What a mistake.  I do not understand why they did such a thing.  This means
that all pre 9.x Macs cannot share with OSX, unless they have third party
software installed such as Shareway Ip.  This was dumb on the part of Apple.

PC's do not have such limitations...  No wonder 99% of the network world is PC
based.  

In article <20030730182538.13162.00000974@mb-m10.aol.com>,
 jwolf6589@aol.comnospam (JWolf6589) wrote:

> What a mistake.  I do not understand why they did such a thing.  This means
> that all pre 9.x Macs cannot share with OSX, unless they have third party
> software installed such as Shareway Ip.  This was dumb on the part of Apple.
> 
> PC's do not have such limitations...  No wonder 99% of the network world is PC
> based.  

Can any PC do AFP over Appletalk?

Since OS 9 machines can handle TCP/IP connections, it is a moot point 
anyway.

maybe some day you'll make a valid point here, but I won't hold my 
breath.

-- 
Never play strip tarot.

Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> maybe some day you'll make a valid point here, but I won't hold my 
> breath.

Hey, at least he posted as himself.  Well, assuming he's ever done that
in the first place.

-- 
Mike Rosenberg

<http://www.macconsult.com>
<http://bogart-tribute.net>

On 30 Jul 2003 22:25:38 GMT,
    JWolf6589 (jwolf6589@aol.comnospam) wrote:
> What a mistake.  I do not understand why they did such a thing.  This means
> that all pre 9.x Macs cannot share with OSX, unless they have third party
> software installed such as Shareway Ip.  This was dumb on the part of Apple.

Wrong.  Dead wrong.  OS X (10.2.x) can connect to AFP shares over AppleTalk.
I do it all the time.  If a TCP/IP connection is available, OS X makes use 
of it -- but it gracefully falls back to using AFP over AppleTalk if the
server doesn't support TCP/IP.
 
> PC's do not have such limitations...  No wonder 99% of the network world is PC
> based.  

So PCs can connect to AFP shares now?  Without any additional software?  I
think you're a moron -- welcome to my killfile.

Bev
-- 
Bev A. Kupf
Bev's House of Pancakes

JWolf6589 <jwolf6589@aol.comnospam> wrote:

> What a mistake.  I do not understand why they did such a thing.  This means
> that all pre 9.x Macs cannot share with OSX, unless they have third party
> software installed such as Shareway Ip.

I don't know why I'm even trying, but yes, Apple has ruled out 680x0
Macs, the last of which were manufactured in 1994.  OTOH, any Power Mac,
including the very earliest, _can_ connect to an OS X server.  Tell us
all about the tremendous capabilities of PCs from 1994.

-- 
Mike Rosenberg

<http://www.macconsult.com>
<http://bogart-tribute.net>

Crucifyself03 <crucifyself03@aol.comnojunk> wrote:

> You should try reading his posts before responding...

When are you going to get bored with this stupid game of yours?  Okay,
this time you remembered to say "his" instead of "my," I'll give you
that much credit.

Of course, if one of your earlier posts hadn't already busted my irony
meter, this one would have done it.  "You should try reading his
posts"???  How often do _your_ posts have much, if anything, to do with
the previous poster's?

-- 
Mike Rosenberg

<http://www.macconsult.com>
<http://bogart-tribute.net>

In article <slrnbigkpo.a3d.bevakupf@ebv.mimnet.northwestern.edu>,
 "Bev A. Kupf" <bevakupf@ebv.mimnet.northwestern.edu> wrote:

> Wrong.  Dead wrong.  OS X (10.2.x) can connect to AFP shares over 
> AppleTalk. I do it all the time.  If a TCP/IP connection is 
> available, OS X makes use of it -- but it gracefully falls back to 
> using AFP over AppleTalk if the server doesn't support TCP/IP.

I was unaware of that; I always connected the OS 9 machine to the OS X 
machine via TCP/IP because it is faster.  Now that I no longer have an 
OS 9 machine, it's a moot point for me.

-- 
Never play strip tarot.

Mike Rosenberg <mike@POSTTOGROUP.invalid> wrote:

> I don't know why I'm even trying, but yes, Apple has ruled out 680x0
> Macs, the last of which were manufactured in 1994.

And now I've seen from other posts that this isn't even true.

-- 
Mike Rosenberg

<http://www.macconsult.com>
<http://bogart-tribute.net>

Crucifyself03 <crucifyself03@aol.comnojunk> wrote:

> Can you be any more nosy? 

I know of no definition of "nosy" that applies here.

Anyway, I take it that means you're not going to stop?

-- 
Mike Rosenberg

<http://www.macconsult.com>
<http://bogart-tribute.net>

Crucifyself03 <crucifyself03@aol.comnojunk> wrote:

> No one was treating anyone like crap.

Oh, okay, my mistake.  She killfiled you because you treated her
decently.

> The only problems are people like you that constantly gotta hound me.  Why
> dont you try something new, and try laying off me for a change

You can treat everyone in the Usenet any way you damn well please, but
when your actions have consequences all you can do is whine.  I promise
I'll lay off you when you stop treating everyone around here like crap.

> can you do this.  Is
> it possible?  I bet my moneys worth that you cannot do it.

Actually, I've publicly stated on several occasions that no, it's not
possible.  I simply cannot keep myself from responding to you.  I've
tried, but I'm unable to.  Since you rarely ever actually read posts, at
least not with any comprehension, I'm not surprised you've missed when
I've said it.

> Stop being so dam critical of every word that I mispell or whatever.

First, it's _damn_ critical and _misspell_.  Second, find one example,
prior to now of course, where I've ever pointed out a misspelling in one
of your posts.  Others have, I haven't.  I've once made a general
statement that your poor spelling, syntax and grammar made it clear
before your he/I mistake that you've been posting as two different user
names, but I don't recall _EVER_ pointing out a specific mistake.  If
you find an example, I'll apologize right here in the group.

Meanwhile, it's your trolling behavior I've been criticizing.

> Do you ever see me doing this to you?  MOST OF THE TIME I lay off you.  I
> do not find every word you mispell or respond to you in such a way.

Again, it's your trolling.  You can pretend it's not, but it is.

> Yes you are correct I do have access to AOL as its my primary newsfeed.
> Its MY ONLY NEWSFEED outside of Google.

Huh?  What did I say that had anything to do with this?

-- 
Mike Rosenberg

<http://www.macconsult.com>
<http://bogart-tribute.net>

Crucifyself03 <crucifyself03@aol.comnojunk> wrote:

> Because you have accused me of being other people from other domains
> outside of aol OR GOOGLE.

Oh, silly me, not realizing you were responding to something from other
threads.

Of course, you're using AOL as both Crucifyself03 and JWolf6589, and
wasn't the other one a Yahoo address?

> I think every new troll that pops up I am going to take the
> credit.  That will satisfy you.

No, apparently you don't understand that your writing style is a dead
giveaway.  And, mind you, I'm not singling you out in that regard.
There are certainly people who could write as two different people and
get away with it, but most of us wouldn't be able to pull it off.  Our
writing style would give us away.  I mean, I doubt very much that *I*
could post as someone else without people spotting it.

> I will say it once and only once...
> 
> MY ISP BLOCKS USENET FEEDS.  MY ONLY ACCESS TO NEWS IS VIA AOL OR GOOGLE.

So you're saying that you wouldn't have the knowhow to set up, say,
MT-Newswatcher, on a computer connected via, oh, I don't know,
Earthlink?  Really?  I'm kind of stunned.  I thought you were a lot more
technically savvy than that!

-- 
Mike Rosenberg

<http://www.macconsult.com>
<http://bogart-tribute.net>

Gregory Weston <gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:

> Erm. Nonsensical. People have told you it _can_ be done and you don't
> believe them. What could possibly lead you to accept the report as more
> reliable if they say that they _are_ doing it?

Maybe he believes we'd go as far as changing the earth's axis to prove
him wrong.

-- 
Mike Rosenberg

<http://www.macconsult.com>
<http://bogart-tribute.net>

In article <1fyxewo.foz7rujrjmztN%mike@POSTTOGROUP.invalid>,
 mike@POSTTOGROUP.invalid (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> You can treat everyone in the Usenet any way you damn well please, 
> but when your actions have consequences all you can do is whine.  I 
> promise I'll lay off you when you stop treating everyone around here 
> like crap.

Don't you know that the classic response by bullies is "S/He hit me 
back.  Make him/her stop!"

--Michelle

-- 
Never play strip tarot.

In article <20030730182538.13162.00000974@mb-m10.aol.com>,
JWolf6589 <jwolf6589@aol.comnospam> wrote:
>What a mistake.  I do not understand why they did such a thing.  This means
>that all pre 9.x Macs cannot share with OSX, unless they have third party
>software installed such as Shareway Ip.  This was dumb on the part of Apple.
......

Yes, this does seem to be a mistake. If you go into 
"Go" -> "Connect to Server" you will see various
networks including appletalk (if this is set active)
and can connect seamlessly to machines running
different protocols such as tcp, afp and smb.

Under the "Preferences" select "Network"
Then select the "Appletalk" tab. This is where
you can make it active.

-- 
Daniel Packman
NCAR/ACD
pack@ucar.edu

Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> wolf, AKA Crucifyself03, has a history of posting outdated information
> as if it were current, just so he can start another of his anti-mac 
> tirades.

My "favorite" tactic of his, which is well illustrated in this thread,
is that he'll take anything he reads that he can turn into an anti-Apple
attack and post it as gospel, but when people respond that in their own
experience it's incorrect, he'll argue with them.

-- 
Mike Rosenberg

<http://www.macconsult.com>
<http://bogart-tribute.net>

Crucifyself03 <crucifyself03@aol.comnojunk> wrote:

> I did not know that I am the only person in the entire world who has this
> writing style.  Man you really need to work in the education field, you will
> learn allot. Plenty of people have similiar writing styles. 

I never said similar.  I said the same, as in identical.  And by style,
I'm referring to a combination of spelling, grammar and syntax, as well
as word and phrase usage.  You're you, and you write like you.

Oh, and let's not forget, as much as you want to, that you said _I_ when
you should have said _he_.  I've noticed that this is something you've
avoided commenting on.  How do you explain it?

> We have a T1 connection.  There is a firewall, I do not have a telephone line
> in my room.  With the firewall all News feeds are blocked.  I CANNOT BUY A
> NEWSFEED, AND THE SCHOOL DOES NOT SUPPLY ONE.
> 
> How difficult is it for you to understand this?  I have told you it 15 times,
> and you are yet to understand.  

Actually, you've never told us this exact set of data before.  I've
never heard before there's no telephone in your room.  And I have to say
I'm terribly sorry.  I didn't realize you were held prisoner in your
room.  That may help explain why you act like you do.

-- 
Mike Rosenberg

<http://www.macconsult.com>
<http://bogart-tribute.net>

Crucifyself03 <crucifyself03@aol.comnojunk> wrote:

> I have access to a shell, but they no longer supply News access.  On that
> shell its very difficult to create a different username, which can be
> easily done on aol.

And we're talking about two AOL screen names.

-- 
Mike Rosenberg

<http://www.macconsult.com>
<http://bogart-tribute.net>

Crucifyself03 <crucifyself03@aol.comnojunk> wrote:

> >My "favorite" tactic of his, which is well illustrated in this thread,
> >is that he'll take anything he reads that he can turn into an anti-Apple
> >attack and post it as gospel, but when people respond that in their own
> >experience it's incorrect, he'll argue with them.
> 
> You must have something better to do with your time than insult or harass me?

I forgot to ask:  How is what I wrote an insult?  You did precisely what
I said you did.  You took a piece of misinformation and posted it as an
attack on Apple, and then you argued with at least four people who
stated that their own experiences proved you wrong.  This is a pattern
you've repeated over and over.  If simply stating what you've done is
insulting to you, you should consider not doing those things.

-- 
Mike Rosenberg

<http://www.macconsult.com>
<http://bogart-tribute.net>

Crucifyself03 <crucifyself03@aol.comnojunk> wrote:

> I've already admited I was wrong.  Do you have to keep on beating my
> brains in about it?

He probably hadn't gotten around to reading that one yet.  Or maybe you
posted that under the wrong name and he didn't know it was you.

-- 
Mike Rosenberg

<http://www.macconsult.com>
<http://bogart-tribute.net>

Stan The Man <macho@mac.com> wrote:

> As a bystander and without any knowledge of prior history, there's no
> question that Crucifyself03 has been more the insulted than the
> insulter in this thread.

I can see how, judging by this thread alone, you can easily draw that
opinion.  However, in the bigger picture, for the past several days he's
been playing the game of posing as both JWolf6589 and Crucifyself03.  He
even made the mistake of writing _I_ instead of _he_ when referring to
what the "other guy" had posted.

-- 
Mike Rosenberg

<http://www.macconsult.com>
<http://bogart-tribute.net>

Stan The Man <macho@mac.com> wrote:

> >He even made the mistake of writing _I_ instead of _he_ when referring to
> >what the "other guy" had posted.
> 
> Okay, but posting under multiple identities happens all the time -
> assuming that this is fact and not conjecture. Quoting from one's own
> post as if to imply third-party endorsement would not be a very smart
> thing to do, I agree.....if that is what he did.

As I mentioned, he even wrote _I_ instead of _he_ when referring to what
was supposed to be the other guy's post.

But, on reflection, even taking this thread in isolation, he started out
by stating misinformation as fact, in the very subject, and he said,
"What a mistake.  I do not understand why they did such a thing."  That,
to me, sounds not like an attempt at open discussion but someone picking
a fight.
-- 
Mike Rosenberg

<http://www.macconsult.com>
<http://bogart-tribute.net>

In article <1fz05gl.13re8zni2s4zaN%mike@POSTTOGROUP.invalid>, Mike
Rosenberg <mike@POSTTOGROUP.invalid> wrote:

>Stan The Man <macho@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> As a bystander and without any knowledge of prior history, there's no
>> question that Crucifyself03 has been more the insulted than the
>> insulter in this thread.
>
>I can see how, judging by this thread alone, you can easily draw that
>opinion.  However, in the bigger picture, for the past several days he's
>been playing the game of posing as both JWolf6589 and Crucifyself03.  He
>even made the mistake of writing _I_ instead of _he_ when referring to
>what the "other guy" had posted.

Okay, but posting under multiple identities happens all the time -
assuming that this is fact and not conjecture. Quoting from one's own
post as if to imply third-party endorsement would not be a very smart
thing to do, I agree.....if that is what he did.

Stan

In article <1fyzbdq.1pwilee1boncc7N%mike@POSTTOGROUP.invalid>,
 mike@POSTTOGROUP.invalid (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> Crucifyself03 <crucifyself03@aol.comnojunk> wrote:
> 
> > I've already admited I was wrong.  Do you have to keep on beating my
> > brains in about it?
> 
> He probably hadn't gotten around to reading that one yet.  Or maybe you
> posted that under the wrong name and he didn't know it was you.

heh. I may not have been reading this group for a while but I figured 
out pretty quickly that "jwolf" and "crucifyself" (what an odd choice of 
handle name) were the same person. 
Michael


-- 
My email address is ROT-13 encoded. Decode to send email.

In article <1fz05gl.13re8zni2s4zaN%mike@POSTTOGROUP.invalid>, mike@POSTTOGROUP.invalid (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> Stan The Man <macho@mac.com> wrote:
> 
> > As a bystander and without any knowledge of prior history, there's no
> > question that Crucifyself03 has been more the insulted than the
> > insulter in this thread.
> 
> I can see how, judging by this thread alone, you can easily draw that
> opinion.  However, in the bigger picture, for the past several days he's
> been playing the game of posing as both JWolf6589 and Crucifyself03.  He
> even made the mistake of writing _I_ instead of _he_ when referring to
> what the "other guy" had posted.

Just curious...how can one tell if multiple identities are being used on Usenet?

In article <usenet-61491B.07014401082003@corp.supernews.com>,
 usenet <usenet@noplace.net> wrote:

> Just curious...how can one tell if multiple identities are being used on 
> Usenet?


Well, begin by getting a GOOD grip and then pull your head out of your 
ASS!

-- 
Enough <enough@idontcare.com>

In article <1fz08n8.1az813w1fqtgk6N%mike@POSTTOGROUP.invalid>, Mike
Rosenberg <mike@POSTTOGROUP.invalid> wrote:

>Stan The Man <macho@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> >This is just my opinion, of course, but from what I recall reading of
>> >Stan's in the past, I don't think that's a fair assessment.
>> 
>> It is, in fact, a troll. Best ignored, like all trolls.
>
>It sounds a lot more like a specific flame to me, not a troll.

By my definition it was a troll since it wasn't directed at me but to
the group. Either way, troll or flame, it's just bait on a hook hoping
for a bite.

Stan

In article <1fz0715.1f225ff1e0jd2eN%mike@POSTTOGROUP.invalid>,
 mike@POSTTOGROUP.invalid (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> Gregory Weston <gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:
> 
> > Don't bother. Stan's _also_ a troll, albeit not AFAICT another identify
> > for the 'wolf.
> 
> This is just my opinion, of course, but from what I recall reading of
> Stan's in the past, I don't think that's a fair assessment.

I'll emend. My experience of Stan has shown him to have a trollish bent. 
It was inappropriate to label him broadly as a troll. The first post I 
saw from him in this thread looked similar to previous times he's been 
spoiling for an argument.

G

Crucifyself03 <crucifyself03@aol.comnojunk> wrote:

> You cannot be this nosy.

Nosy?  You're claiming that JWolf6589 and Crucifyself03 are two
different people, yet one of them referred to the other as _I_.  Asking
someone to explain a contradiction isn't being nosy.

> Why is it so important to you to find out what screen names I own?

I don't care what screen names you own.  I suspect no one else cares,
either.  I do care when you use two or more of them and pretend they're
two different people.

> Is that your assertion that I was starting a fight?  Well I cannot
> persuade your strong views, so let that stand.  But I warn you that is not
> the truth.  I do not believe you will listen.

Okay, explain how the words you used aren't confrontational.  Why did
you title this thread "OSX cant do AFP over Appletalk" instead of "Is it
true that OSX cant do AFP over Appletalk?"?  Why did you write, "What a
mistake.  I do not understand why they did such a thing" instead of "If
they did such a thing, I think it's a mistake."  Please, read what I
just word, think carefully about the different wordings, and tell me
whether or not you think there's a big difference in tone.


-- 
Mike Rosenberg

<http://www.macconsult.com>
<http://bogart-tribute.net>

Crucifyself03 <crucifyself03@aol.comnojunk> wrote:

> I am not obsessed with floppies.  They should be built into every Mac, and
> I will speak this.

You say that over and over, despite the fact that the vast majority of
Mac users don't want them.  I've asked you on several occasions why you
think it would be fair to have the majority be forced to pay for
something only 5% or want, and I don't recall you ever responding
directly to this.

-- 
Mike Rosenberg

<http://www.macconsult.com>
<http://bogart-tribute.net>

Crucifyself03 <crucifyself03@aol.comnojunk> wrote:

> Man I would not believe that I was being watched so closely.  Perhaps I am
> super-star, people seem to follow me like one.

Yes, you're a superstar, just like criminals under police or FBI
surveillance are superstars.  The point is that you can't get away with
your claims when it's so easy for us to research them.

-- 
Mike Rosenberg

<http://www.macconsult.com>
<http://bogart-tribute.net>

Crucifyself03 <crucifyself03@aol.comnojunk> wrote:

> >I notice that you've not pointed out where he insulted you. Gee. I wonder
> >
> >why.
> 
> My question remains

What question is that?

-- 
Mike Rosenberg

<http://www.macconsult.com>
<http://bogart-tribute.net>

Crucifyself03 <crucifyself03@aol.comnojunk> wrote:

> You really believe that I am interested in keeping things going?

Here's your opportunity - explain why you keep things going if you're
not interested in doing that.

-- 
Mike Rosenberg

<http://www.macconsult.com>
<http://bogart-tribute.net>

Crucifyself03 <crucifyself03@aol.comnojunk> wrote:

> These people have accused me from other domains besides these.

If it's true that you have been falsely accused, I apologize for my part
in it.  If you really weren't posing as OSXis_1987@yahoo.com, I'm sorry
I suggested you were.

-- 
Mike Rosenberg

<http://www.macconsult.com>
<http://bogart-tribute.net>

Crucifyself03 <crucifyself03@aol.comnojunk> wrote:

> >If it's true that you have been falsely accused, I apologize for my part
> >in it.  If you really weren't posing as OSXis_1987@yahoo.com, I'm sorry
> >I suggested you were.
> 
> There are many things you claim which are not true.

I'm sorry I've upset you by apologizing.  What else have I claimed that
you think isn't true?  Provide some examples, please.

> Therefore I think it would be fair if I take credit for every new troll
> that comes in, since I will be acused of them anyways.

You know, for the guy who started this whole brouhaha by pretending to
be two people and then lying repeatedly when caught, you're pretty
self-righteous.

> Oh yes, this Dan person really was me.  I posted his messages, and you think
> they were someone else.  I needed to give myself credit.

Okay, I'll bite.  Who's this Dan person you're talking about?  And
please show where *I* said you were he.  I did say you were OSXis_1987,
and I've just apologized for saying it if you truly were not, but I have
not said you were posing as anyone else.  It's possible someone else
has, but don't go accusing me of that without any proof.

> Do you believe me?  I bet you do.  

Frankly, I have no idea when to believe you and when not to.

-- 
Mike Rosenberg

<http://www.macconsult.com>
<http://bogart-tribute.net>

Crucifyself03 <crucifyself03@aol.comnojunk> wrote:

> I never outright denied having any other names.

Yes, actually, that's correct.  What you did is called evading the
question.  Of course, I just pointed out in another post that the same
applies to OSXis_1987.

> I said I will gladly take a screen shot of the names under my own account, as
> this name is not under my former aol account.

Yes, I know that.  I'm the one who just pointed that out yesterday.

> I was not lying there was I?

Nope, you were evading the question.

> It basicially was none of your business what screen names I have or any of
> my personal information.  You seem to not understand this.

None of us care about your various screen names or your personal
information.  What we care about is your masquerading as two different
people.  You seem not to understand this.

-- 
Mike Rosenberg

<http://www.macconsult.com>
<http://bogart-tribute.net>

In article <1fz24te.wubkd9elt1cN%mike@POSTTOGROUP.invalid>,
 mike@POSTTOGROUP.invalid (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> Crucifyself03 <crucifyself03@aol.comnojunk> wrote:
> 
> > I never outright denied having any other names.
> 
> Yes, actually, that's correct.  What you did is called evading the
> question.  Of course, I just pointed out in another post that the same
> applies to OSXis_1987.
> 
> > I said I will gladly take a screen shot of the names under my own account, 
> > as
> > this name is not under my former aol account.
> 
> Yes, I know that.  I'm the one who just pointed that out yesterday.
> 
> > I was not lying there was I?
> 
> Nope, you were evading the question.
> 
> > It basicially was none of your business what screen names I have or any of
> > my personal information.  You seem to not understand this.
> 
> None of us care about your various screen names or your personal
> information.  What we care about is your masquerading as two different
> people.  You seem not to understand this.


Wait, wait, wait. No one cares if you use one name, two names or thirty 
names. What's amusing and you can't explain, is why you would send one 
message under a name boosting your argument sent in a message by another 
name. Since you're presenting something here for discussion, doesn't it 
strike you as at least a little deceptive (and wierd) that you have to 
send messages to agree with yourself?

Ruby

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 16:30:48 +0000,
    Stan The Man (macho@mac.com) wrote:
> It's debatable how many Mac users would still use floppies if they were
> available. For a quick copy of a Word document or two, floppies are
> still superior to the alternatives imho. Maybe many more than 5% would
> use a floppy drive. 

I used to agree with thoughts on a floppy drive, but I no longer do.  
About a year ago I purchased one of these little USB dongle thingies
that shows up as a drive on the desktop.  It's smaller than a floppy,
holds 256 MB, and conveniently plugs into any Mac or PC that has a USB
slot -- and most computers made within the last 5 years do.

The only thing about it -- it cost me $60.00, which makes it a little
pricey to drop a file on it, and give it away to someone.  For that I
just burn CDs -- they're cheaper than floppies and not much larger.
Heck, you could even buy mini-CDs that hold much less than a full CD,
and they're still cheaper than floppies and just as convenient -- if not
more.  Trouble is that you cannot use them in slot-loading CD drives.

Beverly
-- 
Bev A. Kupf
Bev's House of Pancakes

Stan The Man <macho@mac.com> wrote:

> It's debatable how many Mac users would still use floppies if they were
> available. For a quick copy of a Word document or two, floppies are
> still superior to the alternatives imho. Maybe many more than 5% would
> use a floppy drive.

Okay, fair enough, but even my clients who are using Macs with internal
floppy disk drives rarely, if ever, use floppy disks.  I'd estimate
that, among those clients, at most 10% use them, and I can think of only
a couple who use them with any regularity.

I'm also thinking about the clients who've switched from Windows
machines.  I have a dozen or so clients in that category, and not a
single one of them has mentioned any loss at not having a floppy drive
built in.

> You could equally make the claim that the majority
> of Mac buyers were subsidising the minority who want to make use of a
> PC card slot or Bluetooth or a number of other tools and technologies
> which are supplied as part and parcel of today's systems but are in
> practice only used by a minority.

That's a good point, but you could also make the claim that Apple
handles that by having separate iBook and PowerBook lines, for example.

-- 
Mike Rosenberg

<http://www.macconsult.com>
<http://bogart-tribute.net>

RubyTuesday <anon@mungedaddress.com> wrote:

> Wait, wait, wait. No one cares if you use one name, two names or thirty
> names. What's amusing and you can't explain, is why you would send one
> message under a name boosting your argument sent in a message by another
> name. Since you're presenting something here for discussion, doesn't it
> strike you as at least a little deceptive (and wierd) that you have to
> send messages to agree with yourself?

I eagerly await his denial that he's ever done this.

-- 
Mike Rosenberg

<http://www.macconsult.com>
<http://bogart-tribute.net>

In article <slrnbinpsc.k95.bevakupf@ebv.mimnet.northwestern.edu>, Bev
A. Kupf <bevakupf@ebv.mimnet.northwestern.edu> wrote:

> Heck, you could even buy mini-CDs that hold much less than a full CD,
> and they're still cheaper than floppies and just as convenient -- if not
> more.  Trouble is that you cannot use them in slot-loading CD drives.

Actually, in many slot-loaders, you can, as long as they're the regular
80mm small CDs:

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=58641

-- 
Garner R. Miller
Manchester, CT =USA=