Corvette like a PC. I'm dissapointed
Vincent
Does EVERYTHING better than a Ferrari.
Why am I disappointed?
Maybe if they used an Apple logo and raised the price by 3, then I might be
happier.
Joel
BURN! So, so true. Some of the best cars cost half of what the
overpriced competition cost, and it's really more about some phony
"image" of the brands. Same with computers. If and when Apple makes
OS X available to people with "PCs", I will buy a copy and dual-boot
(although I don't promise to use it as my primary OS - but I will buy
a copy when that day comes, and see what I think of it). I ain't
buying one of their whole computers to obtain it, when I could build
one like it myself for less than half the money.
--
Joel Crump
Lloyd Parsons
Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Vincent" <Vvin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.gmhightechperformance.com/features/0702gmhtp_chevy_corvette_z06_fe
> >rrari_f430_lamborghini_gallardo/index.html
> >
> >Does EVERYTHING better than a Ferrari.
> >
> >Why am I disappointed?
> >
> >Maybe if they used an Apple logo and raised the price by 3, then I might be
> >happier.
>
>
> BURN! So, so true. Some of the best cars cost half of what the
> overpriced competition cost, and it's really more about some phony
> "image" of the brands. Same with computers. If and when Apple makes
> OS X available to people with "PCs", I will buy a copy and dual-boot
> (although I don't promise to use it as my primary OS - but I will buy
> a copy when that day comes, and see what I think of it). I ain't
> buying one of their whole computers to obtain it, when I could build
> one like it myself for less than half the money.
Well, since I doubt that Apple will ever do that, I guess you don't have
to worry.
And btw, you can build a computer JUST like and iMac and Mini for less
that half the money? Bullshit!
You can build one that will perform at the same level, but it sure won't
look at all like an iMac or Mini, hell if you build a tower it won't
even be anything like a Mac tower, other than outer shape.
Vincent
"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydp...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-4D03...@port80.individual.net...
Apple; form over function. I'm happy to see you admit it, Lloyd.
Lloyd Parsons
"Vincent" <Vvvi...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm glad you are happy, but I didn't say that at all.
I was referring to the fit and finish of all Apple products, far above
that slapped together home box Justin is talking about.
I guess you winders types don't mind the poor cases and really like the
butt ugly tower so much you just hide it under the desk for no reason at
all.
Joel
>> BURN! So, so true. Some of the best cars cost half of what the
>> overpriced competition cost, and it's really more about some phony
>> "image" of the brands. Same with computers. If and when Apple makes
>> OS X available to people with "PCs", I will buy a copy and dual-boot
>> (although I don't promise to use it as my primary OS - but I will buy
>> a copy when that day comes, and see what I think of it). I ain't
>> buying one of their whole computers to obtain it, when I could build
>> one like it myself for less than half the money.
>
>Well, since I doubt that Apple will ever do that, I guess you don't have
>to worry.
It does appear that way, but you never know. I actually *want* them
to do it, but they may feel that it wouldn't improve their product.
Gee, I wonder why that would be. Microsoft is more competitive, and I
like that.
>And btw, you can build a computer JUST like and iMac and Mini for less
>that half the money? Bullshit!
>
>You can build one that will perform at the same level, but it sure won't
>look at all like an iMac or Mini, hell if you build a tower it won't
>even be anything like a Mac tower, other than outer shape.
I care what's on the monitor screen, not the damn case. Windows 7
with Aero (or OS X, if Apple wanted to offer to sell it to me) is
beautiful. I could always get a prettier case, too, if I wanted to
waste my time rebuilding my fuckin' machine.
--
Joel Crump
Vincent
NEWSFLASH!! You can buy quality components equal toor better than what
Apple supplies.
FYI: most normal people don't use computers as furniture accessories.
Tommy Troll
> In article <yhnMm.35223$W77.19...@newsfe11.iad>,
>
>
>
>
>
> "Vincent" <Vvvinc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydpars...@mac.com> wrote in message
> >news:lloydparsons-4D03...@port80.individual.net...
> > > In article <phv3g5pdfrrtrvhbnhsilifsr6v9b7q...@4ax.com>,
> > > Joel <joelcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> "Vincent" <Vvinc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >http://www.gmhightechperformance.com/features/0702gmhtp_chevy_corvett...
>
> - Show quoted text -
So buy one of these and stick in the middle of your kitchen!
Steve Carroll
> In article <phv3g5pdfrrtrvhbnhsilifsr6v9b7q...@4ax.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Joel <joelcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Vincent" <Vvinc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.gmhightechperformance.com/features/0702gmhtp_chevy_corvett...
>
> > >Does EVERYTHING better than a Ferrari.
>
> > >Why am I disappointed?
>
> > >Maybe if they used an Apple logo and raised the price by 3, then I might be
> > >happier.
>
> > BURN! So, so true. Some of the best cars cost half of what the
> > overpriced competition cost, and it's really more about some phony
> > "image" of the brands. Same with computers. If and when Apple makes
> > OS X available to people with "PCs", I will buy a copy and dual-boot
> > (although I don't promise to use it as my primary OS - but I will buy
> > a copy when that day comes, and see what I think of it). I ain't
> > buying one of their whole computers to obtain it, when I could build
> > one like it myself for less than half the money.
>
> Well, since I doubt that Apple will ever do that, I guess you don't have
> to worry.
If the PC he buys is a Mac he can do ti right now. He can get a used
Mac in the price range he'd probably consider tolerable for gaining
this ability... unless he's just another hard-core anti Mac person,
that is;)
Vincent
"Steve Carroll" <fret...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:6830b44c-7bc0-44cd...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
As long as he doesn't buy a used pre Intel Mac. They are obsolete already.
In only three years!
Joel
>If the PC he buys is a Mac he can do ti right now. He can get a used
>Mac in the price range he'd probably consider tolerable for gaining
>this ability... unless he's just another hard-core anti Mac person,
>that is;)
Non sequitur. I can build a machine from brand new parts (or
including a few parts I already own, if I so desire) in my "price
range". Screw paying for a used Apple. I want OS X itself. I want
to install it on a machine I either already own or can build.
Otherwise, they can't have my money or my usage.
--
Joel Crump
Steve Hix
Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kewl.
Welcome to free market economics.
Joel
>> Screw paying for a used Apple. I want OS X itself. I want
>> to install it on a machine I either already own or can build.
>> Otherwise, they can't have my money or my usage.
>
>Kewl.
>
>Welcome to free market economics.
Yeah, I implied that, genius. No one's forcing them to sell it to me
legally, nor forcing me not to just pirate it as a lot of "PC" users
are doing, now. But I will forego such piracy. If they don't want my
business, fuck 'em in the ass with a broomstick.
--
Joel Crump
MuahMan
> In article <phv3g5pdfrrtrvhbnhsilifsr6v9b7q...@4ax.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Joel <joelcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Vincent" <Vvinc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.gmhightechperformance.com/features/0702gmhtp_chevy_corvett...
>
> > >Does EVERYTHING better than a Ferrari.
>
> > >Why am I disappointed?
>
> > >Maybe if they used an Apple logo and raised the price by 3, then I might be
> > >happier.
>
> > BURN! So, so true. Some of the best cars cost half of what the
> > overpriced competition cost, and it's really more about some phony
> > "image" of the brands. Same with computers. If and when Apple makes
> > OS X available to people with "PCs", I will buy a copy and dual-boot
> > (although I don't promise to use it as my primary OS - but I will buy
> > a copy when that day comes, and see what I think of it). I ain't
> > buying one of their whole computers to obtain it, when I could build
> > one like it myself for less than half the money.
>
> Well, since I doubt that Apple will ever do that, I guess you don't have
> to worry.
>
> And btw, you can build a computer JUST like and iMac and Mini for less
> that half the money? Bullshit!
>
> You can build one that will perform at the same level, but it sure won't
> look at all like an iMac or Mini, hell if you build a tower it won't
> even be anything like a Mac tower, other than outer shape.
Yeah Mac Mini's are so beautiful. One little tiny box. Then you have
to add the USB hub, keyboard, mouse, ethernet, lol. It's one of the
ugliest computers ever built. Looks like a power extension cord with
like 20 strings of Christmas light plugged into it.
MuahMan
> In article <yhnMm.35223$W77.19...@newsfe11.iad>,
>
>
>
>
>
> "Vincent" <Vvvinc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >news:lloydparsons-4D03...@port80.individual.net...
> > > In article <phv3g5pdfrrtrvhbnhsilifsr6v9b7q...@4ax.com>,
> > > Joel <joelcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> "Vincent" <Vvinc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >http://www.gmhightechperformance.com/features/0702gmhtp_chevy_corvett...
Yeah, it's so beautiful it brings a tear to my eye. It's like art on
the desk. Especially the highly attractive cables.
Lloyd Parsons
<2fc844cf-d11d-437d...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
MuahMan <mua...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hmm....
Lessee now. My mini is sitting there with the power cord connected,
check. Keyboard and mouse are bluetooth, no cord, check. Printer is
wireless networked, no cord, check.
Oops, almost forgot power cord and monitor connection, 2 cords.
So one tiny light on the front of the mini, one small light on the front
of the monitor and 3 cords. Hardly a bunch of anything except nice,
quiet operation and very limited externals that need to be corded, and
nary a usb hub at all.
MuahMan
Oh so it's pretty as long as you don't use it or use any peripherals.
Most people have a cell phone to plug in, digital camera, external
hard drive (especially with the tiny drives the Macs come with), plus
external Blu-Ray player, SD Cards, SDHC, CF cards. Sometimes I forget
Mac users use Safari and nothing else.
Lloyd Parsons
<633dcdfb-82da-4437...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
MuahMan <mua...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm sure you'll be willing to cite the source for what 'most people'
have on their computers. I'll wait.
MuahMan
Steve Carroll
> Steve Carroll <fretw...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >If the PC he buys is a Mac he can do ti right now. He can get a used
> >Mac in the price range he'd probably consider tolerable for gaining
> >this ability... unless he's just another hard-core anti Mac person,
> >that is;)
>
> Non sequitur.
Only if I had written it to you, a thing that didn't happen. I read
what you wrote about not buying a Mac, which is why I didn't bother to
write what I wrote to you as you've already made up your mind not to
buy a Mac. Though I replied to Lloyd, I told him what I'm aware he
already knew. Realistically, I was writing for any reader that might
come along and see your anti Mac stance so as to educate them on the
superiority of the Mac when it comes to OS and app choice, a thing you
would be legally limited from if you built your own machine... a thing
that you obviously place limited value on. After all, it's not like
there's a law that says you must value choice;)
Steve Carroll
Whew... I almost pegged you as having a clue... but then you proved me
wrong by showing that you're operating under the false premise that
they don't want your business. Will they do anything to get it? Of
course not.... but providing the user with the maximum amount of
choices available goes pretty far in trying to get the business of
sane, honest and honorable people. There's not much they can do if you
don't place a value of choice.
Snit
9:37 PM:
Apparently you do not want to use it enough to pay the price to use it. OK.
No big deal. Same idea with cars... if I want the integrated computer
system for a high end car, I need to buy the high end car. I opt for a
cheaper car.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
I predict we'll soon see Tom clocking toilet stock movements in his
area.
Joel
>> Yeah, I implied that, genius. �No one's forcing them to sell it to me
>> legally, nor forcing me not to just pirate it as a lot of "PC" users
>> are doing, now. �But I will forego such piracy. �If they don't want my
>> business, fuck 'em in the ass with a broomstick.
>
>Whew... I almost pegged you as having a clue... but then you proved me
>wrong by showing that you're operating under the false premise that
>they don't want your business. Will they do anything to get it? Of
>course not.... but providing the user with the maximum amount of
>choices available goes pretty far in trying to get the business of
>sane, honest and honorable people. There's not much they can do if you
>don't place a value of choice.
Are you even being serious?! See the OS X License Agreement itself:
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx106.pdf
"2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. Single Use License. [...] you are granted a limited non-exclusive
license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on
a single Apple-branded computer at a time. You agree not to install,
use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-branded computer, or to
enable others to do so. [...]"
It's that I *DO* "place a value of choice", that makes me reject that
outright. If they wanna make a "PC" version of OS X, I'm interested.
Until then, they're loserware, to me.
"Maximum amount of choices"? Are *you* "sane"? You guys are even
weirder than the Unix people, to have such faith in a closed,
proprietary, overpriced, overrated company.
--
Joel Crump
Joel
>> >If the PC he buys is a Mac he can do ti right now. He can get a used
>> >Mac in the price range he'd probably consider tolerable for gaining
>> >this ability... unless he's just another hard-core anti Mac person,
>> >that is;)
>>
>> Non sequitur. �
>
>Only if I had written it to you, a thing that didn't happen.
Are you really that stupid? More like you're that self-centered, but
either way, give me a break.
> I read
>what you wrote about not buying a Mac, which is why I didn't bother to
>write what I wrote to you as you've already made up your mind not to
>buy a Mac.
No shit, Sherlock. That's the whole God damn point. If you can't
even handle discussing the very realistic (in theory, at least)
possibility of opening OS X up to people who build their own machines,
or simply want to buy a machine from another manufacturer, then you
only prove Apple's inferiority. Some "advocacy" group.
> Though I replied to Lloyd, I told him what I'm aware he
>already knew. Realistically, I was writing for any reader that might
>come along and see your anti Mac stance so as to educate them on the
>superiority of the Mac when it comes to OS and app choice, a thing you
>would be legally limited from if you built your own machine... a thing
>that you obviously place limited value on. After all, it's not like
>there's a law that says you must value choice;)
You sound like you have Jobs' dick in your oiled hand right now,
sucker.
--
Joel Crump
Joel
>> Non sequitur. I can build a machine from brand new parts (or
>> including a few parts I already own, if I so desire) in my "price
>> range". Screw paying for a used Apple. I want OS X itself. I want
>> to install it on a machine I either already own or can build.
>> Otherwise, they can't have my money or my usage.
>
>Apparently you do not want to use it enough to pay the price to use it. OK.
>No big deal. Same idea with cars... if I want the integrated computer
>system for a high end car, I need to buy the high end car. I opt for a
>cheaper car.
Wow, the suckers just keep coming up with more defensive explanations
of why they were right to buy the Apple executives more Cuban cigars
and overpriced brandy. What a lame bunch.
--
Joel Crump
Lloyd Parsons
<6a4be258-0ee2-4142...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
MuahMan <mua...@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, since that is the only proof you are providing, am I to assume
that only one person, instead of 'most' that you claimed, have all that
stuff on their desks?
Lloyd Parsons
Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey, Joel. Buy a Mac or don't buy one, who actually cares what you as
an individual do? It is entirely your choice, as it was mine to by my
iMac and Mini.
Lloyd Parsons
Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Steve Carroll <fret...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> >If the PC he buys is a Mac he can do ti right now. He can get a used
> >> >Mac in the price range he'd probably consider tolerable for gaining
> >> >this ability... unless he's just another hard-core anti Mac person,
> >> >that is;)
> >>
> >> Non sequitur. �
> >
> >Only if I had written it to you, a thing that didn't happen.
>
>
> Are you really that stupid? More like you're that self-centered, but
> either way, give me a break.
>
>
> > I read
> >what you wrote about not buying a Mac, which is why I didn't bother to
> >write what I wrote to you as you've already made up your mind not to
> >buy a Mac.
>
>
> No shit, Sherlock. That's the whole God damn point. If you can't
> even handle discussing the very realistic (in theory, at least)
> possibility of opening OS X up to people who build their own machines,
> or simply want to buy a machine from another manufacturer, then you
> only prove Apple's inferiority. Some "advocacy" group.
>
>
Apple Macs are what they are because they are the whole widget provided
from one company.
While the hobbyist might want to fiddle with OSX on a non-Apple
computer, Apple hasn't shown any interest in providing them the means to
do so.
Snit
1:08 PM:
> Steve Carroll <fret...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> Yeah, I implied that, genius. �No one's forcing them to sell it to me
>>> legally, nor forcing me not to just pirate it as a lot of "PC" users
>>> are doing, now. �But I will forego such piracy. �If they don't want my
>>> business, fuck 'em in the ass with a broomstick.
>>
>> Whew... I almost pegged you as having a clue... but then you proved me
>> wrong by showing that you're operating under the false premise that
>> they don't want your business. Will they do anything to get it? Of
>> course not.... but providing the user with the maximum amount of
>> choices available goes pretty far in trying to get the business of
>> sane, honest and honorable people. There's not much they can do if you
>> don't place a value of choice.
>
>
> Are you even being serious?! See the OS X License Agreement itself:
>
> http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx106.pdf
>
> "2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
> A. Single Use License. [...] you are granted a limited non-exclusive
> license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on
> a single Apple-branded computer at a time. You agree not to install,
> use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-branded computer, or to
> enable others to do so. [...]"
>
>
> It's that I *DO* "place a value of choice", that makes me reject that
> outright. If they wanna make a "PC" version of OS X, I'm interested.
> Until then, they're loserware, to me.
Clearly Apple limits what you can do with OS X - you are not supposed to run
it on non-Apple hardware. I have no problem with this. Not sure why
Carroll would feel the need to lie and claim they give the "maximum number
of choices". Weird.
> "Maximum amount of choices"? Are *you* "sane"? You guys are even
> weirder than the Unix people, to have such faith in a closed,
> proprietary, overpriced, overrated company.
Carroll just likes to debate - he is the same one who tried to talk me out
of getting a Mac when I was looking at getting the iMac I currently have:
Steve Carroll:
You "need" for a Mac doesn't look like a "need" at all.
Steve Carroll:
Teaching, web design and tech work are performed on non-Mac
PCs all the time.
Steve Carroll:
What things are you "teaching" or do you plan to "teach" on
OSX that can *not* be taught on a PC?
Steve Carroll:
As to other types of showstoppers... v.1 is always a bit of
a crap shoot.
Going against his advice I got a Mac anyway... and have been very happy with
it (though it has not been 100% trouble free).
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
1:09 PM:
If you do not want a Mac, fine.
I did... and it has served me very well - better than any other machine at
the same price. Not sure why this would bother you.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Joel
>Apple Macs are what they are because they are the whole widget provided
>from one company.
>
>While the hobbyist might want to fiddle with OSX on a non-Apple
>computer, Apple hasn't shown any interest in providing them the means to
>do so.
OK, that is a reasonable (if one-sided) way to look at it. However,
it does indicate that there is at least *something* superior about
Windows.
--
Joel Crump
Joel
>Hey, Joel. Buy a Mac or don't buy one, who actually cares what you as
>an individual do? It is entirely your choice, as it was mine to by my
>iMac and Mini.
Yup, unfortunately true. I would rather run only Windows, than dual-
boot OS X with some kind of hack. Too bad about that money they
could've gotten from me, though.
--
Joel Crump
Joel
>>> Apparently you do not want to use it enough to pay the price to use it. OK.
>>> No big deal. Same idea with cars... if I want the integrated computer
>>> system for a high end car, I need to buy the high end car. I opt for a
>>> cheaper car.
>>
>> Wow, the suckers just keep coming up with more defensive explanations
>> of why they were right to buy the Apple executives more Cuban cigars
>> and overpriced brandy. What a lame bunch.
>
>If you do not want a Mac, fine.
>
>I did... and it has served me very well - better than any other machine at
>the same price. Not sure why this would bother you.
You're absolutely right in terms of the way I wrote the above reply to
you, I apologize.
--
Joel Crump
Lloyd Parsons
Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
While I don't personally care for Windows, it really is amazing that it
runs as well as it does on such a wide variety of hardware.
Apple is what it is today because they chose to make hardware to run
their OS and apps very well for an average consumer with few glitches
and gotchas. They have been very successful in that endeavor.
They have also chosen to specifically not design a product for the
computer hobbyist.
Given your other posts here, I have no problem believing that at the
end, were you to get a Mac, it wouldn't be the right box for you.
Joel
>While I don't personally care for Windows, it really is amazing that it
>runs as well as it does on such a wide variety of hardware.
>
>Apple is what it is today because they chose to make hardware to run
>their OS and apps very well for an average consumer with few glitches
>and gotchas. They have been very successful in that endeavor.
>
>They have also chosen to specifically not design a product for the
>computer hobbyist.
>
>Given your other posts here, I have no problem believing that at the
>end, were you to get a Mac, it wouldn't be the right box for you.
Well said. :)
--
Joel Crump
Snit
1:41 PM:
Thank you. No harm done.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> Steve Carroll <fretw...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >If the PC he buys is a Mac he can do ti right now. He can get a used
> >> >Mac in the price range he'd probably consider tolerable for gaining
> >> >this ability... unless he's just another hard-core anti Mac person,
> >> >that is;)
>
> >> Non sequitur.
>
> >Only if I had written it to you, a thing that didn't happen.
>
> Are you really that stupid?
You've already proven you don't understand the term you used... no
need to press the point.
> More like you're that self-centered, but
> either way, give me a break.
I'm "self-centered" because I pointed about your obvious error?
> > I read
> >what you wrote about not buying a Mac, which is why I didn't bother to
> >write what I wrote to you as you've already made up your mind not to
> >buy a Mac.
>
> No shit, Sherlock. That's the whole God damn point.
LOL! Well that didn't take long... now it becomes all too clear that
this "self-centered" business was nothing but pure projection on your
part. Yes, that necessarily means that I don't give a whit about your
"point" ... as evidenced by my not having responded to you initially.
I made my own point... one that you apparently couldn't stomach.
Perhaps someone is a little touchy because the 'more choices are
better' argument now belongs in the Mac camp ;)
> If you can't
> even handle discussing the very realistic (in theory, at least)
> possibility of opening OS X up to people who build their own machines,
> or simply want to buy a machine from another manufacturer, then you
> only prove Apple's inferiority. Some "advocacy" group.
Nice little delusion you have going here... of course, the reality
that I wasn't "discussing" anything with *you* puts it solidly where
it belongs. If you believe that what occurred here proves anything
with respect to some alleged inferiority on Apple's part you're far
more clueless than I initially suspected. Trying to explain to you
why your "point" isn't "very realistic" would be lost on you as it's
more than obvious that even the simple concept of a business model
stands in your way.
> > Though I replied to Lloyd, I told him what I'm aware he
> >already knew. Realistically, I was writing for any reader that might
> >come along and see your anti Mac stance so as to educate them on the
> >superiority of the Mac when it comes to OS and app choice, a thing you
> >would be legally limited from if you built your own machine... a thing
> >that you obviously place limited value on. After all, it's not like
> >there's a law that says you must value choice;)
>
> You sound like you have Jobs' dick in your oiled hand right now,
> sucker.
Ah yes... the ultimate insult... straight from page 364 of the 'Know
It All High School Brat' handbook... written by losers who build
computers in their mommy's basements for the express purpose of
pretending that they can interface with adults in a conversation they
generally don't understand as they project their attitudes onto people
that have confounded them with realities they refuse to face;)
Steve Carroll
> Steve Carroll <fretw...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Yeah, I implied that, genius. No one's forcing them to sell it to me
> >> legally, nor forcing me not to just pirate it as a lot of "PC" users
> >> are doing, now. But I will forego such piracy. If they don't want my
> >> business, fuck 'em in the ass with a broomstick.
>
> >Whew... I almost pegged you as having a clue... but then you proved me
> >wrong by showing that you're operating under the false premise that
> >they don't want your business. Will they do anything to get it? Of
> >course not.... but providing the user with the maximum amount of
> >choices available goes pretty far in trying to get the business of
> >sane, honest and honorable people. There's not much they can do if you
> >don't place a value of choice.
>
> Are you even being serious?! See the OS X License Agreement itself:
>
> http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx106.pdf
>
> "2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
> A. Single Use License. [...] you are granted a limited non-exclusive
> license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on
> a single Apple-branded computer at a time. You agree not to install,
> use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-branded computer, or to
> enable others to do so. [...]"
You're conflating protection with a lack of choice. Why am I not
surprised? ROFLMAO!
> It's that I *DO* "place a value of choice",
Trust me, I got it long ago... you're just not willing to pay extra to
obtain it. There's no mystery here... you'd rather cobble together a
Gatesenstein monster in your basement and brag about how you saved a
few bucks with technical skills to your high school buddies than buy
something you can use to run the 3 most currently used OSes and
associated apps. It's obvious what you value... and choice in OSes and
associated apps isn't it!
> that makes me reject that
> outright. If they wanna make a "PC" version of OS X, I'm interested.
> Until then, they're loserware, to me.
Sure, sure.. "loserware" that lets a person run all 3 of the current
leading OSes and all the software that runs under them. Gee, what a
great argument you have here, LOL!
(snip Joel's other delusions)
Steve Carroll
> Joel stated in post l0l8g59uv6e1ujiqd1m35t451o2l64l...@4ax.com on 11/18/09
Point to this *alleged* lie.
(snips Snit's unrelated, out of context delusions)
Steve Carroll
Snit has talked about wanting to run all 3 currently leading OSes (and
any associated apps he chooses), why is he "lame" or a "sucker"
because he's willing to pay a bit more to obtain these extra choices?
Or is this just another case of being pissed off that the 'more
choices' argument now belongs *solely* to Mac users?
Steve Carroll
> Lloyd Parsons <lloydpars...@mac.com> wrote:
> >Apple Macs are what they are because they are the whole widget provided
> >from one company.
>
> >While the hobbyist might want to fiddle with OSX on a non-Apple
> >computer, Apple hasn't shown any interest in providing them the means to
> >do so.
>
> OK, that is a reasonable (if one-sided) way to look at it.
It's your viewpoint that is one sided here... as based on your obvious
inability to grasp the concept of a business model and how they differ
from one company to the next.
> However, it does indicate that there is at least *something* superior about
> Windows.
Way to draw a conclusion, "Joel"!
First, toss out business models... we have no need for those when we
assess why Apple does what they do as compared to MS, right? LOL!
Joel
>> >> >If the PC he buys is a Mac he can do ti right now. He can get a used
>> >> >Mac in the price range he'd probably consider tolerable for gaining
>> >> >this ability... unless he's just another hard-core anti Mac person,
>> >> >that is;)
>>
>> >> Non sequitur. �
>>
>> >Only if I had written it to you, a thing that didn't happen.
>>
>> Are you really that stupid?
>
>You've already proven you don't understand the term you used... no
>need to press the point.
Uh, sorry, but you are going to have to eat those words:
http://www.answers.com/non%20sequitur
" 1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the
premises or evidence.
2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded
it."
You wrote: "If the PC he [referring to me] buys ... he can do it
[referring to a key element of my preceding post] right now ..."
Thus, the second definition above *DOES* indeed apply. Your idiotic
(and wrong) semantics argument can go suck off Steve Jobs.
>> More like you're that self-centered, but
>> either way, give me a break.
>
>I'm "self-centered" because I pointed about your obvious error?
You're self-centered because you are lame enough to try to spin the
word non sequitur, with not only a semantics-based dodge, but a WRONG
one at that - it's a mark of a narcissist. You actually believe that
because your reply wasn't directly to me, that you weren't addressing
my point, even though you "obviously" were. You were *specifically*,
explicitly referencing it. You can't make up the rules, even though
your doting parents and private-school teachers led you to believe you
can. Your shit also stinks.
>> > I read
>> >what you wrote about not buying a Mac, which is why I didn't bother to
>> >write what I wrote to you as you've already made up your mind not to
>> >buy a Mac.
>>
>> No shit, Sherlock. �That's the whole God damn point.
>
>LOL! Well that didn't take long... now it becomes all too clear that
>this "self-centered" business was nothing but pure projection on your
>part. Yes, that necessarily means that I don't give a whit about your
>"point" ... as evidenced by my not having responded to you initially.
>I made my own point... one that you apparently couldn't stomach.
>Perhaps someone is a little touchy because the 'more choices are
>better' argument now belongs in the Mac camp ;)
You made a *somewhat* valid point, and I never actually said
otherwise. But I wasn't going to let you pretend that it was really a
valid *retort* to my own point. That's an important distinction.
Used Macs are a great choice, if one wants an Apple machine, but they
don't satisfy the need to run OS X on hardware of my own design or
choosing. And, as far as Mac controlling more choices ... er, yeah,
they sure *do*, because they rigidly control one of the operating
systems! Gee, you're actually helping my point. :)
>>�If you can't
>> even handle discussing the very realistic (in theory, at least)
>> possibility of opening OS X up to people who build their own machines,
>> or simply want to buy a machine from another manufacturer, then you
>> only prove Apple's inferiority. �Some "advocacy" group.
>
>Nice little delusion you have going here... of course, the reality
>that I wasn't "discussing" anything with *you* puts it solidly where
>it belongs. If you believe that what occurred here proves anything
>with respect to some alleged inferiority on Apple's part you're far
>more clueless than I initially suspected. Trying to explain to you
>why your "point" isn't "very realistic" would be lost on you as it's
>more than obvious that even the simple concept of a business model
>stands in your way.
Oh, is that a fact? I guess it's impossible that I actually do
understand Apple pretty damn well. I used an Apple IIe, long ago, and
even visited a local Apple user group. I know the niche. I also
think it's overrated. And at this point, it just doesn't make sense.
OS X runs on Intel-based CPUs. OS X already supports quite a bit of
third-party hardware. OS X can even run on generic PCs without all
that much hacking. But does Apple offer a generic-PC version of it?
Nope. Pretty weird, huh? What do they have to lose?
Thus, it must really be that MS makes Apple wet its pants in fear.
They must think they're *incapable* of adapting OS X that extra mile.
Pretty lame.
>> You sound like you have Jobs' dick in your oiled hand right now,
>> sucker.
>
>Ah yes... the ultimate insult... straight from page 364 of the 'Know
>It All High School Brat' handbook... written by losers who build
>computers in their mommy's basements for the express purpose of
>pretending that they can interface with adults in a conversation they
>generally don't understand as they project their attitudes onto people
>that have confounded them with realities they refuse to face;)
I'm probably older than you are, Mac boy.
--
Joel Crump
Joel
>> "2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
>> A. Single Use License. [...] you are granted a limited non-exclusive
>> license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on
>> a single Apple-branded computer at a time. You agree not to install,
>> use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-branded computer, or to
>> enable others to do so. [...]"
>
>You're conflating protection with a lack of choice. Why am I not
>surprised? ROFLMAO!
What are they protecting? Their hardware revenues? Their *MONOPOLY*?
Duh. Funny how MS gets labeled that way, because of their market
share, but it's really Apple that exhibits it.
>> It's that I *DO* "place a value of choice",
>
>Trust me, I got it long ago... you're just not willing to pay extra to
>obtain it. There's no mystery here... you'd rather cobble together a
>Gatesenstein monster in your basement and brag about how you saved a
>few bucks with technical skills to your high school buddies than buy
>something you can use to run the 3 most currently used OSes and
>associated apps. It's obvious what you value... and choice in OSes and
>associated apps isn't it!
If I have to buy hardware from a single manufacturer to run all three
OSes legally, said manufacturer can eat shit, along with their goofy
OS. "Two outta three ain't bad".
>> that makes me reject that
>> outright. �If they wanna make a "PC" version of OS X, I'm interested.
>> Until then, they're loserware, to me.
>
>Sure, sure.. "loserware" that lets a person run all 3 of the current
>leading OSes and all the software that runs under them. Gee, what a
>great argument you have here, LOL!
You must be one shy mother fucker in public, kid. Holy jeez, that is
some stupid, weakling, Mac-user bullshit. What a pussy-ass thing to
say, even in a group like this.
>(snip Joel's other delusions)
Keep deluding yourself.
--
Joel Crump
Joel
>> OK, that is a reasonable (if one-sided) way to look at it.
>
>It's your viewpoint that is one sided here... as based on your obvious
>inability to grasp the concept of a business model and how they differ
>from one company to the next.
>
>>�However, it does indicate that there is at least *something* superior about
>> Windows.
>
>Way to draw a conclusion, "Joel"!
>
>First, toss out business models... we have no need for those when we
>assess why Apple does what they do as compared to MS, right? LOL!
You have no comprehension of rhetoric, dweeb. Of course we can all
see the obvious distinctions between MS and Apple. Doesn't stop me
from pointing out the absurd extent some of these distinctions still
go to, nor from pointing out how someone like you backs Apple up, as
if they ever did anything for you but rake in your money.
--
Joel Crump
Joel
>Snit has talked about wanting to run all 3 currently leading OSes (and
>any associated apps he chooses), why is he "lame" or a "sucker"
>because he's willing to pay a bit more to obtain these extra choices?
>Or is this just another case of being pissed off that the 'more
>choices' argument now belongs *solely* to Mac users?
I never was pissed off, since that's only true if you argue from the
perspective that it makes sense to limit yourself to one hardware
supplier, you complete idiot of a troll.
They can take my money or leave it. Period. I won't used a hacked
OS X, nor will I buy one of their machines. I won't lose sleep over
it. *YOU* are the one who has the incessant need to justify your
sucker-ass pissing of money in Apple's general direction, by
pretending like it gave you the "choice" of *their own* OS. Duh.
--
Joel Crump
Alan Baker
Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Steve Carroll <fret...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> "2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
> >> A. Single Use License. [...] you are granted a limited non-exclusive
> >> license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on
> >> a single Apple-branded computer at a time. You agree not to install,
> >> use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-branded computer, or to
> >> enable others to do so. [...]"
> >
> >You're conflating protection with a lack of choice. Why am I not
> >surprised? ROFLMAO!
>
>
> What are they protecting? Their hardware revenues? Their *MONOPOLY*?
> Duh. Funny how MS gets labeled that way, because of their market
> share, but it's really Apple that exhibits it.
Apple has a monopoly on computers that run Mac OS X...
...because it is what they own.
Microsoft has a monopoly (effective; not 100%) on operating systems for
IBM-compatible PCs.
What got Microsoft into trouble was what they *did* with that monopoly.
--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)
Snit
3:25 PM:
> Steve Carroll <fret...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>> If the PC he buys is a Mac he can do ti right now. He can get a used
>>>>>> Mac in the price range he'd probably consider tolerable for gaining
>>>>>> this ability... unless he's just another hard-core anti Mac person,
>>>>>> that is;)
>>>
>>>>> Non sequitur. �
>>>
>>>> Only if I had written it to you, a thing that didn't happen.
>>>
>>> Are you really that stupid?
>>
>> You've already proven you don't understand the term you used... no
>> need to press the point.
>
>
> Uh, sorry, but you are going to have to eat those words:
>
> http://www.answers.com/non%20sequitur
>
> " 1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the
> premises or evidence.
> 2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded
> it."
>
>
> You wrote: "If the PC he [referring to me] buys ... he can do it
> [referring to a key element of my preceding post] right now ..."
> Thus, the second definition above *DOES* indeed apply. Your idiotic
> (and wrong) semantics argument can go suck off Steve Jobs.
Carroll is king of semantic debates. He once ran to an ancient use of the
term "wife" to show he either was or was not married (he used to claim
both), and spent *years* saying I was wrong about someone being *actually*
guilty of breaking the law because the person had not been *found* guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. He eventually said this was
because I had agreed that the discussion was about laws and, in that way,
was a "legal context" and thus it was completely fair - in his twisted mind
- for him to jump to the context of legal *adjudication*. When that failed
Steve, he glommed on to a comment of mine where I acknowledged, if you use
the level of proof required in a mathematical proof, that one cannot prove
things about the real world (old brain-in-the-vat stuff). Steve changed
contexts to insist that this meant my argument, even though very strongly
supported, was not proved and thus was disputed (his "thinking" is a perfect
example of an argument from ignorance).
Then Steve saw me speak poorly of the the MacBook Air, with its reported
non-user-replacable battery, and - since my comment was a bit of a hyperbole
- quoted a comment of mine about it *thousands* of times. He continued even
when I showed him others using the same term ("disposable").
Finally, Steve freaked out, tracked me down to where I work, claimed I was
not really that person (claiming was an imposter of the person he claimed I
was... huh?) and said he was going to make a list of reasons he hates me and
send it to my employer. He was certain this would get me fired... but he
would "twist arms" if he had to.
Carroll really is a bit insane. To be kind. :)
>
>>> More like you're that self-centered, but
>>> either way, give me a break.
>>
>> I'm "self-centered" because I pointed about your obvious error?
>
>
> You're self-centered because you are lame enough to try to spin the
> word non sequitur, with not only a semantics-based dodge, but a WRONG
> one at that - it's a mark of a narcissist. You actually believe that
> because your reply wasn't directly to me, that you weren't addressing
> my point, even though you "obviously" were. You were *specifically*,
> explicitly referencing it. You can't make up the rules, even though
> your doting parents and private-school teachers led you to believe you
> can. Your shit also stinks.
LOL! Good to see others call Steve on his BS. Wait for his "clique" and
sock puppets to jump in to his rescue. They will.
>>>> I read
>>>> what you wrote about not buying a Mac, which is why I didn't bother to
>>>> write what I wrote to you as you've already made up your mind not to
>>>> buy a Mac.
>>>
>>> No shit, Sherlock. �That's the whole God damn point.
>>
>> LOL! Well that didn't take long... now it becomes all too clear that
>> this "self-centered" business was nothing but pure projection on your
>> part. Yes, that necessarily means that I don't give a whit about your
>> "point" ... as evidenced by my not having responded to you initially.
>> I made my own point... one that you apparently couldn't stomach.
>> Perhaps someone is a little touchy because the 'more choices are
>> better' argument now belongs in the Mac camp ;)
>
>
> You made a *somewhat* valid point, and I never actually said
> otherwise. But I wasn't going to let you pretend that it was really a
> valid *retort* to my own point. That's an important distinction.
> Used Macs are a great choice, if one wants an Apple machine, but they
> don't satisfy the need to run OS X on hardware of my own design or
> choosing. And, as far as Mac controlling more choices ... er, yeah,
> they sure *do*, because they rigidly control one of the operating
> systems! Gee, you're actually helping my point. :)
But will he understand it even now?
>>> �If you can't
>>> even handle discussing the very realistic (in theory, at least)
>>> possibility of opening OS X up to people who build their own machines,
>>> or simply want to buy a machine from another manufacturer, then you
>>> only prove Apple's inferiority. �Some "advocacy" group.
>>
>> Nice little delusion you have going here... of course, the reality
>> that I wasn't "discussing" anything with *you* puts it solidly where
>> it belongs. If you believe that what occurred here proves anything
>> with respect to some alleged inferiority on Apple's part you're far
>> more clueless than I initially suspected. Trying to explain to you
>> why your "point" isn't "very realistic" would be lost on you as it's
>> more than obvious that even the simple concept of a business model
>> stands in your way.
>
>
> Oh, is that a fact? I guess it's impossible that I actually do
> understand Apple pretty damn well. I used an Apple IIe, long ago, and
> even visited a local Apple user group. I know the niche. I also
> think it's overrated. And at this point, it just doesn't make sense.
>
> OS X runs on Intel-based CPUs. OS X already supports quite a bit of
> third-party hardware. OS X can even run on generic PCs without all
> that much hacking. But does Apple offer a generic-PC version of it?
> Nope. Pretty weird, huh? What do they have to lose?
They would have to support a lot more configurations and hardware. And they
would lose the ability to design the hardware and software as a unit. I can
see the argument that users want to use OS X on other hardware... they
clearly do. But Apple's business model works well for them and, as a
consumer of their products, for me.
> Thus, it must really be that MS makes Apple wet its pants in fear.
> They must think they're *incapable* of adapting OS X that extra mile.
> Pretty lame.
I am sure they could get OS X to run on other hardware, but it would be a
huge headache to get it to support the wide variety that exists... *and* it
would likely be something that leads to less profit (they would sell more
software but less hardware... and support costs would go way up).
>>> You sound like you have Jobs' dick in your oiled hand right now,
>>> sucker.
>>
>> Ah yes... the ultimate insult... straight from page 364 of the 'Know
>> It All High School Brat' handbook... written by losers who build
>> computers in their mommy's basements for the express purpose of
>> pretending that they can interface with adults in a conversation they
>> generally don't understand as they project their attitudes onto people
>> that have confounded them with realities they refuse to face;)
>
>
> I'm probably older than you are, Mac boy.
Mentally, at the very least.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
3:29 PM:
> Steve Carroll <fret...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Snit has talked about wanting to run all 3 currently leading OSes (and
>> any associated apps he chooses), why is he "lame" or a "sucker"
>> because he's willing to pay a bit more to obtain these extra choices?
>> Or is this just another case of being pissed off that the 'more
>> choices' argument now belongs *solely* to Mac users?
>
>
> I never was pissed off,
Steve likes to tell people how they feel.
> since that's only true if you argue from the perspective that it makes sense
> to limit yourself to one hardware supplier, you complete idiot of a troll.
>
> They can take my money or leave it. Period. I won't used a hacked OS X, nor
> will I buy one of their machines. I won't lose sleep over it. *YOU* are the
> one who has the incessant need to justify your sucker-ass pissing of money in
> Apple's general direction, by pretending like it gave you the "choice" of
> *their own* OS. Duh.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Joel
>> What are they protecting? Their hardware revenues? Their *MONOPOLY*?
>> Duh. Funny how MS gets labeled that way, because of their market
>> share, but it's really Apple that exhibits it.
>
>Apple has a monopoly on computers that run Mac OS X...
>
>...because it is what they own.
>
>Microsoft has a monopoly (effective; not 100%) on operating systems for
>IBM-compatible PCs.
>
>What got Microsoft into trouble was what they *did* with that monopoly.
What they did was nowhere near the outrage it was made out to be,
though. And they did comply with the settlement. It's certainly true
that they have a monopoly on Windows, as Apple does on OS X, and in
neither case is that a problem in and of itself. But Apple's
convenient niche-sticking-to is a lot more monopolistIC, in any
serious terms. MS was more than happy to adjust their practices to
appease those who felt they were anticompetitive (minor or even
downright trivial as those accusations really were).
--
Joel Crump
Snit
3:28 PM:
>>> that makes me reject that
>>> outright. �If they wanna make a "PC" version of OS X, I'm interested.
>>> Until then, they're loserware, to me.
>>
>> Sure, sure.. "loserware" that lets a person run all 3 of the current
>> leading OSes and all the software that runs under them. Gee, what a
>> great argument you have here, LOL!
>
>
> You must be one shy mother fucker in public, kid. Holy jeez, that is
> some stupid, weakling, Mac-user bullshit. What a pussy-ass thing to
> say, even in a group like this.
>
>
>> (snip Joel's other delusions)
>
>
> Keep deluding yourself.
Carroll snips and runs when he knows he has backed himself into a corner.
Again.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
3:29 PM:
> Steve Carroll <fret...@comcast.net> wrote:
Carroll backs Apple when it serves his need to troll... but then whines
about how Apple makes him unable to tell a caps-lock arrow from an
exclamation point elsewhere.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Alan Baker
Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry, but that's nonsense.
Apple "uses" its monopoly to do what anyone who creates anything is
supposed to do: profit from their creation.
Microsoft used theirs to control other areas of commerce.
Steve Carroll
> Steve Carroll <fretw...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> >If the PC he buys is a Mac he can do ti right now. He can get a used
> >> >> >Mac in the price range he'd probably consider tolerable for gaining
> >> >> >this ability... unless he's just another hard-core anti Mac person,
> >> >> >that is;)
>
> >> >> Non sequitur.
>
> >> >Only if I had written it to you, a thing that didn't happen.
>
> >> Are you really that stupid?
>
> >You've already proven you don't understand the term you used... no
> >need to press the point.
>
> Uh, sorry, but you are going to have to eat those words:
>
> http://www.answers.com/non%20sequitur
>
> " 1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the
> premises or evidence.
> 2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded
> it."
>
> You wrote: "If the PC he [referring to me] buys ... he can do it
>
> [referring to a key element of my preceding post] right now ..."
> Thus, the second definition above *DOES* indeed apply.
LOL! It preceded it, yes... but what I wrote is in no way illogical
with respect to what you wrote about OSX and "PCs":
"If and when Apple makes OS X available to people with "PCs", I will
buy a copy and dual-boot..."
Hint: Macs *are* "PC's"... which is why I wrote: "If the PC he buys is
a Mac..."
Explain the flaw in my logic, Joel... I'm just not seeing it the way
you seem to be.
> >> > I read
> >> >what you wrote about not buying a Mac, which is why I didn't bother to
> >> >write what I wrote to you as you've already made up your mind not to
> >> >buy a Mac.
>
> >> No shit, Sherlock. That's the whole God damn point.
>
> >LOL! Well that didn't take long... now it becomes all too clear that
> >this "self-centered" business was nothing but pure projection on your
> >part. Yes, that necessarily means that I don't give a whit about your
> >"point" ... as evidenced by my not having responded to you initially.
> >I made my own point... one that you apparently couldn't stomach.
> >Perhaps someone is a little touchy because the 'more choices are
> >better' argument now belongs in the Mac camp ;)
>
> You made a *somewhat* valid point, and I never actually said
> otherwise. But I wasn't going to let you pretend that it was really a
> valid *retort* to my own point. That's an important distinction.
The principle "distinction" you missed here was I was busy making my
own point... Macs *are* "PCs".
> Used Macs are a great choice, if one wants an Apple machine,
Or if one wants to run the 3 currently leading OSes and all their
associated apps.
> but they
> don't satisfy the need to run OS X on hardware of my own design or
> choosing. And, as far as Mac controlling more choices ... er, yeah,
> they sure *do*, because they rigidly control one of the operating
> systems! Gee, you're actually helping my point. :)
That they rigidly control OSX is done for obvious reasons. Apple
entire MO from day one was to provide a certain type of user
experience (what you called phony "image")... *that* is what they're
selling. That user experience is what the brand is based upon. In the
business world the dilution of one's brand is generally never a good
thing.
> >> If you can't
> >> even handle discussing the very realistic (in theory, at least)
> >> possibility of opening OS X up to people who build their own machines,
> >> or simply want to buy a machine from another manufacturer, then you
> >> only prove Apple's inferiority. Some "advocacy" group.
>
> >Nice little delusion you have going here... of course, the reality
> >that I wasn't "discussing" anything with *you* puts it solidly where
> >it belongs. If you believe that what occurred here proves anything
> >with respect to some alleged inferiority on Apple's part you're far
> >more clueless than I initially suspected. Trying to explain to you
> >why your "point" isn't "very realistic" would be lost on you as it's
> >more than obvious that even the simple concept of a business model
> >stands in your way.
>
> Oh, is that a fact? I guess it's impossible that I actually do
> understand Apple pretty damn well. I used an Apple IIe, long ago, and
> even visited a local Apple user group. I know the niche. I also
> think it's overrated. And at this point, it just doesn't make sense.
For you. Apple is aware that not every person will appreciate what
their brand has to offer... but that doesn't mean they should tamper
with the brand at the expense of its very existence.
> OS X runs on Intel-based CPUs. OS X already supports quite a bit of
> third-party hardware. OS X can even run on generic PCs without all
> that much hacking. But does Apple offer a generic-PC version of it?
> Nope. Pretty weird, huh? What do they have to lose?
The brand they've spent years cultivating.
> Thus, it must really be that MS makes Apple wet its pants in fear.
Spare me... even Gates has admitted that Apple, as a maker of hardware
and software together, is in a bit of a different business than is
MS.
> They must think they're *incapable* of adapting OS X that extra mile.
> Pretty lame.
What they "think" is about preserving their brand.
> >> You sound like you have Jobs' dick in your oiled hand right now,
> >> sucker.
>
> >Ah yes... the ultimate insult... straight from page 364 of the 'Know
> >It All High School Brat' handbook... written by losers who build
> >computers in their mommy's basements for the express purpose of
> >pretending that they can interface with adults in a conversation they
> >generally don't understand as they project their attitudes onto people
> >that have confounded them with realities they refuse to face;)
>
> I'm probably older than you are, Mac boy.
Then why are you acting like a child?
Steve Carroll
> Steve Carroll <fretw...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> "2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
> >> A. Single Use License. [...] you are granted a limited non-exclusive
> >> license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on
> >> a single Apple-branded computer at a time. You agree not to install,
> >> use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-branded computer, or to
> >> enable others to do so. [...]"
>
> >You're conflating protection with a lack of choice. Why am I not
> >surprised? ROFLMAO!
>
> What are they protecting?
Their brand, obviously.
> Their hardware revenues? Their *MONOPOLY*?
> Duh. Funny how MS gets labeled that way, because of their market
> share, but it's really Apple that exhibits it.
>
> >> It's that I *DO* "place a value of choice",
>
> >Trust me, I got it long ago... you're just not willing to pay extra to
> >obtain it. There's no mystery here... you'd rather cobble together a
> >Gatesenstein monster in your basement and brag about how you saved a
> >few bucks with technical skills to your high school buddies than buy
> >something you can use to run the 3 most currently used OSes and
> >associated apps. It's obvious what you value... and choice in OSes and
> >associated apps isn't it!
>
> If I have to buy hardware from a single manufacturer to run all three
> OSes legally, said manufacturer can eat shit, along with their goofy
> OS. "Two outta three ain't bad".
Good idea... it is best for you to abandon that ol' chestnut of 'more
choices is better' argument now that Apple owns it;)
Steve Carroll
> Steve Carroll <fretw...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> OK, that is a reasonable (if one-sided) way to look at it.
>
> >It's your viewpoint that is one sided here... as based on your obvious
> >inability to grasp the concept of a business model and how they differ
> >from one company to the next.
>
> >> However, it does indicate that there is at least *something* superior about
> >> Windows.
>
> >Way to draw a conclusion, "Joel"!
>
> >First, toss out business models... we have no need for those when we
> >assess why Apple does what they do as compared to MS, right? LOL!
>
> You have no comprehension of rhetoric, dweeb. Of course we can all
> see the obvious distinctions between MS and Apple.
You are continually proving you don't see the distinctions.
Steve Carroll
> >Snit has talked about wanting to run all 3 currently leading OSes (and
> >any associated apps he chooses), why is he "lame" or a "sucker"
> >because he's willing to pay a bit more to obtain these extra choices?
> >Or is this just another case of being pissed off that the 'more
> >choices' argument now belongs *solely* to Mac users?
>
> I never was pissed off, since that's only true if you argue from the
> perspective that it makes sense to limit yourself to one hardware
> supplier, you complete idiot of a troll.
LOL! I wonder what name you used to troll here under when you were
making the more choices is better argument;)
> They can take my money or leave it. Period.
They won't jeopardize their brand for your money. Period.
(snip more ad hominem attacks by a troll who lost his best argument to
a company he loathes)
Steve Carroll
> In article <8lu8g5l4kl2savr4ugfc89uokeo13dl...@4ax.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Joel <joelcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > >> What are they protecting? Their hardware revenues? Their *MONOPOLY*?
> > >> Duh. Funny how MS gets labeled that way, because of their market
> > >> share, but it's really Apple that exhibits it.
>
> > >Apple has a monopoly on computers that run Mac OS X...
>
> > >...because it is what they own.
>
> > >Microsoft has a monopoly (effective; not 100%) on operating systems for
> > >IBM-compatible PCs.
>
> > >What got Microsoft into trouble was what they *did* with that monopoly.
>
> > What they did was nowhere near the outrage it was made out to be,
> > though. And they did comply with the settlement. It's certainly true
> > that they have a monopoly on Windows, as Apple does on OS X, and in
> > neither case is that a problem in and of itself. But Apple's
> > convenient niche-sticking-to is a lot more monopolistIC, in any
> > serious terms. MS was more than happy to adjust their practices to
> > appease those who felt they were anticompetitive (minor or even
> > downright trivial as those accusations really were).
>
> Sorry, but that's nonsense.
>
> Apple "uses" its monopoly to do what anyone who creates anything is
> supposed to do: profit from their creation.
>
> Microsoft used theirs to control other areas of commerce.
Exactly.
Steve Carroll
> Joel stated in post 5us8g59hs8b7mv641hl15t2e95ptffj...@4ax.com on 11/18/09
Correction, you *alleged* the person to be *actually* guilty of
breaking the law.
> because the person had not been *found* guilty
> beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
I said this is the "legal" context in which you initially placed your
argument. In any event, this person was "found" guilty by you... and
that's SO much better than a court of law when the weighing of all
evidence is concerned <eyeroll>.
Hint: Guilt of another party is always arrived at, or should be
arrived at, via a *finding*. All sane, honest and honorable adhere to
this basic human right.
You seem to have forgotten that you were arguing that this person was
*actually* guilty based on what you called your "evidence". Here is
what you wrote about your "evidence":
"Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a
formal
series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else
necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument
points
to the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in
a
logical sense, proof." - Snit
Notably, you even define what "proof" is as you plainly state how your
"evidence" doesn't offer any at all. Apparently you *still* haven't
grasped the basic idea that the job of "evidence" is to make
something *evident*. What's most bizarre is how you claim that your
"evidence" "strongly supports" your argument and the "conclusion" you
reached as you are simultaneously seen admitting that you can't point
to "one thing" that "is true" for which "something else necessarily
follows from it".
Obviously, along with failing to grasp the purpose of "evidence", the
concept of drawing a "conclusion" (as based on things that are "true"
and can "follow" one another in order to draw a viable conclusion) is
an extremely hollow one as seen coming from you.
(snip a pile of lies by Snit who didn't bother even trying to prove a
single thing he lied about)
> Then Steve saw me speak poorly of the the MacBook Air
Poorly? You claimed the thing was disposable!
> , with its reported
> non-user-replacable battery, and - since my comment was a bit of a hyperbole
> - quoted a comment of mine about it *thousands* of times. He continued even
> when I showed him others using the same term ("disposable").
Ah... so it was OK, then... others were doing it, too. LOL! Great
argument you have there for publicly claiming something about a
product that isn't true. You were just joining an idiotic "clique"...
got it;)
(snip more of Snit's unsupported BS as he hypocritically argues
against his own beliefs in order to write this "me too" posts as he
focuses on personality over content).
"I do not focus on personalities over content" - Snit
"I am not fond of "me too" posts" - Snit
Joel
>> >What got Microsoft into trouble was what they *did* with that monopoly.
>>
>> What they did was nowhere near the outrage it was made out to be,
>> though. And they did comply with the settlement. It's certainly true
>> that they have a monopoly on Windows, as Apple does on OS X, and in
>> neither case is that a problem in and of itself. But Apple's
>> convenient niche-sticking-to is a lot more monopolistIC, in any
>> serious terms. MS was more than happy to adjust their practices to
>> appease those who felt they were anticompetitive (minor or even
>> downright trivial as those accusations really were).
>
>Sorry, but that's nonsense.
Wrong.
>Apple "uses" its monopoly to do what anyone who creates anything is
>supposed to do: profit from their creation.
So does MS.
>Microsoft used theirs to control other areas of commerce.
You mean by having the OS people wanted? They worked very hard to
implement an updated system whereby OEMs could offer OS options on
some machines and not others, so that they could alleviate this
overblown criticism. The basic system, before that, though, was not
what it was made out to be. If it was anticompetitive, it was
accidentally so. It wasn't the massive outrage people apparently
still want to make it out to be.
--
Joel Crump
Joel
>> If I have to buy hardware from a single manufacturer to run all three
>> OSes legally, said manufacturer can eat shit, along with their goofy
>> OS. �"Two outta three ain't bad".
>
>Good idea... it is best for you to abandon that ol' chestnut of 'more
>choices is better' argument now that Apple owns it;)
<yawn>
--
Joel Crump
Joel
>Carroll backs Apple when it serves his need to troll... but then whines
>about how Apple makes him unable to tell a caps-lock arrow from an
>exclamation point elsewhere.
Rofl!
--
Joel Crump
Joel
>> You have no comprehension of rhetoric, dweeb. �Of course we can all
>> see the obvious distinctions between MS and Apple.
>
>You are continually proving you don't see the distinctions.
Blah, blah, blah.
--
Joel Crump
Joel
>> Uh, sorry, but you are going to have to eat those words:
>>
>> http://www.answers.com/non%20sequitur
>>
>> " � 1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the
>> premises or evidence.
>> � �2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded
>> it."
>>
>> You wrote: �"If the PC he [referring to me] buys ... he can do it
>>
>> [referring to a key element of my preceding post] right now ..."
>> Thus, the second definition above *DOES* indeed apply.
>
>LOL! It preceded it, yes... but what I wrote is in no way illogical
>with respect to what you wrote about OSX and "PCs":
>
>"If and when Apple makes OS X available to people with "PCs", I will
>buy a copy and dual-boot..."
>
>Hint: Macs *are* "PC's"... which is why I wrote: "If the PC he buys is
>a Mac..."
>
>Explain the flaw in my logic, Joel... I'm just not seeing it the way
>you seem to be.
<sigh> I put "PCs" in quotation marks BECAUSE MAC COMMERCIALS IMPLY
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. You know, the boring guy in the business suit
and the cool skinny guy who everyone wants to invite to smoke up with
them, saying "Hello, I'm a Mac" and "And I'm a PC" (not respectively)?
I *agree* that Macs are also PCs, but apparently Apple is keen on
making that distinction.
My original point was about installing OS X on non-Macs, and you know
it. You're only getting more semantic.
>> �And, as far as Mac controlling more choices ... er, yeah,
>> they sure *do*, because they rigidly control one of the operating
>> systems! �Gee, you're actually helping my point. :)
>
>That they rigidly control OSX is done for obvious reasons. Apple
>entire MO from day one was to provide a certain type of user
>experience (what you called phony "image")... *that* is what they're
>selling. That user experience is what the brand is based upon. In the
>business world the dilution of one's brand is generally never a good
>thing.
I guess they estimate that will be best for their customers. Or their
profits ...
>> Oh, is that a fact? �I guess it's impossible that I actually do
>> understand Apple pretty damn well. �I used an Apple IIe, long ago, and
>> even visited a local Apple user group. �I know the niche. �I also
>> think it's overrated. �And at this point, it just doesn't make sense.
>
>For you. Apple is aware that not every person will appreciate what
>their brand has to offer... but that doesn't mean they should tamper
>with the brand at the expense of its very existence.
Aha! So its existence would be threatened, would it? I actually
would tend to think that they could create separate versions of the OS
for their own hardware, and for generic hardware - except then they'd
lose the money from their own hardware, among savvy people who *would*
buy a Mac, if they had to, but would simply run OS X on a machine of
their choosing, if they didn't.
>> OS X runs on Intel-based CPUs. �OS X already supports quite a bit of
>> third-party hardware. �OS X can even run on generic PCs without all
>> that much hacking. �But does Apple offer a generic-PC version of it?
>> Nope. �Pretty weird, huh? �What do they have to lose?
>
>The brand they've spent years cultivating.
Maybe. But the more I think about it, the more I suspect it's simply
greed.
>> Thus, it must really be that MS makes Apple wet its pants in fear.
>
>Spare me... even Gates has admitted that Apple, as a maker of hardware
>and software together, is in a bit of a different business than is
>MS.
That is *one* reasonable way to look at it, I admit.
>> They must think they're *incapable* of adapting OS X that extra mile.
>> Pretty lame.
>
>What they "think" is about preserving their brand.
Truthfully, I hope it is about that. Simply because that's the only
valid reason for doing it the way they do.
>> >> You sound like you have Jobs' dick in your oiled hand right now,
>> >> sucker.
>>
>> >Ah yes... the ultimate insult... �straight from page 364 of the 'Know
>> >It All High School Brat' handbook... written by losers who build
>> >computers in their mommy's basements for the express purpose of
>> >pretending that they can interface with adults in a conversation they
>> >generally don't understand as they project their attitudes onto people
>> >that have confounded them with realities they refuse to face;)
>>
>> I'm probably older than you are, Mac boy.
>
>Then why are you acting like a child?
At least I'm not being semantic ...
--
Joel Crump
Joel
>> >Snit has talked about wanting to run all 3 currently leading OSes (and
>> >any associated apps he chooses), �why is he "lame" �or a "sucker"
>> >because he's willing to pay a bit more to obtain these extra choices?
>> >Or is this just another case of being pissed off that the 'more
>> >choices' argument now belongs *solely* to Mac users?
>>
>> I never was pissed off, since that's only true if you argue from the
>> perspective that it makes sense to limit yourself to one hardware
>> supplier, you complete idiot of a troll.
>
>LOL! I wonder what name you used to troll here under when you were
>making the more choices is better argument;)
Um, I'm posting with my real name. I don't know who you're talking
about. I'm pretty new to this NG. Installing Windows 7 last month
got me thinking about the whole OS debate, so COLA and this group were
interesting to look into.
>> They can take my money or leave it. �Period.
>
>They won't jeopardize their brand for your money. Period.
>
>(snip more ad hominem attacks by a troll who lost his best argument to
>a company he loathes)
I will grant that they can make the case that they want to preserve
their brand distinction. I will not grant that it can't be argued
that it might really be in the interest of preserving their hardware
profits.
--
Joel Crump
GreyCloud
> On Nov 16, 8:50 pm, Lloyd Parsons <lloydpars...@mac.com> wrote:
>> In article <yhnMm.35223$W77.19...@newsfe11.iad>,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Vincent" <Vvvinc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydpars...@mac.com> wrote in message
>>> news:lloydparsons-4D03...@port80.individual.net...
>>>> In article <phv3g5pdfrrtrvhbnhsilifsr6v9b7q...@4ax.com>,
>>>> Joel <joelcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Vincent" <Vvinc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.gmhightechperformance.com/features/0702gmhtp_chevy_corvett...
>>>>>> _fe
>>>>>> rrari_f430_lamborghini_gallardo/index.html
>>>>>> Does EVERYTHING better than a Ferrari.
>>>>>> Why am I disappointed?
>>>>>> Maybe if they used an Apple logo and raised the price by 3, then I might
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> happier.
>>>>> BURN! So, so true. Some of the best cars cost half of what the
>>>>> overpriced competition cost, and it's really more about some phony
>>>>> "image" of the brands. Same with computers. If and when Apple makes
>>>>> OS X available to people with "PCs", I will buy a copy and dual-boot
>>>>> a copy when that day comes, and see what I think of it). I ain't
>>>>> buying one of their whole computers to obtain it, when I could build
>>>>> one like it myself for less than half the money.
>>>> Well, since I doubt that Apple will ever do that, I guess you don't have
>>>> to worry.
>>>> And btw, you can build a computer JUST like and iMac and Mini for less
>>>> that half the money? Bullshit!
>>>> You can build one that will perform at the same level, but it sure won't
>>>> look at all like an iMac or Mini, hell if you build a tower it won't
>>>> even be anything like a Mac tower, other than outer shape.
>>> Apple; form over function. I'm happy to see you admit it, Lloyd.
>> I'm glad you are happy, but I didn't say that at all.
>>
>> I was referring to the fit and finish of all Apple products, far above
>> that slapped together home box Justin is talking about.
>>
>> I guess you winders types don't mind the poor cases and really like the
>> butt ugly tower so much you just hide it under the desk for no reason at
>> all.
>
> Yeah, it's so beautiful it brings a tear to my eye. It's like art on
> the desk. Especially the highly attractive cables.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/george_iii/image/46737419
What's that black long thingy hanging from the wall?
--
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
William G. McAdoo.
American Government official (1863-1941).
Joel
>On Nov 18, 1:22�pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> Joel stated in post l0l8g59uv6e1ujiqd1m35t451o2l64l...@4ax.com on 11/18/09
>> 1:08 PM:
>>
>> > It's that I *DO* "place a value of choice", that makes me reject that
>> > outright. �If they wanna make a "PC" version of OS X, I'm interested.
>> > Until then, they're loserware, to me.
>>
>> it on non-Apple hardware. �I have no problem with this. �Not sure why
>> Carroll would feel the need to lie and claim they give the "maximum number
>> of choices". �Weird.
>
>Point to this *alleged* lie.
Limiting running all three OSes to their own brand of hardware is not
the "maximum amount of choices".
--
Joel Crump
Snit
9:11 PM:
Apple limits their OS to running on their own hardware. This seems to
bother you more than it does me, but to claim Apple is increasing choice by
limiting it is lovely doublespeak from Carroll.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8:38 PM:
He whined about an "exclamation point" in a login field and said he could
not log in. I told him he was an idiot and just describing the caps lock
incorrectly. He said I was wrong... but later claimed there was a problem
with the login icon popping up. It was one of the most amazing screw ups I
have seen from anyone in CSMA.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Alan Baker
Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> >> >What got Microsoft into trouble was what they *did* with that monopoly.
> >>
> >> What they did was nowhere near the outrage it was made out to be,
> >> though. And they did comply with the settlement. It's certainly true
> >> that they have a monopoly on Windows, as Apple does on OS X, and in
> >> neither case is that a problem in and of itself. But Apple's
> >> convenient niche-sticking-to is a lot more monopolistIC, in any
> >> serious terms. MS was more than happy to adjust their practices to
> >> appease those who felt they were anticompetitive (minor or even
> >> downright trivial as those accusations really were).
> >
> >Sorry, but that's nonsense.
>
>
> Wrong.
>
>
> >Apple "uses" its monopoly to do what anyone who creates anything is
> >supposed to do: profit from their creation.
>
>
> So does MS.
Nope. Sorry.
>
>
> >Microsoft used theirs to control other areas of commerce.
>
>
> You mean by having the OS people wanted? They worked very hard to
> implement an updated system whereby OEMs could offer OS options on
> some machines and not others, so that they could alleviate this
> overblown criticism. The basic system, before that, though, was not
> what it was made out to be. If it was anticompetitive, it was
> accidentally so. It wasn't the massive outrage people apparently
> still want to make it out to be.
No.
By imposing terms on PC manufacturers to make it uneconomic for them to
offer any OS but Microsoft's. By leveraging their OS monopoly to shut
out other web browsers.
You know:
The stuff they were found guilty of doing.
wetpixel
<joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's that I *DO* "place a value of choice", that makes me reject that
> outright. If they wanna make a "PC" version of OS X, I'm interested.
> Until then, they're loserware, to me.
No, not loserware -- just outside your range.
You don't have to justify some emotional overreaction to not having
that in your choice range.
And I'll show you why it's an overreaction: you want it if it is
available. So it cannot be a piece of loserware if it is not available
-- it would have to be something you want but are not offered.
> "Maximum amount of choices"? Are *you* "sane"? You guys are even
> weirder than the Unix people, to have such faith in a closed,
> proprietary, overpriced, overrated company.
Can't be both closed and proprietary; that's redundancy.
Overrated requires that you show some evidence.
Overpriced requires that you show the differences are not worth the
price.
You've done none of those things.
Maximum choices includes all Windows PCs, Mac PCs, and Linux PCs -- in
short, all choices. The list is much weaker for the consumer without
the Mac systems in it.
Steve Hix
Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Steve Hix <se...@NOSPAMmac.comINVALID> wrote:
>
> >> Screw paying for a used Apple. I want OS X itself. I want
> >> to install it on a machine I either already own or can build.
> >> Otherwise, they can't have my money or my usage.
> >
> >Kewl.
> >
> >Welcome to free market economics.
>
>
> Yeah, I implied that, genius. No one's forcing them to sell it to me
> legally, nor forcing me not to just pirate it as a lot of "PC" users
> are doing, now. But I will forego such piracy. If they don't want my
> business, fuck 'em in the ass with a broomstick.
Which brings up the question, if you're in to FME like you say, why
you're hanging around bloviating at such length.
Don't let the door, etc. on your way out.
Steve Hix
Lloyd Parsons <lloydp...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <14l8g5t2dm8n01m4f...@4ax.com>,
> Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> Non sequitur. I can build a machine from brand new parts (or
> > >> including a few parts I already own, if I so desire) in my "price
> > >> range". Screw paying for a used Apple. I want OS X itself. I want
> > >> to install it on a machine I either already own or can build.
> > >> Otherwise, they can't have my money or my usage.
> > >
> > >Apparently you do not want to use it enough to pay the price to use it.
> > >OK.
> > >No big deal. Same idea with cars... if I want the integrated computer
> > >system for a high end car, I need to buy the high end car. I opt for a
> > >cheaper car.
> >
> >
> > Wow, the suckers just keep coming up with more defensive explanations
> > of why they were right to buy the Apple executives more Cuban cigars
> > and overpriced brandy. What a lame bunch.
>
> Hey, Joel. Buy a Mac or don't buy one, who actually cares what you as
> an individual do? It is entirely your choice, as it was mine to by my
> iMac and Mini.
Naw, he'd rather ratchet up the drama.
wetpixel
<2fc844cf-d11d-437d...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
MuahMan <mua...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 8:41�pm, Lloyd Parsons <lloydpars...@mac.com> wrote:
> > In article <phv3g5pdfrrtrvhbnhsilifsr6v9b7q...@4ax.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > �Joel <joelcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > "Vincent" <Vvinc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >http://www.gmhightechperformance.com/features/0702gmhtp_chevy_corvett...
> > > >rrari_f430_lamborghini_gallardo/index.html
> >
> > > >Does EVERYTHING better than a Ferrari.
> >
> > > >Why am I disappointed?
> >
> > > >Maybe if they used an Apple logo and raised the price by 3, then I might
> > > >be
> > > >happier.
> >
> > > BURN! �So, so true. �Some of the best cars cost half of what the
> > > overpriced competition cost, and it's really more about some phony
> > > "image" of the brands. �Same with computers. �If and when Apple makes
> > > OS X available to people with "PCs", I will buy a copy and dual-boot
> > > (although I don't promise to use it as my primary OS - but I will buy
> > > a copy when that day comes, and see what I think of it). �I ain't
> > > buying one of their whole computers to obtain it, when I could build
> > > one like it myself for less than half the money.
> >
> > Well, since I doubt that Apple will ever do that, I guess you don't have
> > to worry.
> >
> > And btw, you can build a computer JUST like and iMac and Mini for less
> > that half the money? �Bullshit!
> >
> > You can build one that will perform at the same level, but it sure won't
> > look at all like an iMac or Mini, hell if you build a tower it won't
> > even be anything like a Mac tower, other than outer shape.
>
> Yeah Mac Mini's are so beautiful. One little tiny box. Then you have
> to add the USB hub, keyboard, mouse, ethernet, lol. It's one of the
> ugliest computers ever built. Looks like a power extension cord with
> like 20 strings of Christmas light plugged into it.
Yes, there are a lot of cables in the computer world.
But they are true for all computers, aren't they?
And since the mini's are all on one side, that is still manageable,
isn't it?
Oh; Pratt again.
He probably doesn't know that he was criticizing all computers, and
when he does he'll insist only the mini has these cables somehow.
Steve Carroll
> Steve Carroll <fretw...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Uh, sorry, but you are going to have to eat those words:
>
> >>http://www.answers.com/non%20sequitur
>
> >> " 1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the
> >> premises or evidence.
> >> 2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded
> >> it."
>
> >> You wrote: "If the PC he [referring to me] buys ... he can do it
>
> >> [referring to a key element of my preceding post] right now ..."
> >> Thus, the second definition above *DOES* indeed apply.
>
> >LOL! It preceded it, yes... but what I wrote is in no way illogical
> >with respect to what you wrote about OSX and "PCs":
>
> >"If and when Apple makes OS X available to people with "PCs", I will
> >buy a copy and dual-boot..."
>
> >Hint: Macs *are* "PC's"... which is why I wrote: "If the PC he buys is
> >a Mac..."
>
> >Explain the flaw in my logic, Joel... I'm just not seeing it the way
> >you seem to be.
>
> <sigh> I put "PCs" in quotation marks BECAUSE MAC COMMERCIALS IMPLY
> THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. You know, the boring guy in the business suit
> and the cool skinny guy who everyone wants to invite to smoke up with
> them, saying "Hello, I'm a Mac" and "And I'm a PC" (not respectively)?
> I *agree* that Macs are also PCs, but apparently Apple is keen on
> making that distinction.
This is hilarious... you're even agreeing with my point that Macs are
PC's... and you're doing so as you simultaneously cling to your bogus
argument that my reply was illogical. You can't possibly be so stupid
as to not realize that you have 'feeble troll' written all over you,
can you? Either that or you're even dumber than Snit... and that says
a lot;)
> My original point was about installing OS X on non-Macs, and you know
> it. You're only getting more semantic.
Semantic... in this case = pointing out your error... that you just
tacitly admitted to above.
C'mon, Joel... that's the coward's way out of losing an argument... to
whine to your opponent that he's arguing semantics.
> >> And, as far as Mac controlling more choices ... er, yeah,
> >> they sure *do*, because they rigidly control one of the operating
> >> systems! Gee, you're actually helping my point. :)
>
> >That they rigidly control OSX is done for obvious reasons. Apple
> >entire MO from day one was to provide a certain type of user
> >experience (what you called phony "image")... *that* is what they're
> >selling. That user experience is what the brand is based upon. In the
> >business world the dilution of one's brand is generally never a good
> >thing.
>
> I guess they estimate that will be best for their customers. Or their
> profits ...
It's called capitalism... if you don't like it don't participate in
it... or move elsewhere.
> >> Oh, is that a fact? I guess it's impossible that I actually do
> >> understand Apple pretty damn well. I used an Apple IIe, long ago, and
> >> even visited a local Apple user group. I know the niche. I also
> >> think it's overrated. And at this point, it just doesn't make sense.
>
> >For you. Apple is aware that not every person will appreciate what
> >their brand has to offer... but that doesn't mean they should tamper
> >with the brand at the expense of its very existence.
>
> Aha! So its existence would be threatened, would it?
Of course... dilution of a brand is always a threat to existence.
Business 101.
> I actually
> would tend to think that they could create separate versions of the OS
> for their own hardware, and for generic hardware - except then they'd
> lose the money from their own hardware, among savvy people who *would*
> buy a Mac, if they had to, but would simply run OS X on a machine of
> their choosing, if they didn't.
>
> >> OS X runs on Intel-based CPUs. OS X already supports quite a bit of
> >> third-party hardware. OS X can even run on generic PCs without all
> >> that much hacking. But does Apple offer a generic-PC version of it?
> >> Nope. Pretty weird, huh? What do they have to lose?
>
> >The brand they've spent years cultivating.
>
> Maybe. But the more I think about it, the more I suspect it's simply
> greed.
Protecting the existence of a brand isn't greed.
> >> Thus, it must really be that MS makes Apple wet its pants in fear.
>
> >Spare me... even Gates has admitted that Apple, as a maker of hardware
> >and software together, is in a bit of a different business than is
> >MS.
>
> That is *one* reasonable way to look at it, I admit.
It's also the only way that makes any kind of sense. The way you're
looking at it makes no sense, especially for Apple.
> >> They must think they're *incapable* of adapting OS X that extra mile.
> >> Pretty lame.
>
> >What they "think" is about preserving their brand.
>
> Truthfully, I hope it is about that. Simply because that's the only
> valid reason for doing it the way they do.
Nah... we all know they're doing it solely to piss people like you off
<eyeroll>.
> >> >> You sound like you have Jobs' dick in your oiled hand right now,
> >> >> sucker.
>
> >> >Ah yes... the ultimate insult... straight from page 364 of the 'Know
> >> >It All High School Brat' handbook... written by losers who build
> >> >computers in their mommy's basements for the express purpose of
> >> >pretending that they can interface with adults in a conversation they
> >> >generally don't understand as they project their attitudes onto people
> >> >that have confounded them with realities they refuse to face;)
>
> >> I'm probably older than you are, Mac boy.
>
> >Then why are you acting like a child?
>
> At least I'm not being semantic ...
If you believe that then you just proved you don't know what that word
means, either.
wetpixel
Lloyd Parsons <lloydp...@mac.com> wrote:
> > http://www.pbase.com/george_iii/image/46737419
>
> Well, since that is the only proof you are providing, am I to assume
> that only one person, instead of 'most' that you claimed, have all that
> stuff on their desks?
That's ridiculous; that desk would be fine if he didn't drape the
cables over the middle.
Someone tell him they can fall behind the desk, rather than on top?
not Pratt; he won't get it.
Steve Carroll
> Steve Carroll <fretw...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >Snit has talked about wanting to run all 3 currently leading OSes (and
> >> >any associated apps he chooses), why is he "lame" or a "sucker"
> >> >because he's willing to pay a bit more to obtain these extra choices?
> >> >Or is this just another case of being pissed off that the 'more
> >> >choices' argument now belongs *solely* to Mac users?
>
> >> I never was pissed off, since that's only true if you argue from the
> >> perspective that it makes sense to limit yourself to one hardware
> >> supplier, you complete idiot of a troll.
>
> >LOL! I wonder what name you used to troll here under when you were
> >making the more choices is better argument;)
>
> Um, I'm posting with my real name. I don't know who you're talking
> about. I'm pretty new to this NG.
Stop the BS. No one here will buy this from an obvious troll. You
wanna troll, troll... but can the Snow-White act.
> Installing Windows 7 last month
> got me thinking about the whole OS debate, so COLA and this group were
> interesting to look into.
>
> >> They can take my money or leave it. Period.
>
> >They won't jeopardize their brand for your money. Period.
>
> >(snip more ad hominem attacks by a troll who lost his best argument to
> >a company he loathes)
>
> I will grant that they can make the case that they want to preserve
> their brand distinction. I will not grant that it can't be argued
> that it might really be in the interest of preserving their hardware
> profits.
Apple is in the hardware business? You don't say;)
Steve Carroll
> Joel stated in post hah9g5dlakphet50id7bt0mv08vf508...@4ax.com on 11/18/09
Why are you still trying to pretend I said something that you are
unable to show I said? Coming down off a bad drug day again, Snit? ;)
Steve Carroll
You're confused... I asked you to point to the lie you and gluehead
are alleging I told. That means you need to quote me telling this
alleged lie.... not your version of what you thought I said based on
how stoned you probably are;)
wetpixel
Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
> > What they did was nowhere near the outrage it was made out to be,
> > though. And they did comply with the settlement. It's certainly true
> > that they have a monopoly on Windows, as Apple does on OS X,
This is really stupid: a monopoly is not defined by how many people
produce the product. If that were true, all companies that made a
unique product would be monopolies.
> > and in
> > neither case is that a problem in and of itself. But Apple's
> > convenient niche-sticking-to is a lot more monopolistIC, in any
> > serious terms.
No, because the problem with monopolies is how they restrict related
business. Apple does not have any; they are the only maker of the
related computer. But Microsoft commands the Windows-compatible
hardware market; they do not participate in it passively.
What they were found guilty of was trying to command retailers, prices,
competitive products, and even costs from hardware makers outside their
own product. They were able to do so because those companies rely on
theirs. The law says they cannot.
> > MS was more than happy
What the Hell? They fought it by denying it for years, and in many ways
still do! This is the exact opposite of the truth.
> > to adjust their practices to
> > appease those who felt they were anticompetitive (minor or even
> > downright trivial as those accusations really were).
Trivial? Most of the business world thought the courts would break them
up over the hundreds of major incitements they were found guilty of;
only a new Republican emphasis saved them.
> Sorry, but that's nonsense.
>
> Apple "uses" its monopoly to do what anyone who creates anything is
> supposed to do: profit from their creation.
>
> Microsoft used theirs to control other areas of commerce.
No kidding; and to make demands and threats to everyone who wasn't
doing what they said, and paying them even for not using their product.
Steve Carroll
> Joel stated in post tdf9g515uq0hatl8dt4qhk66ucac73n...@4ax.com on 11/18/09
> 8:38 PM:
>
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >> Carroll backs Apple when it serves his need to troll... but then whines
> >> about how Apple makes him unable to tell a caps-lock arrow from an
> >> exclamation point elsewhere.
>
> > Rofl!
>
> He whined about an "exclamation point" in a login field
And you'll show where I did what you're falsely claiming on my behalf
here any minute now. LOL!
Poor Snit... reality is just never around when he needs it most;)
> and said he could
> not log in. I told him he was an idiot and just describing the caps lock
> incorrectly. He said I was wrong... but later claimed there was a problem
> with the login icon popping up. It was one of the most amazing screw ups I
> have seen from anyone in CSMA.
C'mon, Snit... even you can't be so stoned so as to miss the fact that
had I done what you're falsely claiming about here (which I didn't)
it would still pale in comparison to claiming that the MacBook Air is
an $1800 disposable computer. And this from a "Mac advocate" who calls
himself a "computer teacher". LOL!
I know I wanna hire you for all my computin' needs;)
Snit
11/18/09 9:48 PM:
His response was reasoned. I do not agree with Joel, but he does not seem
to be here to pick fights.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> Steve Hix stated in post sehix-D8649D.20480418112...@nntp.aioe.org on
> 11/18/09 9:48 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <lloydparsons-03BFCA.14190418112...@port80.individual.net>,
> > Lloyd Parsons <lloydpars...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >> In article <14l8g5t2dm8n01m4f8loa0em7elthh5...@4ax.com>,
> >> Joel <joelcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Non sequitur. I can build a machine from brand new parts (or
> >>>>> including a few parts I already own, if I so desire) in my "price
> >>>>> range". Screw paying for a used Apple. I want OS X itself. I want
> >>>>> to install it on a machine I either already own or can build.
> >>>>> Otherwise, they can't have my money or my usage.
>
> >>>> Apparently you do not want to use it enough to pay the price to use it.
> >>>> OK.
> >>>> No big deal. Same idea with cars... if I want the integrated computer
> >>>> system for a high end car, I need to buy the high end car. I opt for a
> >>>> cheaper car.
>
> >>> Wow, the suckers just keep coming up with more defensive explanations
> >>> of why they were right to buy the Apple executives more Cuban cigars
> >>> and overpriced brandy. What a lame bunch.
>
> >> Hey, Joel. Buy a Mac or don't buy one, who actually cares what you as
> >> an individual do? It is entirely your choice, as it was mine to by my
> >> iMac and Mini.
>
> > Naw, he'd rather ratchet up the drama.
>
> His response was reasoned.
Calling people who buy what they want "suckers" and "lame" is a
reasoned response? I keep telling you... people just aren't as stupid
as you need them to be. Saying something like:
I don't see the value in a Mac.
... that would be a reasoned response.
Saying "fuck 'em in the ass with a broomstick" is troll language... no
matter how many drugs you've mixed, Snit;)
> I do not agree with Joel, but he does not seem
> to be here to pick fights.
He's clearly here to troll... and no amount of your over medicated
whining can change it.
Snit
8:40 PM:
Carroll does that when he knows he has no point and has made a complete fool
of himself. Then, when even he cannot excuse his BS, he claims he was
acting as he was only because you were. When asked for evidence that you
were, he will insist he has no obligation to provide it *to you* because you
will never accept it. His game is to try to change the conversation from
his obvious idiotic games and put you on the defensive. Wait for more and
more accusations to come from him.
...
>>> I'm probably older than you are, Mac boy.
>>
>> Then why are you acting like a child?
>
>
> At least I'm not being semantic ...
Here is a good example of Steve's flip flopping semantic BS debating
"style"...
Steve argues actually guilty = committed the crime
-----
[Justice Black] is drawing the distinction between legal guilt and
ACTUALLY having committed the crime... the same distinction that
*I* am drawing.
-----
Steve argues actually guilty = found guilty
-----
Being guilty "in a legal sense", being found guilty "in a legal sense",
being determined guilty "in a legal sense" or being *actually* guilty
"in a legal sense", all mean the same thing.
-----
Steve argues actually guilty DOES NOT EXIST!
-----
There is no such thing as *actually* guilty in this context.
There is only guilty or not guilty.
-----
Steve argues actually guilty <> committed the crime
-----
The tough part to deal with is that you needn't *actually* have
committed the crime to be *actually* guilty in this context.
-----
Steve will do back flips to defend the idea that he was not contradicting
himself... will say some "context" change explains it all - though the
context is *all* cases is if a specific politician had been shown to be
*actually* guilty of breaking the law.
He *never* will admit any of his four contradictory opinions was incorrect.
Amusing to watch for a while... until Steve breaks down so far he tracks you
down to your place of employment and threatens to contact your employer and
send a list of reasons he hates you for the purpose of having you fired.
He is insane. Really.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8:38 PM:
> Steve Carroll <fret...@comcast.net> wrote:
Pretty much... Steve loves to tell people what they think and what they
feel... even when completely contrary to what the tell him. And, of course,
if you make a mistake, even if you note it, he forgets the part where you
acknowledge your mistake. From a recent example:
Steve Carroll - November 12, 2009:
Steve - 1:47 PM
> Ah, looking back at my posts I see where I wrote 10.6.2
> when I clearly meant 10.6.1.
Yeah... drugs were probably involved... again;)
Steve - 1:48 PM
> You noted I made a mistake...
And now you're doing your usual whining for 98 posts about
it.
Steve - 2:02 PM:
So you're still having problems... even using 10.6.2.
Interesting. I predict you'll use words like "clear" and
"context" any minute now;)
That is right: Steve responded directly to my noting my error, whined about
my commenting on it in "98 posts", and then in 15 minutes he has forgotten!
It completely slipped his mind that he has *just* been whining about my
error. His comments about drugs are *clearly* projection on his part.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8:38 PM:
> Steve Carroll <fret...@comcast.net> wrote:
Carroll is trying to twist Apple's policy of *limiting* the choices of what
hardware OS X can run on as an example of "more choices". Double talk at
its best!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Joel
>> >Point to this *alleged* lie.
>>
>> Limiting running all three OSes to their own brand of hardware is not
>> the "maximum amount of choices".
>
>You're confused... I asked you to point to the lie you and gluehead
>are alleging I told. That means you need to quote me telling this
>alleged lie.... not your version of what you thought I said based on
>how stoned you probably are;)
I didn't take it out of context. That sentence I quoted is a lie.
Period.
--
Joel Crump
Joel
>> >Microsoft used theirs to control other areas of commerce.
>>
>> You mean by having the OS people wanted? They worked very hard to
>> implement an updated system whereby OEMs could offer OS options on
>> some machines and not others, so that they could alleviate this
>> overblown criticism. The basic system, before that, though, was not
>> what it was made out to be. If it was anticompetitive, it was
>> accidentally so. It wasn't the massive outrage people apparently
>> still want to make it out to be.
>
>No.
>
>By imposing terms on PC manufacturers to make it uneconomic for them to
>offer any OS but Microsoft's.
They corrected that minor glitch in the OEM licensing system long ago.
It was never deliberate, however, but just a consequence of the nature
of most OEM pre-installation of Windows. If they had wanted to
install each machine individually, they could've, whether they wanted
to offer only Windows on a model, or to offer OS choices, but the OEMs
*themselves* benefitted from the licensing (much simpler and more
economical), and still do. It hasn't changed all that much, 'cause
not that much was wrong with it.
> By leveraging their OS monopoly to shut
>out other web browsers.
Utter rubbish. They never prevented anyone from using other browsers.
How dare any competitors try to prevent *MS* and its customers from
benefitting from the innovation of building a browser into the OS?
What a bunch of whining.
>You know:
>
>The stuff they were found guilty of doing.
The adjustments they made to their practices were trivial. That's not
being found guilty, in the sense that you're implying. It's just
choosing not to put up an indefinite fight against something that
wasn't worth their time. They wanted to settle the disputes, and they
were right to do so - but it could've been done with a lot less hot
air from the government and their competitors.
--
Joel Crump
Joel
>> > What they did was nowhere near the outrage it was made out to be,
>> > though. And they did comply with the settlement. It's certainly true
>> > that they have a monopoly on Windows, as Apple does on OS X,
>
>This is really stupid: a monopoly is not defined by how many people
>produce the product. If that were true, all companies that made a
>unique product would be monopolies.
Are you that dense? OS X and Windows are *intellectual property*.
Kinda like a music album or movie are - each one is *specially*
unique. Each is its own monopoly. It's not the same as choosing
between two sources of relative commodities.
>> > and in
>> > neither case is that a problem in and of itself. But Apple's
>> > convenient niche-sticking-to is a lot more monopolistIC, in any
>> > serious terms.
>
>No, because the problem with monopolies is how they restrict related
>business. Apple does not have any; they are the only maker of the
>related computer. But Microsoft commands the Windows-compatible
>hardware market; they do not participate in it passively.
>What they were found guilty of was trying to command retailers, prices,
>competitive products, and even costs from hardware makers outside their
>own product. They were able to do so because those companies rely on
>theirs. The law says they cannot.
You're ignoring the fact that MS settled the case rather than
endlessly appeal it. There's a reason for that: they weren't guilty
of a tenth of that ridiculous crap. They accepted a minor settlement,
and moved on with their business. It was a smart, competitive
decision. Apple, otoh, is still just happily feeding their little
niche. They are far more monopolistic than MS ever was.
>> > MS was more than happy
>
>What the Hell? They fought it by denying it for years, and in many ways
>still do! This is the exact opposite of the truth.
They fought the outrageous charges against them, but were willing to
come to a reasonable settlement. I *DEFY* you to show where they ever
admitted being guilty of all those charges. I happen to know a little
about law.
>> > to adjust their practices to
>> > appease those who felt they were anticompetitive (minor or even
>> > downright trivial as those accusations really were).
>
>Trivial? Most of the business world thought the courts would break them
>up over the hundreds of major incitements they were found guilty of;
>only a new Republican emphasis saved them.
Only an idiot would have thought it would ever have come to that.
Good lord. America needs Microsoft. The government just likes to
blow everything out of proportion to get the result they want. It
wasn't even a big deal. You just got sucked into all the press
bullshit.
>> Sorry, but that's nonsense.
>>
>> Apple "uses" its monopoly to do what anyone who creates anything is
>> supposed to do: profit from their creation.
>>
>> Microsoft used theirs to control other areas of commerce.
>
>No kidding; and to make demands and threats to everyone who wasn't
>doing what they said, and paying them even for not using their product.
If you want a decent laptop for $500, you *should* have to pay MS for
"not using" Windows. You did use it, even as you formatted over it
and installed Linux. You used it as soon as you only paid $500 for
it. Try that business magic with an Apple product. Heh.
--
Joel Crump
Snit
10:37 AM:
Steve will spend 100 posts trying to find some retcon reason why his lie is
not a lie. Keep in mind, though, that Steve has openly admitted he does not
care if he lies to those he decided are not worthy of being told the truth
to:
Steve Carroll:
Yeah... sue me. LOL!!! Like I'm really gonna give a shit
about breaking my word to a deviant like yourself...
ROTFLMAO!!
Steve Carroll:
I'm not sure I even know how to be honest but I have not been
following that particular truth against me... I am testing
the idea that if I ignore those who -can- recognize the
truth, my lies will all go away...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Joel
>> It's that I *DO* "place a value of choice", that makes me reject that
>> outright. If they wanna make a "PC" version of OS X, I'm interested.
>> Until then, they're loserware, to me.
>
>No, not loserware -- just outside your range.
I don't want their hardware, and I don't want multiple machines. That
is not a matter of my "range". That is a matter of being a smart
consumer. If they don't offer me a choice, then they can eat me.
>You don't have to justify some emotional overreaction to not having
>that in your choice range.
>And I'll show you why it's an overreaction: you want it if it is
>available. So it cannot be a piece of loserware if it is not available
>-- it would have to be something you want but are not offered.
Oh, gee, that's fascinating ...
>> "Maximum amount of choices"? Are *you* "sane"? You guys are even
>> weirder than the Unix people, to have such faith in a closed,
>> proprietary, overpriced, overrated company.
>
>Can't be both closed and proprietary; that's redundancy.
Maybe I wanted to *EMPHASIZE* just how closed and proprietary it is.
>Overrated requires that you show some evidence.
Well, it ain't worth the price. That's plenty of evidence for me.
>Overpriced requires that you show the differences are not worth the
>price.
Gee, I dunno, spend twice as much for a computer, as I have to? Seems
like pretty decent logic to me, to say that it's not worth that.
>You've done none of those things.
If you bothered reading my posts, you would see that I have stated my
positions clearly.
>Maximum choices includes all Windows PCs, Mac PCs, and Linux PCs -- in
>short, all choices. The list is much weaker for the consumer without
>the Mac systems in it.
Then why not open up OS X to generic PCs, which it's already capable
of running on with fairly simple hacking? Seems like you're self-
contradicting, to me.
--
Joel Crump
Joel
>> >Welcome to free market economics.
>>
>> Yeah, I implied that, genius. No one's forcing them to sell it to me
>> legally, nor forcing me not to just pirate it as a lot of "PC" users
>> are doing, now. But I will forego such piracy. If they don't want my
>> business, fuck 'em in the ass with a broomstick.
>
>Which brings up the question, if you're in to FME like you say, why
>you're hanging around bloviating at such length.
Oh, I thought it was an "advocacy" group. I guess that doesn't
include answering reasonable challenges to your "advocacy" of my
enemy-OS.
>Don't let the door, etc. on your way out.
I don't plan on leaving. Microsoft needs an advocate, too.
--
Joel Crump
Joel
>> <sigh> �I put "PCs" in quotation marks BECAUSE MAC COMMERCIALS IMPLY
>> THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. �You know, the boring guy in the business suit
>> and the cool skinny guy who everyone wants to invite to smoke up with
>> them, saying "Hello, I'm a Mac" and "And I'm a PC" (not respectively)?
>> I *agree* that Macs are also PCs, but apparently Apple is keen on
>> making that distinction.
>
>This is hilarious... you're even agreeing with my point that Macs are
>PC's... and you're doing so as you simultaneously cling to your bogus
>argument that my reply was illogical. You can't possibly be so stupid
>as to not realize that you have 'feeble troll' written all over you,
>can you? Either that or you're even dumber than Snit... and that says
>a lot;)
You are one stupid child.
>> My original point was about installing OS X on non-Macs, and you know
>> it. �You're only getting more semantic.
>
>Semantic... in this case = pointing out your error... that you just
>tacitly admitted to above.
Bullshit.
>C'mon, Joel... that's the coward's way out of losing an argument... to
>whine to your opponent that he's arguing semantics.
No, you lost, and you are arguing semantics.
>> >For you. Apple is aware that not every person will appreciate what
>> >their brand has to offer... but that doesn't mean they should tamper
>> >with the brand at the expense of its very existence.
>>
>> Aha! �So its existence would be threatened, would it?
>
>Of course... dilution of a brand is always a threat to existence.
>Business 101.
Kiss their asses, then.
>>�I actually
>> would tend to think that they could create separate versions of the OS
>> for their own hardware, and for generic hardware - except then they'd
>> lose the money from their own hardware, among savvy people who *would*
>> buy a Mac, if they had to, but would simply run OS X on a machine of
>> their choosing, if they didn't.
And you don't bother responding to that, of course ...
>> >> I'm probably older than you are, Mac boy.
>>
>> >Then why are you acting like a child?
>>
>> At least I'm not being semantic ...
>
>If you believe that then you just proved you don't know what that word
>means, either.
http://www.answers.com/topic/semantics
"n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
1. Linguistics. The study or science of meaning in language.
2. Linguistics. The study of relationships between signs and
symbols and what they represent. Also called semasiology.
3. The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other
language form: We're basically agreed; let's not quibble over
semantics."
Gee, you're quibbling over whether my putting "PCs" in quotation
marks, an obvious reference to Apple's lame-ass commercials, supports
your point or my point. Clearly, in the context of my posts, it
implicitly refers to MY OWN POINT. Duh. Idiot.
--
Joel Crump
Joel
>> >LOL! I wonder what name you used to troll here under when you were
>> >making the more choices is better argument;)
>>
>> Um, I'm posting with my real name. �I don't know who you're talking
>> about. �I'm pretty new to this NG.
>
>Stop the BS. No one here will buy this from an obvious troll. You
>wanna troll, troll... but can the Snow-White act.
Coming from a guy who makes accusations about illicit drug use, and
stalks other posters? Gee, maybe you should take your own advice,
moron. I assure you, what I said is true. You may think I'm a troll,
but I am posting with valid info, period.
>> I will grant that they can make the case that they want to preserve
>> their brand distinction. �I will not grant that it can't be argued
>> that it might really be in the interest of preserving their hardware
>> profits.
>
>Apple is in the hardware business? You don't say;)
Blah, blah, blah. You have the nerve to call anyone a troll?
--
Joel Crump
Joel
>Carroll is trying to twist Apple's policy of *limiting* the choices of what
>hardware OS X can run on as an example of "more choices". Double talk at
>its best!
I have to say, I am gratified to see that so many of you do understand
that. It's not like there's something wrong with Apple's computers,
but the choice issue is relevant, and it's cool to be able to debate
it in a way that might illuminate the options, to others reading. :)
--
Joel Crump
Joel
>That is right: Steve responded directly to my noting my error, whined about
>my commenting on it in "98 posts", and then in 15 minutes he has forgotten!
>It completely slipped his mind that he has *just* been whining about my
>error. His comments about drugs are *clearly* projection on his part.
Lol, touche. ;)
--
Joel Crump
Joel
>He *never* will admit any of his four contradictory opinions was incorrect.
>Amusing to watch for a while... until Steve breaks down so far he tracks you
>down to your place of employment and threatens to contact your employer and
>send a list of reasons he hates you for the purpose of having you fired.
>
>He is insane. Really.
Christ. The scary thing is, I would have no reason to doubt your word
about that. I've known too many people like him on Usenet, over the
years. :(
--
Joel Crump
Joel
>He's clearly here to troll... and no amount of your over medicated
>whining can change it.
You know, there is a major difference between being "a troll" or "here
to troll", and simply having some "trollish" ways of debating. I
don't see the point of having an "advocacy" group, without debate. I
don't *actually* believe that Windows is superior to OS X (nor vice
versa), but if I'm slightly trollish by making rhetorical comparisons
that imply Windows is superior, doesn't that entertain other readers,
and generate more interesting discussion?
--
Joel Crump
Snit
10:51 AM:
Proof... just in case:
<65f8c761-5d20-4d75...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
Carroll, in the past, has claimed his "dog" is posting... or blamed others
(mostly me) for forging his posts. Take a look at the headers... hard for
him to deny his comments. He clearly is insane and dangerous.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
10:50 AM:
I think most OS X users understand that if they want to use OS X in a
supported way, they are limited to Apple hardware. This means that they are
*not* going to be able to get a machine as cheaply as they could get a PC
(another brand of PC, for the semantic folks who pretend to not know what I
meant). Even with that limitation, and perhaps partly from it, I find Macs
to be well worth it... but I certainly do not hold it against folks for
disagreeing.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]