you think I
> would know how one worked? Not a very clever Winnut, are you?
>
> -- 
> George Graves


Golly, I suspect Google could be your friend.  Or you could be making it up. 
It's not like any of us care enough to challenge you.

Or care whether you did or didn't.

I'm just enjoying the show tonight. 

"George Graves" <gmgraves@pacbell.net> wrote in message 
news:gmgraves-A7574E.20025502122006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <ctqch.5608$yj1.1448@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "George Graves" <gmgraves@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:gmgraves-F39102.18143102122006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> > 99% of it WAS original work.
>> >
>>
>>
>> While I would  dispute 99%, that still leaves 1%.  My point was  that 
>> others
>> were working on it and  Apple borrowed, not that Apple stole  the whole
>> idea.
>>
>> Still makes me laugh.
>
> Being completely wrong makes you laugh? OK, whatever it takes for you to
> get through the day!
>
> -- 
> George Graves


Where was I COMPLETELY wrong George.  99% is not 100%.  Not completely, huh.

You're too easy. 

"George Graves" <gmgraves@pacbell.net> wrote in message 
news:gmgraves-7A569B.20120602122006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <Uqqch.5367$%u3.733@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>> news:alangbaker-88DC81.18082602122006@news.telus.net...
>> > In article
>> > Actually, it's even better than that:
>> >
>> > Apple already had people working on GUI stuff and they urged Jobs to go
>> > and check out Xerox PARC in order to get him excited about it. They 
>> > also
>> > visited and learned more about what Xerox was doing, but they invented
>> > lots of the common metaphors we take for granted all by themselves.
>> >
>>
>>
>> I don't doubt that is true.  The  timelines would  be  interesting, but 
>> the
>> only point I was making was that Apple did not independently invent it.
>> Others were working  on it too.
>>
>> Heck, I just brought it up because it is  so much fun having all  the
>> clueless Mac bigots  jumping through hoops.  It's like a fish for  Shamu.
>> You folks will do anything I want -- all I have to do is challenge your
>> beloved Mac.
>>
>> Made me laugh all evening.
>
> Fools do that. Laugh all evening, I mean.
>
> -- 

Sticks and stones.....

You've run out of weak  arguments so  now you're name  calling.  Mature. 

X-No-Archive:

Jim Lee Jr. wrote:
> In article <pDlch.3057$H22.961@trndny09>,
>  Bob Levine <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Jim Lee Jr. wrote:
>
> > > No, you are a Micro$haft drone.
> >
> > I think its so cute how you use that dollar sign in there. And so
> > original, too. Mac biggots are so creative.
> >
> > Bob
>
> You misspelled "bigots."

Oh, the irony!

"Don't be a stoopid biggot and porpoisely misspell things..."

ROFL

Jim Lee Jr. wrote:
> And work around malware. Tell us, how much does malware and/or AV and 
> anti-malware shit cut into your productivity?

This whole feud is pretty stupid.

No version of Windows particularly impresses me, and most of them just 
plain suck.

BUT, when I've had to run Windows, neither malware or malware prevention 
has cut into my productivity.  Install it, configure it, done. 
Maintenance on malware protection is nothing.

But you know what's stupider than this feud?
Continuing to cross-post it to a newsgroup
about pro-wrestling.

-- 
Wes Groleau
   "Ideas are more powerful than guns,
    We would not let our enemies have guns;
    why should we let them have ideas?"
                                -- Jozef Stalin

In article <HLpch.5604$yj1.552@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, Tom Scales
<tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:

> That wasn't the  question and  you know it.
> 
> Vista.

I can see clearly now.

"Wes Groleau" <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote in message 
news:Zwsch.1293$lb1.16@trnddc05...
> Jim Lee Jr. wrote:
>> And work around malware. Tell us, how much does malware and/or AV and 
>> anti-malware shit cut into your productivity?
>
> This whole feud is pretty stupid.
>
> No version of Windows particularly impresses me, and most of them just 
> plain suck.
>
> BUT, when I've had to run Windows, neither malware or malware prevention 
> has cut into my productivity.  Install it, configure it, done. Maintenance 
> on malware protection is nothing.
>
> But you know what's stupider than this feud?
> Continuing to cross-post it to a newsgroup
> about pro-wrestling.
>
> -- 
> Wes Groleau


And I have nothing  against the Mac and, on occasion, use them.  Fine 
hardware--a little overpriced, now that they're essentially pretty PCs, but 
still quite good. OSX is a well put together operating system with some 
advantages over  Windows. Being closed, it's been easier, but good for 
Apple.

I just find the strength of will of  many Mac propenents so entertaining. 
How quick it evolves to name calling if  the precious Mac environment is 
challenged.  Don't get me wrong, there are Windows bigots too -- I just 
haven't found many that  make it their primary religion.

Good night all.

Tom 

MuahMan wrote:
> George like to tell stories. Keep in mind that none of his stories are true. 

Hmmm.  George says he worked on PARC.
MuahMan says George is a liar.

Who should I believe?

I don't know whether George's contributions to the discussion
are factual.

I do know he actually contributes to the discussion.

I do know he is a better typist.

-- 
Wes Groleau
   "Ideas are more powerful than guns,
    We would not let our enemies have guns;
    why should we let them have ideas?"
                                -- Jozef Stalin

In article <michelle-7D81CE.21055202122006@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> Yeah, you can send music between them if they're within BT range, and 
> you can play the received song three times; if you want to play it any 
> more than that, you have to buy it.  But that's a good thing; otherwise 
> piracy would be rampant.
> 
> But if you have any music that you downloaded from any other source 
> (iTunes, Napster, etc.), it won't play on the Zune.

I like the pricing scheme. With ITMS, it's just 99-cents per
song...pretty simple. But from MS, you have to buy at least a $5 block,
then the songs are prices at 79 points which translates to 99-cents.
Jeez...can you make this thing any more complicated? The sad truth is,
they just don't get it.

In article <7Esch.6530$7T5.6242@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
 "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:

> I just find the strength of will of  many Mac propenents so 
> entertaining. How quick it evolves to name calling if  the precious 
> Mac environment is challenged. 

You mean how quickly we respond in kind when Windows proponents start 
name calling.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

George Graves wrote:
>  Timberwoof <timberwoof.spam@infernosoft.com> wrote:
[snip]  (try that sometime, guys, you might like it)

>> For example, one thing Macintosh has that Alto did not was overlapping 
>> windows.
> 
> And that's the least of it!

Sometime between 1985 and 1988, I spent some time working on
VT100 terminals to VAX/VMS.  It had overlapping windows,
done with "ASCII art"  How long did Digital have that, and
who did they copy it from?

-- 
Wes Groleau

    A UNIX signature isn't a return address, it's the ASCII equivalent
    of a black velvet clown painting.  It's a rectangle of carets
    surrounding a quote from a literary giant of weeniedom like
    Heinlein or Dr. Who.
                                 -- Chris Maeda

    Ha, ha, Dr. ..... Who's Chris Maeda?
                                 -- Wes Groleau

George Graves wrote:
> This is how irrational you are being. Altos computers were not widely 
> known about. At the time, the only place in the world where one could 
> see and/or use one was to actually be *AT* PARC. It if I hadn't been at 
> PARC in those days I wouldn't know how one looked or how it worked. That 
> I clearly do know both must mean that I *have* used one and the only 
> people who could do that were people who worked there. Duh!

How can it be "clear" that you have used one to people who haven't?

If your comment is true, I can't know how one looks or how it works,
as I was not at PARC.  Therefore, it cannot be "clear" to me that
you do know both.

-- 
Wes Groleau
http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau/Wes

In article <Uqqch.5367$%u3.733@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
 "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message 
> news:alangbaker-88DC81.18082602122006@news.telus.net...
> > In article
> > Actually, it's even better than that:
> >
> > Apple already had people working on GUI stuff and they urged Jobs to go
> > and check out Xerox PARC in order to get him excited about it. They also
> > visited and learned more about what Xerox was doing, but they invented
> > lots of the common metaphors we take for granted all by themselves.
> >
> 
> 
> I don't doubt that is true.  The  timelines would  be  interesting, but the 
> only point I was making was that Apple did not independently invent it. 
> Others were working  on it too.

"Others were working on it" doesn't equate to "Apple copied it.".

> 
> Heck, I just brought it up because it is  so much fun having all  the 
> clueless Mac bigots  jumping through hoops.  It's like a fish for  Shamu. 
> You folks will do anything I want -- all I have to do is challenge your 
> beloved Mac.
> 
> Made me laugh all evening.

Riiiight.

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

In article 
<gmgraves-D1CB2A.20081702122006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
 George Graves <gmgraves@pacbell.net> wrote:

> In article <prqch.6515$7T5.5286@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
>  "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message 
> > news:alangbaker-7FFBF8.18091502122006@news.telus.net...
> > > In article <Iolch.409498$R63.351835@pd7urf1no>,
> > > Rockboy <rockboy@rockboy..net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> George Graves wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >> Some of us DO remember it.  Is it stupid just because it is accurate?
> > >> >
> > >> > It's stupid because it has NO relation to reality. I worked for Xerox
> > >> > PARC in those days, I ought to know!
> > >>
> > >> I can make up stories too.
> > >
> > > That fact that you *can* doesn't mean he *is*.
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > Might  be  true, might not.  Without proof, it is purely a 'claim'. 
> 
> This is how irrational you are being. Altos computers were not widely 
> known about. At the time, the only place in the world where one could 
> see and/or use one was to actually be *AT* PARC. It if I hadn't been at 
> PARC in those days I wouldn't know how one looked or how it worked. That 
> I clearly do know both must mean that I *have* used one and the only 
> people who could do that were people who worked there. Duh!

Logic doesn't seem to be "Tom's" strong suit.

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

da newb wrote:
> That's what I hate about this thread. Everyone is either a Wintroll or
> a Macturd or whatever derogatory names people decide to call each
> other. Most people's replies offer no evidence to support their
> statement or just yell at someone and swear at them. I'd like it if
> some people could try to debate like intelligent human beings.

If you want intelligent debate, stay out
of threads cross-posted to rec.sport.pro-wrestling.

-- 
Wes Groleau
Can we afford to be relevant?
http://www.cetesol.org/stevick.html

In article <7Esch.6530$7T5.6242@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
 "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:


> And I have nothing  against the Mac and, on occasion, use them.  Fine 
> hardware--a little overpriced, now that they're essentially pretty PCs, but 
> still quite good. OSX is a well put together operating system with some 
> advantages over  Windows. Being closed, it's been easier, but good for 
> Apple.
> 
> Good night all.
> 
> Tom 

The extra cost of Macs is made up in increased productivity and lack of 
malware.

Michelle Steiner wrote:
>  "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
>> entertaining. How quick it evolves to name calling if  the precious 
>> Mac environment is challenged. 
> 
> You mean how quickly we respond in kind when Windows proponents start 
> name calling.

In other words, the only difference between them and us
is our self-control lasts a few seconds longer?

-- 
Wes Groleau

Expert, n.:
         Someone who comes from out of town and shows slides.

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> Jeez...can you make this thing any more complicated? The sad truth is,
> they just don't get it.

IMHO, Zune will never make it big only because the
peripheral/accessory market for iPod is already too big.

Isn't that one of the Windows arguments?  "People prefer
Windows because there's so much software for it."

However, once Microsoft realizes this, their first
"solution" will likely be to release an update for
Windows that breaks iTunes.

-- 
Wes Groleau

You always have time for what you do first.

In article <l4tch.1301$lb1.379@trnddc05>,
 Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:

> >> entertaining. How quick it evolves to name calling if  the 
> >> precious Mac environment is challenged. 
> > 
> > You mean how quickly we respond in kind when Windows proponents 
> > start name calling.
> 
> In other words, the only difference between them and us is our 
> self-control lasts a few seconds longer?

No, it means that we fight back and don't let them attack with impunity.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <peejster01-9E734D.23112202122006@news.isp.giganews.com>,
 "Jim Lee Jr." <peejster01@insightbb.com> wrote:

> The extra cost of Macs is made up in increased productivity and lack 
> of malware.

But there's no extra cost of Macs any more, when comparing systems of 
equal capability and quality.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <NVkch.140$R_1.1@trndny08>,
 Bob Levine <robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:

> Actually it is a good one. Load up Photoshop or InDesign and run it 
> under rosetta. Have fun with that.

Why the fuck are you stupid enough to do that? You have fun with that.

In article <iHmch.5337$%u3.2331@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
 "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:

> Whatever.  You continue arguing with yourself.  The rest of us know the 
> truth :) 

What a creative comeback. What an idiot little cunt.

Steve Gary wrote:
> C'mon, did they really expect that no one would notice that EVERY SINGLE
> ONE of the major feature upgrades - aside from the virus/spyware/security
> make-goods which are irrelevant to Mac OS - is a renamed version of
> something Apple developed for OS X?
>
> The funniest thing would be if the Rip Off Apple strategy backfired this
> time around, and just made people switch to OS X... the playing field is a
> lot different now than it was the last time the Microsoft crooks tried it.

No, the playing field is still the same, you have to buy a new computer
to run an Apple OS.   Thanks for saying Vista will have all the
features of Mac OS X.   I can upgrade to Vista cheaper than any Mac
Apple sells...


> -- 
> http://homepage.mac.com/vito/real_vista_episode_1.mov

In article <7Esch.6530$7T5.6242@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
 "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:

> I just find the strength of will of  many Mac propenents so entertaining. 
> How quick it evolves to name calling if  the precious Mac environment is 
> challenged.  Don't get me wrong, there are Windows bigots too -- I just 
> haven't found many that  make it their primary religion.

Think about it for a while and it will all make sense brainboy.

In article <1165123930.949934.34920@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> Steve Gary wrote:
> > C'mon, did they really expect that no one would notice that EVERY SINGLE
> > ONE of the major feature upgrades - aside from the virus/spyware/security
> > make-goods which are irrelevant to Mac OS - is a renamed version of
> > something Apple developed for OS X?
> >
> > The funniest thing would be if the Rip Off Apple strategy backfired this
> > time around, and just made people switch to OS X... the playing field is a
> > lot different now than it was the last time the Microsoft crooks tried it.
> 
> No, the playing field is still the same, you have to buy a new computer
> to run an Apple OS.   Thanks for saying Vista will have all the
> features of Mac OS X.   I can upgrade to Vista cheaper than any Mac
> Apple sells...

Except (of course, because this is Edwin) that isn't what he said.

> 
> 
> > -- 
> > http://homepage.mac.com/vito/real_vista_episode_1.mov

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

In article <1165123930.949934.34920@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> Thanks for saying Vista will have all the features of Mac OS X

He didn't say that.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

Tom Scales wrote:

> "George Graves" <gmgraves@pacbell.net> wrote in message 
> news:gmgraves-F39102.18143102122006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> 
> 
>>99% of it WAS original work.
>>
> 
> 
> 
> While I would  dispute 99%, that still leaves 1%.  My point was  that others 
> were working on it and  Apple borrowed, not that Apple stole  the whole 
> idea.
> 
> Still makes me laugh. 
> 
> 

"When you have nothing to lose you can shoot for the moon.  So we shot 
for the moon, and we knew if we were successful that it would come down 
to Apple and IBM.  And that's exactly what's going to happen."
Steve Jobs

The Big Leagues
In the fall of 1981 Steve Wozniak returned to school to finish his 
undergraduate work at UC Berkeley.  He enrolled under an assumed name to 
avoid any special attention from students or faculty.  Woz had gotten 
remarried in the June following his plane crash, and he wanted to take 
at least a year off from Apple.  Although he worked late into the night 
finishing up his scholastic assignments, he also found time for a new 
project: a rock music festival called US.
     Apple was taking the final steps to correct the damage from the 
Apple III snafu.  Late in the fall Apple officially reintroduced the 
Apple III.  This time the machine included increased memory storage in 
the form of a hard disk and improved software.
     But two other projects were consuming most of Steve Job's time.  In 
the spring of 1979 Jobs had paid a visit to Xerox's Palo Alto Research 
Center (PARC), a laboratory funded by Xerox with millions of dollars to 
carry out high-tech experiments.  PARC scientists frequently foresaw 
advances in computer technology years before anyone else.  Jobs wanted 
to see what the Xerox researchers were working on now.
     He was welcome.  "The year before", Jobs said, "I went down to 
Xerox Development Corporation, which made all of Xerox's venture 
investments, and I said, "Look.  I will let you invest a million dollars 
in Apple if you will sort of open the kimono at Xerox PARC."
     During his tour of PARC, Jobs saw a demonstration of a new computer 
language, Smalltalk, which emphasized graphics and a new 
mouse-controlled user interface.  The graphics resolution was good 
enough to allow all sorts of tricks that Jobs knew were impossible on 
the Apple II or III.  The mouse could be used to select options by 
pointing at things on the screen.  It was an input device conceptually 
distinct from anything then in use on personal computers.  The language 
could lead to a new kind of computer system, one much easier to use.
     "I was blown away", Jobs said.
     Jobs was so impressed that he decided that Apple should do a 
similar system.  He met resistance.  Many people within Apple were not 
enthusiastic about the idea.  "They thought that whatever their own 
religion was was the way to go," Jobs recalled.  So he began to convert 
people.
     Jobs made a second trip to PARC, this time with Bill Atkinson. 
Bill had been instrumental in getting the Pascal language for the Apple 
and had substituted for Woz on the Lisa project.  Bill was as excited as 
Jobs about the PARC innovation.  Over a few months, Lisa had changed 
from Woz's multi-chip design to one based on a new, powerful 
microprocessor from Motorola, the 68000, and this goal in turn changed 
into Apple's version of the PARC system.  Atkinson would create a 
revolutionary graphics package for it.  Not everyone was happy about 
these transformations, but Jobs had his way.
     Jobs even hired one of the principle scientists away from Xerox 
PARC and assigned him to Lisa.  Larry Tessler's task was to design the 
most advanced personal computer system available and to make Apple the 
technological leader in an increasingly competitive industry.  Former HP 
engineer John Couch, hired in 1978, was in charge of Lisa.  Meanwhile 
Jobs took control of another independent research project at Apple 
code-named Macintosh.  The Macintosh team was also to use advanced 
software technology, but was to put it in an economical personal computer.
     In 1981 Apple tripled its investments, spending $21 million on new 
product research and development.  Jobs toured the world's leading 
automated factories and then commissioned one for Apple in Fremont, 
California, to build the Macintosh.  "We have designed the machine to 
build the machine," Jobs said.  "The Apple II was designed in a garage 
to be built in a garage.  Macintosh has been designed from Day One to be 
highly automated."
     Jobs and others at Apple wanted to continue the company's rapid 
growth and to establish it as the technology leader for several reasons. 
  One was the likelihood of a late-1981 entry into the personal computer 
market by a company called International Business Machines Corporation.
     Apple was not surprised by rumours that IBM planned a personal 
computer.  The company had considered the possibility for several years. 
  Jobs described it as a gate coming slowly down, and Apple had been 
running at top speed for four years to get through before it shut.  In 
fact Apple made this concern public knowledge in its prospectus for its 
initial stock offering in December 1980.  Apple also expected 
competition soon from Hewlett-Packard and various Japanese firms.  But 
the greatest challenge by far was IBM, the chrome colossus whose name 
meant "real" computers to most people, a multinational corporation 
richer than many individual countries were.  Whatever IBM had to offer, 
Apple would be meeting it with its Lisa and Macintosh.  There was no 
looking back.

Excerpt from "Fire in the Valley".


-- 
One night stand in a Korean cat-house.
by Kum Flu.

George Graves wrote:

> In article <prqch.6515$7T5.5286@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
>  "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message 
>>news:alangbaker-7FFBF8.18091502122006@news.telus.net...
>>
>>>In article <Iolch.409498$R63.351835@pd7urf1no>,
>>>Rockboy <rockboy@rockboy..net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>George Graves wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Some of us DO remember it.  Is it stupid just because it is accurate?
>>>>>
>>>>>It's stupid because it has NO relation to reality. I worked for Xerox
>>>>>PARC in those days, I ought to know!
>>>>
>>>>I can make up stories too.
>>>
>>>That fact that you *can* doesn't mean he *is*.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Might  be  true, might not.  Without proof, it is purely a 'claim'. 
> 
> 
> This is how irrational you are being. Altos computers were not widely 
> known about. At the time, the only place in the world where one could 
> see and/or use one was to actually be *AT* PARC. It if I hadn't been at 
> PARC in those days I wouldn't know how one looked or how it worked. That 
> I clearly do know both must mean that I *have* used one and the only 
> people who could do that were people who worked there. Duh!
> 

Do you remember a guy by the name Massaro at PARC?


-- 
One night stand in a Korean cat-house.
by Kum Flu.

Tom Scales wrote:

> "Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message 
> news:021220061524505203%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> 
>>In article <L2nch.3064$H22.1253@trndny09>, Bob Levine
>><robjlevin@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>A true BS argument if I've ever heard one. Why do IT people lock Macs
>>>down? Even better...why have anything but admin rights on a Mac if
>>>they're so safe?
>>
>>Pssst...hey rocket scientist...there are not viruses or spyware for the
>>Macintosh.
> 
> 
> That's only because the market share doesn't make it worthwhile.  You don't 
> honestly believe there are NO security holes, do you? Then why does Apple 
> keep release security fixes?
> 
> 
> 

So where are all the viruses, worms, and malware for OS X then?


-- 
One night stand in a Korean cat-house.
by Kum Flu.

Randall Ainsworth wrote:

> In article <S6och.411829$R63.154855@pd7urf1no>, Rockboy
> <rockboy@rockboy.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Good. Randall seems to think he doesn't need one.
> 
> 
> Nope. The OS X firewall is off, off in my DSL modem, off in my Airport
> Base Station.

Not a good idea.  Turn them both on.

-- 
One night stand in a Korean cat-house.
by Kum Flu.

Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <1165123930.949934.34920@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > Steve Gary wrote:
> > > C'mon, did they really expect that no one would notice that EVERY SINGLE
> > > ONE of the major feature upgrades - aside from the virus/spyware/security
> > > make-goods which are irrelevant to Mac OS - is a renamed version of
> > > something Apple developed for OS X?
> > >
> > > The funniest thing would be if the Rip Off Apple strategy backfired this
> > > time around, and just made people switch to OS X... the playing field is a
> > > lot different now than it was the last time the Microsoft crooks tried it.
> >
> > No, the playing field is still the same, you have to buy a new computer
> > to run an Apple OS.   Thanks for saying Vista will have all the
> > features of Mac OS X.   I can upgrade to Vista cheaper than any Mac
> > Apple sells...
>
> Except (of course, because this is Edwin) that isn't what he said.

You should have been a better person this year, Alan.   Then maybe
Santa would be bringing you that new brain you need instead of the lump
of coal you're going to get.

"Rockboy" <rockboy@rockboy..net> wrote in message 
news:i8nch.403463$1T2.149139@pd7urf2no...
> Peter Bj�rn Perls� wrote:
>> Rockboy <rockboy@rockboy..net> wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Bj�rn Perls� wrote:
>>>> Chris H. of Portland, OR <chrispdx@comcast.FUCKOFFSPAMMERS.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "DB" <dontbother@dot.net> wrote in message 
>>>>> news:021220061208413589%dontbother@dot.net...
>>>>>> In article <u4jch.3252$Yy1.131@textfe.usenetserver.com>, yttrx
>>>>>> <yttrx@yttrx.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing at microsoft is really new, they copy EVERYTHING.
>>>>>> Let's sum up the arguments, shall we?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> MAC: "There's ample documentation to prove that much of the Windows
>>>>>> interface has been copied from the Mac OS, for decades."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WINDOWS: "Oh yeah? Well... well... well... YOU SUCK, DUDE!"
>>>>> And for 90% of average computer users, no one cares.
>>>>>
>>>>> Windows is just fine for me. I guess I'm not 1337.
>>>> Well, if you're not connected to a WAN and only do Office document
>>>> editing, sure, Windows is fine.
>>> What if I want to do real CAD work and play a wide variety of games?
>>
>> http://www.parallels.com/
>
> Yes, clearly a virtual machine is the best way to run graphics and 
> processor intensive applications.
>

LOL, go easy on them. They are Mac Jihad. They have partaken of Kool-Aid.
> -- 
> Rockboy
>
> I don't need your love to disconnect 

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <1165123930.949934.34920@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for saying Vista will have all the features of Mac OS X
> 
> He didn't say that.

The implication is there.

In article <1165125097.587169.40960@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> > > Thanks for saying Vista will have all the features of Mac OS X
> > 
> > He didn't say that.
> 
> The implication is there.

Not to anyone who understands elementary logic.

Even if everything in Vista was copied from the Mac OS (I'm not saying 
that it was), that doesn't mean that Vista copied everything that the 
Mac has.  Further, even if Vista contained everything that Mac OS X 10.4 
(Tiger) has, that doesn't mean that it has everything that Mac OS X 10.5 
(Leopard) will have.

And even further, whatever in Windows (any version) that may have been 
copied from the Macintosh isn't necessarily implemented as well as it is 
in the Macintosh.

So the implication *is not there*.  Wakarimasu?

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <1165125097.587169.40960@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Thanks for saying Vista will have all the features of Mac OS X
> > >
> > > He didn't say that.
> >
> > The implication is there.
>
> Not to anyone who understands elementary logic.
>
> Even if everything in Vista was copied from the Mac OS (I'm not saying
> that it was), that doesn't mean that Vista copied everything that the
> Mac has.  Further, even if Vista contained everything that Mac OS X 10.4
> (Tiger) has, that doesn't mean that it has everything that Mac OS X 10.5
> (Leopard) will have.
>
> And even further, whatever in Windows (any version) that may have been
> copied from the Macintosh isn't necessarily implemented as well as it is
> in the Macintosh.
>
> So the implication *is not there*.  Wakarimasu?

We are talking about major features, remember?

Woulld you like to name some major features that are found in Mac OS X
but not in Vista?

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Like Apple has ever had  an original idea?
>>
>> Just ask Xerox
> 
> but apple didn't "copy" anything from xerox -- so you need to keep that 
> in mind.

You mean like a mouse and a GUI? Ask the people from Xerox PARC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_PARC

In article <1165125896.167675.71860@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> > > > > Thanks for saying Vista will have all the features of Mac OS 
> > > > > X
> > > >
> > > > He didn't say that.
> > >
> > > The implication is there.
> >
> > Not to anyone who understands elementary logic.
> >
> > Even if everything in Vista was copied from the Mac OS (I'm not 
> > saying that it was), that doesn't mean that Vista copied everything 
> > that the Mac has.  Further, even if Vista contained everything that 
> > Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger) has, that doesn't mean that it has everything 
> > that Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) will have.
> >
> > And even further, whatever in Windows (any version) that may have 
> > been copied from the Macintosh isn't necessarily implemented as 
> > well as it is in the Macintosh.
> >
> > So the implication *is not there*.  Wakarimasu?
> 
> We are talking about major features, remember?

You wrote "all the features of Mac OS X", remember?

But to play your game, does Vista have anything resembling
Time Machine (Leopard feature)
Virtual desktops (Leopard feature)
Dashboard
Spotlight

And there's going to be more in Leopard that is still under wraps, so 
that Microsoft won't be able to start trying to copy them sooner than 
later.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

Jim Lee Jr. wrote:
> In article <%okch.6868$Ig1.3909@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
>  "the Bede" <rspwsownthebede@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> if only everyone would switch to Unix. Then the world would be perfect.
> 
> Would that not make Steve Ballmer and his fanbois jealous?

Didn't the OP say it would be perfect?

Jim Lee Jr. wrote:
> In article <OPidneD_ceeKY-zYnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@adelphia.com>,
>  "MuahMan" <muahman@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>> news:WHmch.6487$7T5.1020@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>> "Jim Lee Jr." <peejster01@insightbb.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:peejster01-11BFA3.14484802122006@news.isp.giganews.com...
>>>> In article <%okch.6868$Ig1.3909@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
>>>> "the Bede" <rspwsownthebede@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> if only everyone would switch to Unix. Then the world would be perfect.
>>>> Would that not make Steve Ballmer and his fanbois jealous?
>>>
>>> I just love Mac people.  When their arguments get weak they start name 
>>> calling.
>>>
>> When they get weak? When have they not been weak?  Don't forget most Mac 
>> users are teenage girls in a dorm room, name calling is their only ammo. 
> 
> Don't forget most Windoze users are skinny, teenaged twinks in a dorm 
> room, fantasizing about Steve Ballmer is their only fun they get.

Hard to imagine anyone, including Mrs Ballmer, fantasizing about good 
ol' Steve.

Peter Bj�rn Perls� wrote:
> Liam Slider <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 22:53:44 +0000, Steve de Mena wrote:
>>
>>> Liam Slider wrote:
>>>
>>>>> what if I'm on a DSL and all I do is download porn and troll usenet?
>>>> Considering the amount of viruses and trojans that porn sites try to load
>>>> onto Windows computers...definitely not a good idea.
>>> Newsflash!
>>>
>>> There are simple tools to make this a non issue. 
>>> I am using a Mac now but up until a couple of 
>>> months ago all my web browsing was on an XP 
>>> laptop, and I actually made it a point to 
>>> intentionally click on "bad" things to let them 
>>> try and do what they could.  I used Firefox with 
>>> scripting disabled by default, had Symantec 
>>> Anti-Virus, Windows Defender, and had Windows 
>>> Automatic Updates enabled.
>>>
>>> Steve
>>
>> Didn't you notice what a pain in the ass all those various "protection"
>> tools were, especially the hogging of system resources? I certainly
>> noticed when I had XP on *this* laptop. Total pain in the ass...almost
>> rather get the damn viruses.
> 
> NSW/NAV increases boot time significantly until the system is ready for
> use, and just about doubles OS memory use.

If you don't have a cite for this (and I doubt you do), then you're just 
more Usenet noise.

George Graves wrote:

<snip>

> But you see, Apple did not copy anything. Jobs carried away from his 
> tour of PARC the basic concept of the GUI. He took no notes, he didn't 
> reverse engineer anything, he just explained the concept to his 
> engineers and they came up with a REAL GUI based on that. 

Man, you get around, don't you! To actually know this you must have been 
working at Apple as well as being in that group of engineers.

A computer Zelig for the 21st century.  :)

Michelle Steiner wrote:

> "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Like Apple has ever had  an original idea?
>>
>>Just ask Xerox
> 
> 
> but apple didn't "copy" anything from xerox -- so you need to keep that 
> in mind.


Uh, the Lisa's WIMP interface was completely original and not 
motivated/inspired in any way whatsoever by Xerox's STAR interface?



::guffaw::



-Rick

the Bede wrote:
> "Rockboy" <rockboy@rockboy..net> wrote in message
> news:Iolch.409498$R63.351835@pd7urf1no...
>> George Graves wrote:
>>
>>>> Some of us DO remember it.  Is it stupid just because it is accurate?
>>> It's stupid because it has NO relation to reality. I worked for Xerox
>>> PARC in those days, I ought to know!
>> I can make up stories too.
>>
>>
> you are jealous that his first mouse was a handcarved block of wood.

LUXURY! When I was a new programmer ...  <into Monty Python territory here>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 19:49:55 -0800,
 Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> In article <12ak0xgey4rzu.dlg@funkenbusch.com>,
>  Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>> I'm pretty sure Konfabulator was a Windows only app.  I know it ran on
>> Windows, but I never saw a mac version.  It's now called "Yahoo Widgets" or
>> something like that since Yahoo bought them.
>
> It came out on February 10, 2003, for OS X *only*.  The Windows version 
> came out on November 8, 2004.
>  
>> However, Konfabulator came out around 2003 as well.  All these apps are
>> muddied together, apparently feeding off the other (there is little chance
>> so many different apps that did exactly the same things, and looked almost
>> exactly the same came out independantly).
>
> The idea for Konfabulator came from a media player in 1998.  Arlo Rose 
> saw how the media player was skinned, and thought it would be interested 
> to be able to do that for any information you wanted to see on your 
> desktop.
>

How does that compare to GKRellm?



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFcnTTd90bcYOAWPYRAk/lAKCd14g8DKzsLE5EpYU+TQuSKplckQCgoDkV
WL9QppvUWutzWOdJeSnKs4k=
=1mu2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in
tolerance and free speech," - David Brin

In article <iksch.5375$%u3.306@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
 "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:

> "George Graves" <gmgraves@pacbell.net> wrote in message 
> news:gmgraves-7A569B.20120602122006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> > In article <Uqqch.5367$%u3.733@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> > "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> >> news:alangbaker-88DC81.18082602122006@news.telus.net...
> >> > In article
> >> > Actually, it's even better than that:
> >> >
> >> > Apple already had people working on GUI stuff and they urged Jobs to go
> >> > and check out Xerox PARC in order to get him excited about it. They 
> >> > also
> >> > visited and learned more about what Xerox was doing, but they invented
> >> > lots of the common metaphors we take for granted all by themselves.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> I don't doubt that is true.  The  timelines would  be  interesting, but 
> >> the
> >> only point I was making was that Apple did not independently invent it.
> >> Others were working  on it too.
> >>
> >> Heck, I just brought it up because it is  so much fun having all  the
> >> clueless Mac bigots  jumping through hoops.  It's like a fish for  Shamu.
> >> You folks will do anything I want -- all I have to do is challenge your
> >> beloved Mac.
> >>
> >> Made me laugh all evening.
> >
> > Fools do that. Laugh all evening, I mean.
> >
> > -- 
> 
> Sticks and stones.....
> 
> You've run out of weak  arguments so  now you're name  calling.  Mature. 

My argument isn't weak, on the other hand, you have none.

-- 
George Graves
The easiest thing for one to be is "fashionable." It requires no thought, 
no intelligence, and no creativity. Just watch, listen to, and do what 
everybody else does and you're part of the "in crowd." 

In article <d9KdnTRJpP99_u_YnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@bresnan.com>,
 Maverick <John@mustangranch.org> wrote:

> George Graves wrote:
> 
> > In article <prqch.6515$7T5.5286@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> >  "Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message 
> >>news:alangbaker-7FFBF8.18091502122006@news.telus.net...
> >>
> >>>In article <Iolch.409498$R63.351835@pd7urf1no>,
> >>>Rockboy <rockboy@rockboy..net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>George Graves wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>Some of us DO remember it.  Is it stupid just because it is accurate?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>It's stupid because it has NO relation to reality. I worked for Xerox
> >>>>>PARC in those days, I ought to know!
> >>>>
> >>>>I can make up stories too.
> >>>
> >>>That fact that you *can* doesn't mean he *is*.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>Might  be  true, might not.  Without proof, it is purely a 'claim'. 
> > 
> > 
> > This is how irrational you are being. Altos computers were not widely 
> > known about. At the time, the only place in the world where one could 
> > see and/or use one was to actually be *AT* PARC. It if I hadn't been at 
> > PARC in those days I wouldn't know how one looked or how it worked. That 
> > I clearly do know both must mean that I *have* used one and the only 
> > people who could do that were people who worked there. Duh!
> > 
> 
> Do you remember a guy by the name Massaro at PARC?

No, but that was 30 years ago.

-- 
George Graves
The easiest thing for one to be is "fashionable." It requires no thought, 
no intelligence, and no creativity. Just watch, listen to, and do what 
everybody else does and you're part of the "in crowd." 

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <1165117127.618052.18500@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>  "da newb" <da.newb711@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> But I must say that the Zunes have some neat features. I like how you 
>> can send your music to friends and I also like the big screen. 
> 
> Yeah, you can send music between them if they're within BT range

The Zune doesn't have Bluetooth.

Steve

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <tZrch.42780$Fg.8164@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
>  Steve de Mena <steven@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> 
>> The final release was completed a few weeks ago, and has been in the 
>> hands of MSDN and TechNet Plus members like me for about 2 weeks.  So 
>> far nothing has been released in Windows Update for security flaws.
> 
> Oh wow!  Two whole weeks.  If anything had been discovered the day it 
> was completed, they wouldn't have had time to release a security patch 
> yet.  

Sure they would.

Steve

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <peejster01-9E734D.23112202122006@news.isp.giganews.com>,
>  "Jim Lee Jr." <peejster01@insightbb.com> wrote:
> 
>> The extra cost of Macs is made up in increased productivity and lack 
>> of malware.
> 
> But there's no extra cost of Macs any more, when comparing systems of 
> equal capability and quality.
> 

Just stay away from MacBooks and MacBook Pros in 
your comparison.

Steve

here's a site that tracks vulnerabilities in all software and operating 
systems,
http://secunia.com/product/96/?task=advisories

and mac osx is on the list along with windows.
so dont tell us there are no problems with macs.

my wife has a school full of macs with viruses or whatever it is that is 
stopping them from working that the experts cant solve fast enough.

i'm not saying that windows doesnt have problems, but anyone who knows 
what they are doing with their computer (mac or windows based) will be 
smart enough to not catch anything.  unfortunately, the average joe will 
get screwed by the nasty malware/viruses/spyware etc running around and 
is at the mercy of others to help them fix it.

this is no different than any other industry.  how many times have you 
been ripped off getting your car serviced, or we're all getting scammed 
with the high cost of gas or heating oil.  those in the "know" in each 
respective industry will profit the most. the rest of us are screwed.

now back on topic...
dont get me wrong, i like both types of computers, and own both, and 
recently i spent time in a mac store looking at all the latest and 
greatest, and i have to admit that all the macs are quite appealing with 
their glitz and nice big screens, but i was able to bring every one of 
those cool core 2 processors to their knees.   i was disappointed how 
poorly they ran.  similar to the bloat in windows.  i had the hourglass 
(i mean the spinning cd icon) coming up so much that i asked the guy in 
the store why is this so slow, and he said that too many people were 
loading programs and the memory was fragmented.   what a bunch of bull.
and i wasnt doing much, just clicking into directories and looking at 
folders and options.  playing music while clicking on menus and see what 
was around.

i was also disappointed that the latest macs are still the same when it 
comes to multitasking (or trying to).  it was horrible clicking on 
multiple things at once.  i thought the productivity was exactly the 
same. lousy as before.  that's why i mostly use windows.

it all comes down to what people are used to and what software they want 
to use.  the screens are nice and bright and clear, slick looking.  but 
very pricey.  the most expensive mac tank there, resembles the dell 
xps700 series tank, and i even brought that to its knees.  the coolest 
part was the 35in flat panel.

i wont begin to debate which is better, or who copied from who.  these 
are debates that will go on for the rest of mankind, like all other 
religious and political battles and wars.

i'm just surprised how this thread got so out of control in just a day, 
over 250 posts!  quite amusing.




Jim Lee Jr. wrote:
> Get malware. Again, show us one piece of Mac malware in the wild.
> While Windoze users look over their shoulders and load tons of AV and 
> anti-spyware shit on their PCs, Mac users are being more productive.

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <1165125896.167675.71860@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
>  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> 
>>>>>> Thanks for saying Vista will have all the features of Mac OS 
>>>>>> X
>>>>> He didn't say that.
>>>> The implication is there.
>>> Not to anyone who understands elementary logic.
>>>
>>> Even if everything in Vista was copied from the Mac OS (I'm not 
>>> saying that it was), that doesn't mean that Vista copied everything 
>>> that the Mac has.  Further, even if Vista contained everything that 
>>> Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger) has, that doesn't mean that it has everything 
>>> that Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) will have.
>>>
>>> And even further, whatever in Windows (any version) that may have 
>>> been copied from the Macintosh isn't necessarily implemented as 
>>> well as it is in the Macintosh.
>>>
>>> So the implication *is not there*.  Wakarimasu?
>> We are talking about major features, remember?
> 
> You wrote "all the features of Mac OS X", remember?
> 
> But to play your game, does Vista have anything resembling
> Time Machine (Leopard feature)

No. I want to see this one in Leopard to see if it 
really lives up to the hype.

> Virtual desktops (Leopard feature)

Windows XP has had that for years, up to 4 
desktop, with the Powertoys (free addon) Virtual 
Desktop Manager.

> Dashboard

Widgets, sort of.

> Spotlight

The search is better, but not to Spotlight's level.

> And there's going to be more in Leopard that is still under wraps, so 
> that Microsoft won't be able to start trying to copy them sooner than 
> later.

I wouldn't expect much of any significance "under 
wraps".

Steve