computers review
raae
George Graves
(in article
<492f5153-1459-4a9f...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>):
> http://latest-computers.blogspot.com
Are you referring to the Sony VAIO PCV-W510G Desktop? If so, I have only this
to say: It doesn't run OSX, that makes it useless. Also it's a Sony, so you
can bet your life that something really important is missing from the
product. Sony does that with just about everything they make.
--
The only reason that the air we breathe is free, is because the corporate
world has been unable to figure out a practical way to meter it.
MuahMan
"George Graves" <gmgr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C3914A19...@news.comcast.net...
Dear Moron:
You have that backwards. Since it doesn't run OSX it's VERY useful. There's
a reason 99% of all major and minor corporations run on Windows platforms of
some kind. OS X is a toy OS for children, and Emo teens. OS X has been
banished from the work place due to incompatibilities and high prices.
PC Guy
"MuahMan" <mua...@cumcast.net> wrote in message
news:e5ydnXVKO_ryjvHa...@comcast.com...
It's no coincidence the Macs marketshare began to increase once it gained
the ability to run Windows natively.
Edwin
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:05:41 -0800, raae wrote
> (in article
>
> >http://latest-computers.blogspot.com
>
> Are you referring to the Sony VAIO PCV-W510G Desktop? If so, I have only this
> to say: It doesn't run OSX, that makes it useless.
You don't run OSX either, so you must be useless too.
> Also it's a Sony, so you
> can bet your life that something really important is missing from the
> product.
You must mean an Apple logo.
> Sony does that with just about everything they make.
Yeah, none of their stuff comes with an Apple logo. But rational
people buy Sony products anyway...
gimme_this...@yahoo.com
Alan Baker
"PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
It's also no coincidence because it the two events didn't coincide.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
PC Guy
"Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-917239.12031021122007@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
Sure they did. Or can you provide some other reason Macintosh has started
gaining marketshare after all these years?
PC Guy
<gimme_this...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5f0e29c2-6577-4dec...@b1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
They buy it. But unless it has an Apple logo they don't *use* it.
If there wasn't a better example of Mactards love of Apple then this I don't
know what it would be.
BlueBuyYoo
Clever marketing and advertising and the fact that many people went looking
for an alternative to Vista.
PC Guy
"BlueBuyYoo" <BlueB...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fkh7vs$lc7$1...@driftwood.ccs.carleton.ca...
So what I hear you saying is that OS X isn't good, it's just that Windows is
bad? Is that how you advocate the Mac?
BlueBuyYoo
There you go again, making inferences to suit your ideals.
Alan Baker
"PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I don't have to provide a reason to show that the two don't coincide. I
only have to show that the Mac's market share started growing at a
different time than the transition to Intel processors.
Apple's Intel transition started in January of 2006, but the Mac's
market share has been going up steadily since before that.
<http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=9&qpdt=1&qpct=4&qptime
frame=M&qpsp=58&qpnp=11>
Start there and click through.
As you can see, Mac market share has been growing since long before the
Intel transition.
PC Guy
What a coincidence that my ideals match reality. Who would have thought?
Alan Baker
"PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Sadly (for you), they don't in this case.
PC Guy
Sure you do. It's your claim they don't conincide so you have to provide an
alternate reason.
> I only have to show that the Mac's market share started growing at a
> different time than the transition to Intel processors.
>
> Apple's Intel transition started in January of 2006, but the Mac's
> market share has been going up steadily since before that.
>
> <http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=9&qpdt=1&qpct=4&qptime
> frame=M&qpsp=58&qpnp=11>
>
> Start there and click through.
>
> As you can see, Mac market share has been growing since long before the
> Intel transition.
Well, you certainly showed me! A change from 3.23% to 3.48% certainly puts
me in my place. Never mind that today the same site lists the Macs market
share as 6.38%
January 2006 Mac marketshare: 4.21%. November 2007 Mac marketshare: 6.8%
Alan Baker
"PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
October 2004 to January 2006: 3.23 to 4.21%
PC Guy
Happily for me you've never been right.
PC Guy
January 2006 to November 2007: 4.21% to 6.8%. Notice that this timframe
represents an increase of 2.59% versues your timeframes .98%
Alan Baker
"PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Yes, the Mac has grown faster, but it's growth didn't start with the
Intel transition. That was your claim. Your claim was wrong.
Alan Baker
"PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Says the guy who was just proven wrong....
Edwin
> In article <l4adnVdMdr-Tt_HanZ2dnUVZ_hqdn...@comcast.com>,
> "PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Alan Baker" <alangba...@telus.net> wrote in message
> > news:alangbaker-FB90C0.12530421122007@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
> > > In article <s7OdnfvdV7logvHanZ2dnUVZ_jqdn...@comcast.com>,
> > > "PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> "Alan Baker" <alangba...@telus.net> wrote in message
> > >> news:alangbaker-917239.12031021122007@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
> > >> > In article <v7adneTRQtVUjvHanZ2dnUVZ_vShn...@comcast.com>,
> > >> > "PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >> "MuahMan" <muah...@cumcast.net> wrote in message
> > >> >>news:e5ydnXVKO_ryjvHa...@comcast.com...
>
> > >> >> > "George Graves" <gmgrav...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > >> >> >news:0001HW.C3914A19...@news.comcast.net...
> > >> >> >> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:05:41 -0800, raae wrote
> > >> >> >> (in article
> > al=1&qptimeframe=Y&qpsp=2007
>
> > January 2006 Mac marketshare: 4.21%. November 2007 Mac marketshare: 6.8%
Your figures are for Web browsing, not for market share.
> October 2004 to January 2006: 3.23 to 4.21%
"First on TMO - Apple Q3 Global Market Share Falls to 1.8% as
Competitors Post Strong Gains
by Brad Gibson, 3:15 PM EDT, October 29th, 2004"
"Apple Computer's worldwide market share fell to 1.8% in the third
quarter of this year from 2.1%, and dropped to 3.2% from 3.6% in the
U.S., according to figures from research company Gartner. The numbers
also showed dramatic declines in the quarter-to-quarter growth rate of
Macs sold while Apple's Windows-based competitors saw double digit
increases in the U.S and an almost 10% rise worldwide."
http://www.macobserver.com/article/2004/10/29.6.shtml
U.S. Mac Market Share
1Q 2005: 3.8%
4Q 2005 (AI): 3.5%
1Q 2006 (ZDNet): 3.5%
1Q 2006 (AI): 3.6%
Worldwide Mac Market Share
1Q 2005: 2.2%
1Q 2006 (ZDNet): 2.3%
1Q 2006 (AI): 2.0%
http://www.macrumors.com/2006/06/01/mac-market-share-update/
Alan Baker
<68ddd5bd-e047-4826...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
You, yourself, cited them as support for your argument the the Mac's
market share had declined.
Do I have to quote you...
...again?
>
> > October 2004 to January 2006: 3.23 to 4.21%
>
> "First on TMO - Apple Q3 Global Market Share Falls to 1.8% as
> Competitors Post Strong Gains
>
> by Brad Gibson, 3:15 PM EDT, October 29th, 2004"
Wow. Ancient news.
>
> "Apple Computer's worldwide market share fell to 1.8% in the third
> quarter of this year from 2.1%, and dropped to 3.2% from 3.6% in the
> U.S., according to figures from research company Gartner. The numbers
> also showed dramatic declines in the quarter-to-quarter growth rate of
> Macs sold while Apple's Windows-based competitors saw double digit
> increases in the U.S and an almost 10% rise worldwide."
>
> http://www.macobserver.com/article/2004/10/29.6.shtml
>
> U.S. Mac Market Share
> 1Q 2005: 3.8%
> 4Q 2005 (AI): 3.5%
> 1Q 2006 (ZDNet): 3.5%
> 1Q 2006 (AI): 3.6%
>
> Worldwide Mac Market Share
> 1Q 2005: 2.2%
> 1Q 2006 (ZDNet): 2.3%
> 1Q 2006 (AI): 2.0%
>
> http://www.macrumors.com/2006/06/01/mac-market-share-update/
I'm not citing the reference for absolute values, but for the trend it
shows.
Edwin
I didn't quote them as direct market share numbers, as your lies make
of them.
> Do I have to quote you...
>
> ...again?
Quote one of the many times I've already corrected you on this.
>
> > > October 2004 to January 2006: 3.23 to 4.21%
>
> > "First on TMO - Apple Q3 Global Market Share Falls to 1.8% as
> > Competitors Post Strong Gains
>
> > by Brad Gibson, 3:15 PM EDT, October 29th, 2004"
>
> Wow. Ancient news.
That's market share news from 2004, one of the years you were talking
about. Did you expect new stories about 2004? Is there no limit to
your stupidity?
>
>
> > "Apple Computer's worldwide market share fell to 1.8% in the third
> > quarter of this year from 2.1%, and dropped to 3.2% from 3.6% in the
> > U.S., according to figures from research company Gartner. The numbers
> > also showed dramatic declines in the quarter-to-quarter growth rate of
> > Macs sold while Apple's Windows-based competitors saw double digit
> > increases in the U.S and an almost 10% rise worldwide."
>
> >http://www.macobserver.com/article/2004/10/29.6.shtml
>
> > U.S. Mac Market Share
> > 1Q 2005: 3.8%
> > 4Q 2005 (AI): 3.5%
> > 1Q 2006 (ZDNet): 3.5%
> > 1Q 2006 (AI): 3.6%
>
> > Worldwide Mac Market Share
> > 1Q 2005: 2.2%
> > 1Q 2006 (ZDNet): 2.3%
> > 1Q 2006 (AI): 2.0%
>
> >http://www.macrumors.com/2006/06/01/mac-market-share-update/
>
> I'm not citing the reference for absolute values, but for the trend it
> shows.
You're a bald-faced liar. You falsely cited Web share figures as
absolute market share figures.
PC Guy
See my comment directly above. Alan, the determination you put into
demonstrating your stupidty to all of us is admirable. But we picked up on
it a long time ago (don't assume because you're slow the rest of us are) so
there's no need to continue reinforcing it.
PC Guy
Prior to the Intel transition the growth of the Macintosh was nothing more
than a sampling error.
Edwin
> "Alan Baker" <alangba...@telus.net> wrote in message
>
> news:alangbaker-71F2E7.13395321122007@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
>
>
>
> > In article <cpmdnVFDH5Clr_HanZ2dnUVZ_vyin...@comcast.com>,
> > "PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> "Alan Baker" <alangba...@telus.net> wrote in message
> >> news:alangbaker-AF60DF.13144721122007@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
> >> > In article <l4adnVdMdr-Tt_HanZ2dnUVZ_hqdn...@comcast.com>,
> >> > "PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> "Alan Baker" <alangba...@telus.net> wrote in message
> >> >> news:alangbaker-FB90C0.12530421122007@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
> >> >> > In article <s7OdnfvdV7logvHanZ2dnUVZ_jqdn...@comcast.com>,
> >> >> > "PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> "Alan Baker" <alangba...@telus.net> wrote in message
> >> >> >> news:alangbaker-917239.12031021122007@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
> >> >> >> > In article <v7adneTRQtVUjvHanZ2dnUVZ_vShn...@comcast.com>,
> >> >> >> > "PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> "MuahMan" <muah...@cumcast.net> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >>news:e5ydnXVKO_ryjvHa...@comcast.com...
>
> >> >> >> >> > "George Graves" <gmgrav...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> >news:0001HW.C3914A19...@news.comcast.net...
> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:05:41 -0800, raae wrote
> >> >> >> >> >> (in article
> >> >> qpc
> >> >> al=1&qptimeframe=Y&qpsp=2007
>
> >> >> January 2006 Mac marketshare: 4.21%. November 2007 Mac marketshare:
> >> >> 6.8%
>
> >> > October 2004 to January 2006: 3.23 to 4.21%
>
> >> January 2006 to November 2007: 4.21% to 6.8%. Notice that this timframe
> >> represents an increase of 2.59% versues your timeframes .98%
>
> > Yes, the Mac has grown faster, but it's growth didn't start with the
> > Intel transition. That was your claim. Your claim was wrong.
>
> Prior to the Intel transition the growth of the Macintosh was nothing more
> than a sampling error.
No matter how much "growth" the Mac has, the worldwide figure is stuck
around 3%.
PC Guy
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:3694cdc0-00b2-4b42...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 21, 4:35 pm, "PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Alan Baker" <alangba...@telus.net> wrote in message
>> > Yes, the Mac has grown faster, but it's growth didn't start with the
>> > Intel transition. That was your claim. Your claim was wrong.
>>
>> Prior to the Intel transition the growth of the Macintosh was nothing
>> more
>> than a sampling error.
>
> No matter how much "growth" the Mac has, the worldwide figure is stuck
> around 3%.
True. A fact Alan hasn't been so keen on bringing up.
Alan Baker
<0fca696c-cafb-4cdf...@u56g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
I didn't quote them as direct market share numbers either. I quoted them
as evidence of market share growth.
Do you agree they show that?
>
> > Do I have to quote you...
> >
> > ...again?
>
> Quote one of the many times I've already corrected you on this.
LOL
>
> >
> > > > October 2004 to January 2006: 3.23 to 4.21%
> >
> > > "First on TMO - Apple Q3 Global Market Share Falls to 1.8% as
> > > Competitors Post Strong Gains
> >
> > > by Brad Gibson, 3:15 PM EDT, October 29th, 2004"
> >
> > Wow. Ancient news.
>
> That's market share news from 2004, one of the years you were talking
> about. Did you expect new stories about 2004? Is there no limit to
> your stupidity?
I was talking about growth over a period of time.
>
> >
> >
> > > "Apple Computer's worldwide market share fell to 1.8% in the third
> > > quarter of this year from 2.1%, and dropped to 3.2% from 3.6% in the
> > > U.S., according to figures from research company Gartner. The numbers
> > > also showed dramatic declines in the quarter-to-quarter growth rate of
> > > Macs sold while Apple's Windows-based competitors saw double digit
> > > increases in the U.S and an almost 10% rise worldwide."
> >
> > >http://www.macobserver.com/article/2004/10/29.6.shtml
> >
> > > U.S. Mac Market Share
> > > 1Q 2005: 3.8%
> > > 4Q 2005 (AI): 3.5%
> > > 1Q 2006 (ZDNet): 3.5%
> > > 1Q 2006 (AI): 3.6%
> >
> > > Worldwide Mac Market Share
> > > 1Q 2005: 2.2%
> > > 1Q 2006 (ZDNet): 2.3%
> > > 1Q 2006 (AI): 2.0%
> >
> > >http://www.macrumors.com/2006/06/01/mac-market-share-update/
> >
> > I'm not citing the reference for absolute values, but for the trend it
> > shows.
>
> You're a bald-faced liar. You falsely cited Web share figures as
> absolute market share figures.
Really? I've snipped no text so underline where I said that...
Todd Allcock
> Sure they did. Or can you provide some other reason Macintosh
> has started gaining marketshare after all these years?
The continued success of the iPod introduced Macs to people that never paid
much attention to them before.
PC Guy
"Todd Allcock" <elecc...@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
news:fki2uq$egq$4...@aioe.org...
Oh please! The iPod has been out since when, 2001? It's just now, four years
later that it's halo effect is gaining traction? Please.
Mitch
<pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Clever marketing and advertising and the fact that many people went
> > looking
> > for an alternative to Vista.
>
> So what I hear you saying is that OS X isn't good, it's just that Windows is
> bad? Is that how you advocate the Mac?
Where in that statement do you see the comment that Mac OS X isn't good?
It is enough to have motivation to move away from a product -- you
don't ALSO get to infer that the product they are moving toward is a
bad one, or not a good one, or anything else. It only had to be a
DIFFERENT ONE.
You need to stop implying that your reasons are clearly thought out and
that your POV matches reality -- you're making unfair inferences and I
think you know it.
Mitch
<pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Sure they did. Or can you provide some other reason Macintosh
> >> has started gaining marketshare after all these years?
> >
> > The continued success of the iPod introduced Macs to people that never
> > paid
> > much attention to them before.
>
> Oh please! The iPod has been out since when, 2001? It's just now, four years
> later that it's halo effect is gaining traction? Please.
>
Why isn't that possible?
Have you never heard of a marketing threshold?
The 'tipping point'?
Psychological significance?
There are MANY reasons that a 'halo effect' wouldn't show right away.
There are almost none that show it should be seen immediately.
(and it's late 2007.)
PC Guy
"Mitch" <mi...@hawaii.rr> wrote in message
news:221220070857339782%mi...@hawaii.rr...
> In article <0IydnVNMlOWGufHa...@comcast.com>, PC Guy
> <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Clever marketing and advertising and the fact that many people went
>> > looking
>> > for an alternative to Vista.
>>
>> So what I hear you saying is that OS X isn't good, it's just that Windows
>> is
>> bad? Is that how you advocate the Mac?
>
> Where in that statement do you see the comment that Mac OS X isn't good?
Ah Mitch. I do love when you respond to me as it gives me an opportunity to
help those less fortunate than I. Do you see question marks on the end of my
words? They mean something. I'll leave it to you to figure out what and why
they make your question foolish.
> It is enough to have motivation to move away from a product -- you
> don't ALSO get to infer that the product they are moving toward is a
> bad one, or not a good one, or anything else. It only had to be a
> DIFFERENT ONE.
Sure I can. If they're leaving because Vista is so bad then that implies OS
X is not that good. If OS X were good they would have left long ago. Simple
eh? Even you shouldn't have much difficulty seeing the big picture now that
it's been spelled out for you. Though I'm not holding my breath.
Mitch
<pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> What a coincidence that my ideals match reality. Who would have thought?
Your statements match reality? That's your reasoning?
Let's see what the statements were:
> >>>>can you provide some other reason Macintosh has
> >>>>started gaining marketshare after all these years?
> >>>
> >>> Clever marketing and advertising and the fact that many people went
> >>> looking for an alternative to Vista.
> >>So... OS X isn't good, it's just that Windows is bad?
So: you agree that mac marketshare is growing, which matches reality.
You agreed that many people want an alternative to Vista, which matches
reality.
Then you inserted the statement that Mac OS X isn't good, which does
not match reality, and suggested that was what the previous poster
wrote, impugning his ability to advocate well.
It looks liek the only statements YOU make that match reality are one
against Windows -- any statements you make against Mac, Mac OS, or Mac
OS X seem to have support problems (they're made up!).
PC Guy
"Mitch" <mi...@hawaii.rr> wrote in message
> In article <RJydnYIVFf_8ufDa...@comcast.com>, PC Guy
> <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Sure they did. Or can you provide some other reason Macintosh
>> >> has started gaining marketshare after all these years?
>> >
>> > The continued success of the iPod introduced Macs to people that never
>> > paid
>> > much attention to them before.
>>
>> Oh please! The iPod has been out since when, 2001? It's just now, four
>> years
>> later that it's halo effect is gaining traction? Please.
>>
>
> Why isn't that possible?
I guess it's possible, though unlikely.
> Have you never heard of a marketing threshold?
Is Apple's marketing really that lousy? Taking over four years?
> The 'tipping point'?
> Psychological significance?
>
> There are MANY reasons that a 'halo effect' wouldn't show right away.
> There are almost none that show it should be seen immediately.
>
> (and it's late 2007.)
The rational person would ask: "What's happened in the past couple of years
that could lead to an increase in Mac sales". They would then look at what
Apple has been doing and the logical conclusion would be the Intel
transition along with BootCamp/Parallels. It just happened to occur around
the same time as the uptick in Mac market share. An irrational person would
ask: "Why am I even thinking about this? I'll just make up some BS and pass
it off as fact". Guess which camp you fall into?
PC Guy
"Mitch" <mi...@hawaii.rr> wrote in message
> In article <fOWdnT0GjcANtfHa...@comcast.com>, PC Guy
> <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What a coincidence that my ideals match reality. Who would have thought?
>
> Your statements match reality? That's your reasoning?
>
> Let's see what the statements were:
>> >>>>can you provide some other reason Macintosh has
>> >>>>started gaining marketshare after all these years?
>> >>>
>> >>> Clever marketing and advertising and the fact that many people went
>> >>> looking for an alternative to Vista.
>
>> >>So... OS X isn't good, it's just that Windows is bad?
>
> So: you agree that mac marketshare is growing, which matches reality.
I agree there are numbers to suggest that.
> You agreed that many people want an alternative to Vista, which matches
> reality.
I agree that there are a number of people who have been suckered into buying
a Macintosh under the false pretense that it offers something more than
Windows.
> Then you inserted the statement that Mac OS X isn't good, which does
> not match reality, and suggested that was what the previous poster
> wrote, impugning his ability to advocate well.
I don't think OS X is good or bad.
> It looks liek the only statements YOU make that match reality are one
> against Windows -- any statements you make against Mac, Mac OS, or Mac
> OS X seem to have support problems (they're made up!).
?
BlueBuyYoo
>"BlueBuyYoo" <BlueB...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:fkh8gp$17i$1...@driftwood.ccs.carleton.ca...
>> In <0IydnVNMlOWGufHa...@comcast.com> "PC Guy"
>> <pc...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>>"BlueBuyYoo" <BlueB...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:fkh7vs$lc7$1...@driftwood.ccs.carleton.ca...
>>>> In <s7OdnfvdV7logvHa...@comcast.com> "PC Guy"
>>>> <pc...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:alangbaker-917239.12031021122007@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
>>>>>> In article <v7adneTRQtVUjvHa...@comcast.com>,
>>>>>> "PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "MuahMan" <mua...@cumcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:e5ydnXVKO_ryjvHa...@comcast.com...
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > "George Graves" <gmgr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> > news:0001HW.C3914A19...@news.comcast.net...
>>>>>>> >> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:05:41 -0800, raae wrote
>>>>>>> >> (in article
>>>>>>> >> <492f5153-1459-4a9f...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>):
>>>>>Sure they did. Or can you provide some other reason Macintosh has
>>>>>started
>>>>>gaining marketshare after all these years?
>>>>
>>>> Clever marketing and advertising and the fact that many people went
>>>> looking
>>>> for an alternative to Vista.
>>
>>>So what I hear you saying is that OS X isn't good, it's just that Windows
>>>is
>>>bad? Is that how you advocate the Mac?
>>
>> There you go again, making inferences to suit your ideals.
>What a coincidence that my ideals match reality. Who would have thought?
What is your concept of reality?
Where in the above do you see where I stated OS X isn't good or
Windows is bad?
kdt
"PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RJydnYIVFf_8ufDa...@comcast.com...
Thte iPod has been out since 2001 but Apple didn't start selling 1 Million +
quarter until July-September 2004. In fact it took Apple almost 2 years to
sell the first million.
Tim Adams
"PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Mitch" <mi...@hawaii.rr> wrote in message
> news:221220070859518044%mi...@hawaii.rr...
> > In article <RJydnYIVFf_8ufDa...@comcast.com>, PC Guy
> > <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >> Sure they did. Or can you provide some other reason Macintosh
> >> >> has started gaining marketshare after all these years?
> >> >
> >> > The continued success of the iPod introduced Macs to people that never
> >> > paid
> >> > much attention to them before.
> >>
> >> Oh please! The iPod has been out since when, 2001? It's just now, four
> >> years
> >> later that it's halo effect is gaining traction? Please.
> >>
> >
> > Why isn't that possible?
>
> I guess it's possible, though unlikely.
Actually it's very likely since the iPod didn't really take off until the itunes
store opened in 2003 (US) and other locations at a much later time.
>
> > Have you never heard of a marketing threshold?
>
> Is Apple's marketing really that lousy? Taking over four years?
>
> > The 'tipping point'?
> > Psychological significance?
> >
> > There are MANY reasons that a 'halo effect' wouldn't show right away.
> > There are almost none that show it should be seen immediately.
> >
> > (and it's late 2007.)
>
> The rational person would ask: "What's happened in the past couple of years
> that could lead to an increase in Mac sales". They would then look at what
> Apple has been doing and the logical conclusion would be the Intel
> transition along with BootCamp/Parallels. It just happened to occur around
> the same time as the uptick in Mac market share. An irrational person would
> ask: "Why am I even thinking about this? I'll just make up some BS and pass
> it off as fact". Guess which camp you fall into?
--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
PC Guy
"Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:teadams$2$0$0$3-035AB3.17...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net...
> In article <7u6dnd1Uk9zb_vDa...@comcast.com>,
> "PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Mitch" <mi...@hawaii.rr> wrote in message
>> news:221220070859518044%mi...@hawaii.rr...
>> > In article <RJydnYIVFf_8ufDa...@comcast.com>, PC Guy
>> > <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> Sure they did. Or can you provide some other reason Macintosh
>> >> >> has started gaining marketshare after all these years?
>> >> >
>> >> > The continued success of the iPod introduced Macs to people that
>> >> > never
>> >> > paid
>> >> > much attention to them before.
>> >>
>> >> Oh please! The iPod has been out since when, 2001? It's just now, four
>> >> years
>> >> later that it's halo effect is gaining traction? Please.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Why isn't that possible?
>>
>> I guess it's possible, though unlikely.
>
> Actually it's very likely since the iPod didn't really take off until the
> itunes
> store opened in 2003 (US) and other locations at a much later time.
LOL! And you wonder why we're here. This kind of response is exactly why I'm
here. So we have iTunres opening two years earlier and it's the reason for
the Macs increased market share? LOL! Sure it is. You guys hilarious!
Snit
teadams$2$0$0$3-035AB3.17...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net on
12/22/07 3:33 PM:
> regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
> you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
> the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
My goodnees - are you *still* flaming me in your every post? Pathetic.
Really. Will you take responsibility for your own actions or blame me and
*lie*, saying *I* need to do something for you to grow up and stop flaming
me?
Oh well...
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing. - Edmund Burke
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-035AB3.17...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net on
> 12/22/07 3:33 PM:
>
> > regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
> > you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
> > the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
>
> My goodnees - are you *still*
...pointing out how you never grew up and took responsibility for your
own actions?
Tim Adams
"PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Poor pc guy can't seem to telldates. If he could he would see the iTunes store
opened 2 year AFTER the iPod was released. Sales of the iPod started selling in
much larger number AFTER that happened.
> and it's the reason for
> the Macs increased market share?
You really need to rent a clue.
Tim Adams
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-035AB3.17...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net on
> 12/22/07 3:33 PM:
>
> > regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
> > you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
> > the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
>
> My goodnees - are you *still*
pointing out reality in my every post? Yes I am, thanks for noticing.
--
Snit
12/22/07 6:49 PM:
> In article <C392ECA6.9EB73%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
>> teadams$2$0$0$3-035AB3.17...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net on
>> 12/22/07 3:33 PM:
>>
>>> regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
>>> you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
>>> the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
>>
>> My goodnees - are you *still*
>
> pointing out reality in my every post? Yes I am, thanks for noticing.
This is what I wrote:
-----
My goodnees - are you *still* flaming me in your every post?
Pathetic. Really. Will you take responsibility for your own
actions or blame me and *lie*, saying *I* need to do
something for you to grow up and stop flaming me?
Oh well...
-----
Notice your dishonest snipping. You show no ability to be honest - just as
you show no ability to stop yourself from trolling me in your every post.
Even Carroll was able to show greater maturity than you, at least in this
area - I always had you pegged as the one who would mature more quickly.
--
"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs
Tim Adams
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-902B23.20...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net on
> 12/22/07 6:49 PM:
>
> > In article <C392ECA6.9EB73%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> >> teadams$2$0$0$3-035AB3.17...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net on
> >> 12/22/07 3:33 PM:
> >>
> >>> regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
> >>> you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
> >>> the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
> >>
> >> My goodnees - are you *still*
> >
> > pointing out reality in my every post? Yes I am, thanks for noticing.
>
> This is what I wrote:
>
we know you wrote that you're an asshole. No need for you to keep repeating it.
--
Snit
12/22/07 8:46 PM:
>> This is what I wrote:
>>
> we know you wrote that you're an asshole. No need for you to keep repeating
> it.
---------
This is what I wrote:
-----
My goodnees - are you *still* flaming me in your every post?
Pathetic. Really. Will you take responsibility for your own
actions or blame me and *lie*, saying *I* need to do
something for you to grow up and stop flaming me?
Oh well...
-----
Notice your dishonest snipping. You show no ability to be honest - just as
you show no ability to stop yourself from trolling me in your every post.
Even Carroll was able to show greater maturity than you, at least in this
area - I always had you pegged as the one who would mature more quickly.
---------
Amazing how much you fear those few words of mine. All you can do is snip
and run... you simply cannot face your own trolling, immaturity, or
dishonesty. Oh well - that comes as no surprise. You, simply, are who you
are and are not pleased with yourself. I do not blame you for not liking
who you are... and you make it *very* clear you do not - if you did like
yourself you would be able to face who and what you are.
--
One who makes no mistakes, never makes anything.
Todd Allcock
> > The continued success of the iPod introduced Macs to people that never
paid
> > much attention to them before.
>
> Oh please! The iPod has been out since when, 2001? It's just now,
> four years later that it's halo effect is gaining traction? Please.
Why not? The iPod's sales rose steadily in that time, and I'm not
suggesting people would rush out and throw away a perfectly good PC and buy
a Mac just because they bought an iPod. I just think that the next time
iPod lovers needed a new PC, they'd be more open to considering a Mac. I
also agree that the switch to Intel helped- it made the purchase of a Mac
"safer" for those that felt they needed Windows as a fall-back option.
Tim Adams
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-647443.22...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net on
> 12/22/07 8:46 PM:
>
>
> >> This is what I wrote:
> >>
> > we know you wrote that you're an asshole. No need for you to keep repeating
> > it.
>
> ---------
> This is what I wrote:
>
we know you wrote that you're an asshole. No need for you to keep repeating it.
--
Snit
12/23/07 6:12 AM:
> In article <C3932A0C.9EBF1%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
>> teadams$2$0$0$3-647443.22...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net on
>> 12/22/07 8:46 PM:
>>
>>
>>>> This is what I wrote:
>>>>
>>> we know you wrote that you're an asshole. No need for you to keep repeating
>>> it.
>>
>> ---------
>> This is what I wrote:
>>
>
> we know you wrote that you're an asshole. No need for you to keep repeating
> it.
---------
This is what I wrote:
-----
My goodnees - are you *still* flaming me in your every post?
Pathetic. Really. Will you take responsibility for your own
actions or blame me and *lie*, saying *I* need to do
something for you to grow up and stop flaming me?
Oh well...
-----
Notice your dishonest snipping. You show no ability to be honest - just as
you show no ability to stop yourself from trolling me in your every post.
Even Carroll was able to show greater maturity than you, at least in this
area - I always had you pegged as the one who would mature more quickly.
---------
Amazing how much you fear those few words of mine. All you can do is snip
and run... you simply cannot face your own trolling, immaturity, or
dishonesty. Oh well - that comes as no surprise. You, simply, are who you
are and are not pleased with yourself. I do not blame you for not liking
who you are... and you make it *very* clear you do not - if you did like
yourself you would be able to face who and what you are.
--
God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?
PC Guy
LOL! So this is your defense? Pointing out that I made a mistake and wrote
"earlier" instead of "later"? LOL! Well, OK...I guess you take em when you
can get em since they don't come by too often.
> If he could he would see the iTunes store opened 2 year AFTER the iPod was
> released.
iPod released: 2001
iTunes store: 2003
Intel Macs released: 2005
Sizeable (for the Mac anyway) Mac market share increase: 2005
It's desperation to think an event that occured two years earlier is the
driving factor of the Macs market share increases instead of an event that
occured at approximately the same time.
> Sales of the iPod started selling in much larger number AFTER that
> happened.
>
>> and it's the reason for
>> the Macs increased market share?
>
> You really need to rent a clue.
This is it? This is the best you could come up with beside pointing out a
timeline mistake? LOL!
PC Guy
"Todd Allcock" <elecc...@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
> At 22 Dec 2007 07:51:22 -0700 PC Guy wrote:
>
>> > The continued success of the iPod introduced Macs to people that never
> paid
>> > much attention to them before.
>>
>> Oh please! The iPod has been out since when, 2001? It's just now,
>> four years later that it's halo effect is gaining traction? Please.
>
> Why not?
Because there was another event that occured at roughly the same time as the
marketshare began to increase for the Mac. That's a much more likely reason
than some event which occured four years prior.
Alan Baker
"PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > If he could he would see the iTunes store opened 2 year AFTER the iPod was
> > released.
>
> iPod released: 2001
> iTunes store: 2003
> Intel Macs released: 2005
2006.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Intel_transition>
> Sizeable (for the Mac anyway) Mac market share increase: 2005
You've nicely blown up your own theory.
Alan Baker
"PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Todd Allcock" <elecc...@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
> news:fkla2a$d3m$2...@aioe.org...
> > At 22 Dec 2007 07:51:22 -0700 PC Guy wrote:
> >
> >> > The continued success of the iPod introduced Macs to people that never
> > paid
> >> > much attention to them before.
> >>
> >> Oh please! The iPod has been out since when, 2001? It's just now,
> >> four years later that it's halo effect is gaining traction? Please.
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Because there was another event that occured at roughly the same time as the
> marketshare began to increase for the Mac. That's a much more likely reason
> than some event which occured four years prior.
Except it didn't occur at the same time.
According to you, Apple's market share began to rise in 2005.
The first Intel Macs weren't available until January of 2006.
>
> > The iPod's sales rose steadily in that time, and I'm not suggesting people
> > would rush out and throw away a perfectly good PC and buy
> > a Mac just because they bought an iPod. I just think that the next time
> > iPod lovers needed a new PC, they'd be more open to considering a Mac. I
> > also agree that the switch to Intel helped- it made the purchase of a Mac
> > "safer" for those that felt they needed Windows as a fall-back option.
> >
> >
--
Alan Baker
"PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Mitch" <mi...@hawaii.rr> wrote in message
> news:221220070857339782%mi...@hawaii.rr...
> > In article <0IydnVNMlOWGufHa...@comcast.com>, PC Guy
> > <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > Clever marketing and advertising and the fact that many people went
> >> > looking
> >> > for an alternative to Vista.
> >>
> >> So what I hear you saying is that OS X isn't good, it's just that Windows
> >> is
> >> bad? Is that how you advocate the Mac?
> >
> > Where in that statement do you see the comment that Mac OS X isn't good?
>
> Ah Mitch. I do love when you respond to me as it gives me an opportunity to
> help those less fortunate than I. Do you see question marks on the end of my
> words? They mean something. I'll leave it to you to figure out what and why
> they make your question foolish.
>
> > It is enough to have motivation to move away from a product -- you
> > don't ALSO get to infer that the product they are moving toward is a
> > bad one, or not a good one, or anything else. It only had to be a
> > DIFFERENT ONE.
>
> Sure I can. If they're leaving because Vista is so bad then that implies OS
> X is not that good. If OS X were good they would have left long ago. Simple
> eh? Even you shouldn't have much difficulty seeing the big picture now that
> it's been spelled out for you. Though I'm not holding my breath.
To draw an analogy, paper and oxygen in air are combustible, so why
doesn't paper burst into flames all the time?
>
> >
> > You need to stop implying that your reasons are clearly thought out and
> > that your POV matches reality -- you're making unfair inferences and I
> > think you know it.
--
PC Guy
PC Guy
> In article <w9OdnVo5CeyOCvPa...@comcast.com>,
> "PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > If he could he would see the iTunes store opened 2 year AFTER the iPod
>> > was
>> > released.
>>
>> iPod released: 2001
>> iTunes store: 2003
>> Intel Macs released: 2005
>
> 2006.
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Intel_transition>
>
>> Sizeable (for the Mac anyway) Mac market share increase: 2005
PC Guy
"Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-EEE0FF.12364423122007@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
> "PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > If he could he would see the iTunes store opened 2 year AFTER the iPod
>> > was
>> > released.
>>
>> iPod released: 2001
>> iTunes store: 2003
>> Intel Macs released: 2005
>
> 2006.
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Intel_transition>
>
>> Sizeable (for the Mac anyway) Mac market share increase: 2005
Even better. Recall I provided statistics beginning January 2006:
"January 2006 Mac marketshare: 4.21%. November 2007 Mac marketshare: 6.8%"
> You've nicely blown up your own theory.
Nah. That's what I get for just blindly trusting the dates given by
Mactards.
PC Guy
> In article <-Kqdnc88JPzxCvPa...@comcast.com>,
> "PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Todd Allcock" <elecc...@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
>> news:fkla2a$d3m$2...@aioe.org...
>> > At 22 Dec 2007 07:51:22 -0700 PC Guy wrote:
>> >
>> >> > The continued success of the iPod introduced Macs to people that
>> >> > never
>> > paid
>> >> > much attention to them before.
>> >>
>> >> Oh please! The iPod has been out since when, 2001? It's just now,
>> >> four years later that it's halo effect is gaining traction? Please.
>> >
>> > Why not?
>>
>> Because there was another event that occured at roughly the same time as
>> the
>> marketshare began to increase for the Mac. That's a much more likely
>> reason
>> than some event which occured four years prior.
>
> Except it didn't occur at the same time.
>
> According to you, Apple's market share began to rise in 2005.
Mistake on my part...blindly trusting Mactards. Here are the marketshare
numbers I wrote previously:
"January 2006 Mac marketshare: 4.21%. November 2007 Mac marketshare: 6.8% "
> The first Intel Macs weren't available until January of 2006.
Theory intact.
Dave Fritzinger
> "Alan Baker" <alangba...@telus.net> wrote in message
>
> news:alangbaker-BBBCFE.12392923122007@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
>
>
>
> > In article <-Kqdnc88JPzxCvPanZ2dnUVZ_ourn...@comcast.com>,
> > "PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> "Todd Allcock" <eleccon...@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
> >>news:fkla2a$d3m$2...@aioe.org...
> >> > At 22 Dec 2007 07:51:22 -0700 PC Guy wrote:
>
> >> >> > The continued success of the iPod introduced Macs to people that
> >> >> > never
> >> > paid
> >> >> > much attention to them before.
>
> >> >> Oh please! The iPod has been out since when, 2001? It's just now,
> >> >> four years later that it's halo effect is gaining traction? Please.
>
> >> > Why not?
>
> >> Because there was another event that occured at roughly the same time as
> >> the
> >> marketshare began to increase for the Mac. That's a much more likely
> >> reason
> >> than some event which occured four years prior.
>
> > Except it didn't occur at the same time.
>
> > According to you, Apple's market share began to rise in 2005.
>
> Mistake on my part...blindly trusting Mactards. Here are the marketshare
> numbers I wrote previously:
>
> "January 2006 Mac marketshare: 4.21%. November 2007 Mac marketshare: 6.8% "
>
> > The first Intel Macs weren't available until January of 2006.
>
> Theory intact.
>
I wouldn't make much of them. Second, while I have no doubt that the
ability to run windows has helped increase Mac market share, all your
temporal correlation actually shows is that an increase that was
already occurring continued. It does not support your hypothesis.
OK, now start the namecalling...
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
Alan Baker
"PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Sorry, but no. Showing that the Mac was growing over that period doesn't
prove your theory correct.
You must show that the growth only *started* then. And as the figures
I've shown you demonstrate, growth began *before* the Intel Macs were
released.
If anything, growth initially slowed when the Intel Macs first came
out...
Here:
<http://www3.telus.net/bakermedia/Chart1.htm>
The the same data I reference before, but in a chart.
You can clearly see that:
A. Growth has been there since the earliest data.
B. Growth increased not in 2006, but in late 2005.
C. When the Intel Macs were released, growth flattened out for a while.
Alan Baker
"PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Because there is an amount of energy that must be put into the system to
break the existing bonds.
It isn't enough that the new state will have a lower potential energy,
you have to get there.
Just as it isn't enough for the Mac to be better to get people to switch
from what they're currently using. There also needs to be something to
break the bonds, as it were.
PC Guy
Why not?
> There also needs to be something to break the bonds, as it were.
Like the ability to run Windows natively.
PC Guy
"Dave Fritzinger" <dfri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:23f271a9-03f8-416f...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Of course you wouldn't. Doing so would be admitting that the increase in Mac
purchases has little to do with OS X but rather Windows. And we know you
can't have that!
Second, while I have no doubt that the ability to run windows has helped
increase Mac market share, all your
temporal correlation actually shows is that an increase that was already
occurring continued.
The increase that was already occuring amounts to noise. Sampling error.
It's the increases that I'm speaking to that amount to more than just noise.
It does not support your hypothesis.
It sure does.
OK, now start the namecalling...
Why do you feel the need to start namecalling?
PC Guy
It doesn't prove it correct. But it is highly likely.
> You must show that the growth only *started* then. And as the figures
> I've shown you demonstrate, growth began *before* the Intel Macs were
> released.
The growth that already existed could be explained by sampling error. The
growth already occuring didn't even amount to a full 1%. However the growth
I am referring to, during the period in question, almost *doubled*.
> If anything, growth initially slowed when the Intel Macs first came out...
That's reasonable but does not mean much wrt the subject at hand.
> Here:
>
> <http://www3.telus.net/bakermedia/Chart1.htm>
>
> The the same data I reference before, but in a chart.
>
> You can clearly see that:
>
> A. Growth has been there since the earliest data.
>
> B. Growth increased not in 2006, but in late 2005.
>
> C. When the Intel Macs were released, growth flattened out for a while.
D. Put almost doubled during the period in question.
A reasonable person would see a correlation here. Which explains why you're
not seeing it.
Dave Fritzinger
> "Dave Fritzinger" <dfrit...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Will you please learn how to properly post. It is very difficult to
differentiate between what you are writing and what I am writing. Now,
as to what you wrote. What I said is a general concept in data
analysis, namely that temporal correlations are not all that reliable.
And there are ways to get around them. You know, like asking people
why they bought the Mac instead of a Windows machine.
And, as I said below, there are probably some people who bought a Mac
because they wanted to run both OS's (why on earth would you buy a Mac
just to run Windows? If you do that, you have to also buy the OS,
which essentially comes free if you buy a Windows PC), either to use
some software that just runs under the Windows environment, or to be
able to use old software for a while.
>
> Second, while I have no doubt that the ability to run windows has helped
> increase Mac market share, all your
> temporal correlation actually shows is that an increase that was already
> occurring continued.
>
> The increase that was already occuring amounts to noise. Sampling error.
> It's the increases that I'm speaking to that amount to more than just noise.
I suppose you have evidence to support that claim. Oh, you don't? Why
am I not surprised?
>
> It does not support your hypothesis.
>
> It sure does.
Only to you.
>
> OK, now start the namecalling...
>
> Why do you feel the need to start namecalling?
I'm just pointing out that you usually begin to do that when people
disagree with you.
PC Guy
This has nothing to do with how I post. I hit reply, and start typing. Is
there something more to it than that?
Now, as to what you wrote. What I said is a general concept in data
analysis, namely that temporal correlations are not all that reliable.
I admit it's not proof. But one would be foolish to deny the two were just
coincidences.
And there are ways to get around them. You know, like asking people
why they bought the Mac instead of a Windows machine.
There's also the fact that the Macintosh and OS X have been available since
2001. Why didn't we see such a leap in marketshare before the release of
Intel based Macs? Did you look at the graph Alan provided? You'd have to be
a complete moron (i.e Mactard) to not see a huge jump in marketshare in mid
2006. It stands out like a sore thumb. Now if you have another theory I'm
all for it. But claiming iPod halo effect isn't going to cut it.
And, as I said below, there are probably some people who bought a Mac
because they wanted to run both OS's (why on earth would you buy a Mac
just to run Windows?
I don't think a lot of the switchers bought Macs just to run Windows. I
think they fell for the BS of OS X being a better OS. And when they get
their shiney new Mac home and start trying to use it they'll find it's no
better than Windows. And due to the lack of software availability they'll
start using Windows for those programs they have to use Windows for. And
come to the realization that bouncing between two OSes is foolish and
eventually settle on just using Windows.
If you do that, you have to also buy the OS,
which essentially comes free if you buy a Windows PC), either to use
some software that just runs under the Windows environment, or to be
able to use old software for a while.
>
> Second, while I have no doubt that the ability to run windows has helped
> increase Mac market share, all your
> temporal correlation actually shows is that an increase that was already
> occurring continued.
>
> The increase that was already occuring amounts to noise. Sampling error.
> It's the increases that I'm speaking to that amount to more than just
> noise.
I suppose you have evidence to support that claim. Oh, you don't? Why
am I not surprised?
Look at the graph Alan provided. It's obvious the increases seen prior to
2006 are minimal. The increases after mid-2006 sticks out like a sore thumb.
Intelligent people can put 2+2 together and arrive at 4. Mactards, however,
put 2+2 together and arrive at 5.
Dave Fritzinger
Then get a decent newsreader. Hell, even Google Groups does a better
job than whatever you are using.
>
> Now, as to what you wrote. What I said is a general concept in data
> analysis, namely that temporal correlations are not all that reliable.
>
> I admit it's not proof. But one would be foolish to deny the two were just
> coincidences.
Actually, no it wouldn't. There are many possible reasons why Mac
sales have increased. The one you present is only one, and you offer
no other evidence than your own biases to support your conclusion.
>
> And there are ways to get around them. You know, like asking people
> why they bought the Mac instead of a Windows machine.
>
> There's also the fact that the Macintosh and OS X have been available since
> 2001. Why didn't we see such a leap in marketshare before the release of
> Intel based Macs? Did you look at the graph Alan provided? You'd have to be
> a complete moron (i.e Mactard) to not see a huge jump in marketshare in mid
> 2006. It stands out like a sore thumb. Now if you have another theory I'm
> all for it. But claiming iPod halo effect isn't going to cut it.
I see you couldn't resist the name calling. That is why I consider you
to be an ass (I'm not name calling here, just accurately describing
your behavior).
Now, as I said above, there are many possible reasons why Mac market
share could be increasing. The iPod halo effect is one. The ability to
run Windows is also one. Another is the amount of press
Apple has been receiving recently because of things like the iPhone
and iPods (IOW, mindshare, which Apple has been very good at getting).
You offer your reason because you apparently cannot believe that
people could find the Mac to be a superior computing solution to
Windows. IOW, you are doing exactly what you claim the people you call
"Mactards" are doing.
>
> And, as I said below, there are probably some people who bought a Mac
> because they wanted to run both OS's (why on earth would you buy a Mac
> just to run Windows?
>
> I don't think a lot of the switchers bought Macs just to run Windows. I
> think they fell for the BS of OS X being a better OS. And when they get
> their shiney new Mac home and start trying to use it they'll find it's no
> better than Windows. And due to the lack of software availability they'll
> start using Windows for those programs they have to use Windows for. And
> come to the realization that bouncing between two OSes is foolish and
> eventually settle on just using Windows.
And, your evidence of this is what? It wouldn't just be your bias,
would it? Indeed, except for vertical applications in some fields,
there aren't all that many categories of software that don't have OSX
versions.
>
> If you do that, you have to also buy the OS,
> which essentially comes free if you buy a Windows PC), either to use
> some software that just runs under the Windows environment, or to be
> able to use old software for a while.
Note: no comment here.
>
> > Second, while I have no doubt that the ability to run windows has helped
> > increase Mac market share, all your
> > temporal correlation actually shows is that an increase that was already
> > occurring continued.
>
> > The increase that was already occuring amounts to noise. Sampling error.
> > It's the increases that I'm speaking to that amount to more than just
> > noise.
>
> I suppose you have evidence to support that claim. Oh, you don't? Why
> am I not surprised?
>
> Look at the graph Alan provided. It's obvious the increases seen prior to
> 2006 are minimal. The increases after mid-2006 sticks out like a sore thumb.
> Intelligent people can put 2+2 together and arrive at 4. Mactards, however,
> put 2+2 together and arrive at 5.
I am noting that you are supplying no evidence except for your own
biases. Then, you degenerate into namecalling. IOW, you are acting
like an ass...
[snip points PCGuy didn't bother to respond to]
PC Guy
Nah. Then it wouldn't bother you.
> Now, as to what you wrote. What I said is a general concept in data
> analysis, namely that temporal correlations are not all that reliable.
>
> I admit it's not proof. But one would be foolish to deny the two were just
> coincidences.
Actually, no it wouldn't. There are many possible reasons why Mac
sales have increased. The one you present is only one, and you offer
no other evidence than your own biases to support your conclusion.
Fine. Give me another reason. So far the examples of the dinosaurs becoming
extinct isn't cutting it.
> And there are ways to get around them. You know, like asking people
> why they bought the Mac instead of a Windows machine.
>
> There's also the fact that the Macintosh and OS X have been available
> since
> 2001. Why didn't we see such a leap in marketshare before the release of
> Intel based Macs? Did you look at the graph Alan provided? You'd have to
> be
> a complete moron (i.e Mactard) to not see a huge jump in marketshare in
> mid
> 2006. It stands out like a sore thumb. Now if you have another theory I'm
> all for it. But claiming iPod halo effect isn't going to cut it.
I see you couldn't resist the name calling. That is why I consider you
to be an ass (I'm not name calling here, just accurately describing
your behavior).
Did you mistake me for someone who actually cares what you think of me? Let
me be clear: I don't care what you think of me. Is that unambiguous enough
for you or are you still having difficulty with this?
Now, as I said above, there are many possible reasons why Mac market
share could be increasing. The iPod halo effect is one.
So is the dinosaurs becoming extinct.
The ability to run Windows is also one. Another is the amount of press
Apple has been receiving recently because of things like the iPhone
and iPods (IOW, mindshare, which Apple has been very good at getting).
You offer your reason because you apparently cannot believe that
people could find the Mac to be a superior computing solution to
Windows.
Oh I could *IF* it happened prior to the Macs ability to run Windows
natively. The fact is the Mac, as it exists today and with minor changes,
have been available since 2001. If it were something inherent to OS X then
why did we not see it earlier? Why did it take half a goddamn decade?
IOW, you are doing exactly what you claim the people you call
"Mactards" are doing.
I don't attibute Mactards to doing anything intelligent so obviously this
statement is wrong.
I already supplied the evidence. Alan even supplied the evidence. If you
choose to ignore it well, I can't help you there.
Dave Fritzinger
IOW, you admit to being an ass.
>
> > Now, as to what you wrote. What I said is a general concept in data
> > analysis, namely that temporal correlations are not all that reliable.
>
> > I admit it's not proof. But one would be foolish to deny the two were just
> > coincidences.
>
> Actually, no it wouldn't. There are many possible reasons why Mac
> sales have increased. The one you present is only one, and you offer
> no other evidence than your own biases to support your conclusion.
>
> Fine. Give me another reason. So far the examples of the dinosaurs becoming
> extinct isn't cutting it.
I gave several. Perhaps if you could ignore your own biases for a
change, you might see them.
>
> > And there are ways to get around them. You know, like asking people
> > why they bought the Mac instead of a Windows machine.
>
> > There's also the fact that the Macintosh and OS X have been available
> > since
> > 2001. Why didn't we see such a leap in marketshare before the release of
> > Intel based Macs? Did you look at the graph Alan provided? You'd have to
> > be
> > a complete moron (i.e Mactard) to not see a huge jump in marketshare in
> > mid
> > 2006. It stands out like a sore thumb. Now if you have another theory I'm
> > all for it. But claiming iPod halo effect isn't going to cut it.
>
> I see you couldn't resist the name calling. That is why I consider you
> to be an ass (I'm not name calling here, just accurately describing
> your behavior).
>
> Did you mistake me for someone who actually cares what you think of me? Let
> me be clear: I don't care what you think of me. Is that unambiguous enough
> for you or are you still having difficulty with this?
I'm having no difficulty with it. You are again admitting that you are
an ass.
>
> Now, as I said above, there are many possible reasons why Mac market
> share could be increasing. The iPod halo effect is one.
>
> So is the dinosaurs becoming extinct.
Non-sequiturs do not good arguments make. Perhaps you should learn
that.
>
> The ability to run Windows is also one. Another is the amount of press
> Apple has been receiving recently because of things like the iPhone
> and iPods (IOW, mindshare, which Apple has been very good at getting).
> You offer your reason because you apparently cannot believe that
> people could find the Mac to be a superior computing solution to
> Windows.
>
> Oh I could *IF* it happened prior to the Macs ability to run Windows
> natively. The fact is the Mac, as it exists today and with minor changes,
> have been available since 2001. If it were something inherent to OS X then
> why did we not see it earlier? Why did it take half a goddamn decade?
Consumer trends take time. How long did it take the iPod to become the
success it is? Years. Add to that the fact that OSX has continuously
gotten better over the years, and you have the reasons you were
seeking. But, since they don't support your biases, you will ignore
them and call me names.
>
> IOW, you are doing exactly what you claim the people you call
> "Mactards" are doing.
>
> I don't attibute Mactards to doing anything intelligent so obviously this
> statement is wrong.
Unable to actually make an intelligent comment on my point, PCGuy
decides to throw in a gratuitous insult. And he wonders why I keep
saying he is acting like an ass...
> > And, as I said below, there are probably some people who bought a Mac
> > because they wanted to run both OS's (why on earth would you buy a Mac
> > just to run Windows?
>
> > I don't think a lot of the switchers bought Macs just to run Windows. I
> > think they fell for the BS of OS X being a better OS. And when they get
> > their shiney new Mac home and start trying to use it they'll find it's no
> > better than Windows. And due to the lack of software availability they'll
> > start using Windows for those programs they have to use Windows for. And
> > come to the realization that bouncing between two OSes is foolish and
> > eventually settle on just using Windows.
>
> And, your evidence of this is what? It wouldn't just be your bias,
> would it? Indeed, except for vertical applications in some fields,
> there aren't all that many categories of software that don't have OSX
> versions.
Note: No comment on this.
No, you supplied a weak temporal correlation. Since Mac sales were
increasing *before* the Intel switch, your temporal correlation is
that much weaker. After all, we are only seeing the continuation of a
trend that started before the Intel switch.
PC Guy
You're just now picking up on this after I clearly stated that's why I'm
here? You know: To make fun of you Mactards. Maybe if you guys could engage
in civilized conversation I might reciprocate. But until then you'll just
have to live with me this way.
> > Now, as to what you wrote. What I said is a general concept in data
> > analysis, namely that temporal correlations are not all that reliable.
>
> > I admit it's not proof. But one would be foolish to deny the two were
> > just
> > coincidences.
>
> Actually, no it wouldn't. There are many possible reasons why Mac
> sales have increased. The one you present is only one, and you offer
> no other evidence than your own biases to support your conclusion.
>
> Fine. Give me another reason. So far the examples of the dinosaurs
> becoming
> extinct isn't cutting it.
I gave several. Perhaps if you could ignore your own biases for a
change, you might see them.
I don't think the extinction of the dinosaurs had anything to do with it.
But thanks for playing!
> > And there are ways to get around them. You know, like asking people
> > why they bought the Mac instead of a Windows machine.
>
> > There's also the fact that the Macintosh and OS X have been available
> > since
> > 2001. Why didn't we see such a leap in marketshare before the release of
> > Intel based Macs? Did you look at the graph Alan provided? You'd have to
> > be
> > a complete moron (i.e Mactard) to not see a huge jump in marketshare in
> > mid
> > 2006. It stands out like a sore thumb. Now if you have another theory
> > I'm
> > all for it. But claiming iPod halo effect isn't going to cut it.
>
> I see you couldn't resist the name calling. That is why I consider you
> to be an ass (I'm not name calling here, just accurately describing
> your behavior).
>
> Did you mistake me for someone who actually cares what you think of me?
> Let
> me be clear: I don't care what you think of me. Is that unambiguous enough
> for you or are you still having difficulty with this?
I'm having no difficulty with it. You are again admitting that you are
an ass.
You are again just realizing this? And here I thought I was being
unambiguous when I said I didn't care.
> Now, as I said above, there are many possible reasons why Mac market
> share could be increasing. The iPod halo effect is one.
>
> So is the dinosaurs becoming extinct.
Non-sequiturs do not good arguments make. Perhaps you should learn
that.
Then why did you make them?
> The ability to run Windows is also one. Another is the amount of press
> Apple has been receiving recently because of things like the iPhone
> and iPods (IOW, mindshare, which Apple has been very good at getting).
> You offer your reason because you apparently cannot believe that
> people could find the Mac to be a superior computing solution to
> Windows.
>
> Oh I could *IF* it happened prior to the Macs ability to run Windows
> natively. The fact is the Mac, as it exists today and with minor changes,
> have been available since 2001. If it were something inherent to OS X then
> why did we not see it earlier? Why did it take half a goddamn decade?
Consumer trends take time.
Half a decade? Please David. Just because you're a moron doesn't mean the
rest of us are!
How long did it take the iPod to become the success it is?
It didn't take half a decade!
Years.
You have numbers to support this?
Add to that the fact that OSX has continuously gotten better over the years,
and you have the reasons you were
seeking. But, since they don't support your biases, you will ignore them and
call me names.
OS X has improved but not that much. Face it David...you just can't accept
that Windows is what is selling the Macintosh. Instead you ignore reality
for an alternative (which, for a Mactard, isn't all that surprising).
> IOW, you are doing exactly what you claim the people you call
> "Mactards" are doing.
>
> I don't attibute Mactards to doing anything intelligent so obviously this
> statement is wrong.
Unable to actually make an intelligent comment on my point, PCGuy
decides to throw in a gratuitous insult. And he wonders why I keep
saying he is acting like an ass...
What I keep wondering is, if I'm an ass, why you keep responding to me. You
Mactards whine about how my ilk infect your forum yet you respond to us ALL
THE TIME! LOL!
Jim Lee Jr.
"PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I see you couldn't resist the name calling. That is why I consider you
> to be an ass (I'm not name calling here, just accurately describing
> your behavior).
Keep Dave out of your ass fetish.
--
Posted from my 1999 Apple G4 Sawtooth
A 450 MHz G4 running OS X 10.4.11
PC Guy
"Jim Lee Jr." <peejs...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:peejster01-46FD5...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> In article <Z4qdnYkWgdIOd_Pa...@comcast.com>,
> "PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I see you couldn't resist the name calling. That is why I consider you
>> to be an ass (I'm not name calling here, just accurately describing
>> your behavior).
>
> Keep Dave out of your ass fetish.
Jealous?
Mitch
<pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Why don't people change whatever they are using to something that is
better?
Because they have to LEARN that it is better, and _if_ it is better in
a way they can use or appreciate, and be willing to put in some effort.
> > There also needs to be something to break the bonds, as it were.
>
> Like the ability to run Windows natively.
That is considered a reduction of resistance, rather than an advantage
in itself.
David Fritzinger
"PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[below is from PCGuy]
> You're just now picking up on this after I clearly stated that's why I'm
> here? You know: To make fun of you Mactards. Maybe if you guys could engage
> in civilized conversation I might reciprocate. But until then you'll just
> have to live with me this way.
We can, and I tried. You, on the other hand, have shown a distinct lack
of ability to do so. IOW, you insist on acting like an ass.
>
> > > Now, as to what you wrote. What I said is a general concept in data
> > > analysis, namely that temporal correlations are not all that reliable.
> >
> > > I admit it's not proof. But one would be foolish to deny the two were
> > > just
> > > coincidences.
> >
> > Actually, no it wouldn't. There are many possible reasons why Mac
> > sales have increased. The one you present is only one, and you offer
> > no other evidence than your own biases to support your conclusion.
> >
> > Fine. Give me another reason. So far the examples of the dinosaurs
> > becoming
> > extinct isn't cutting it.
>
> I gave several. Perhaps if you could ignore your own biases for a
> change, you might see them.
[below non-sequitur is from PCGuy]
> I don't think the extinction of the dinosaurs had anything to do with it.
> But thanks for playing!
As I stated in my previous post, non-sequiturs do not make a good
argument. Thank you for demonstrating that fact yet again.
>
> > > And there are ways to get around them. You know, like asking people
> > > why they bought the Mac instead of a Windows machine.
> >
> > > There's also the fact that the Macintosh and OS X have been available
> > > since
> > > 2001. Why didn't we see such a leap in marketshare before the release of
> > > Intel based Macs? Did you look at the graph Alan provided? You'd have to
> > > be
> > > a complete moron (i.e Mactard) to not see a huge jump in marketshare in
> > > mid
> > > 2006. It stands out like a sore thumb. Now if you have another theory
> > > I'm
> > > all for it. But claiming iPod halo effect isn't going to cut it.
> >
> > I see you couldn't resist the name calling. That is why I consider you
> > to be an ass (I'm not name calling here, just accurately describing
> > your behavior).
> >
> > Did you mistake me for someone who actually cares what you think of me?
> > Let
> > me be clear: I don't care what you think of me. Is that unambiguous enough
> > for you or are you still having difficulty with this?
>
> I'm having no difficulty with it. You are again admitting that you are
> an ass.
[below comment is from PCGuy]
> You are again just realizing this? And here I thought I was being
> unambiguous when I said I didn't care.
So, let me get this straight. You actually are announcing to the world
that you are an ass, and enjoy acting like one? It is no wonder that you
don't want anyone to know who you are.
> > Now, as I said above, there are many possible reasons why Mac market
> > share could be increasing. The iPod halo effect is one.
> >
> > So is the dinosaurs becoming extinct.
>
> Non-sequiturs do not good arguments make. Perhaps you should learn
> that.
[PCGuy again]
> Then why did you make them?
I didn't. You, however did, and continued to do so. Do you enjoy looking
like a fool? I ask for information only.
>
> > The ability to run Windows is also one. Another is the amount of press
> > Apple has been receiving recently because of things like the iPhone
> > and iPods (IOW, mindshare, which Apple has been very good at getting).
> > You offer your reason because you apparently cannot believe that
> > people could find the Mac to be a superior computing solution to
> > Windows.
> >
> > Oh I could *IF* it happened prior to the Macs ability to run Windows
> > natively. The fact is the Mac, as it exists today and with minor changes,
> > have been available since 2001. If it were something inherent to OS X then
> > why did we not see it earlier? Why did it take half a goddamn decade?
>
> Consumer trends take time.
[PC Guy again below]
> Half a decade? Please David. Just because you're a moron doesn't mean the
> rest of us are!
Just possibly. After all, we are not seeing a massive jump to Macs, just
a gradual increase in market share.
>
> How long did it take the iPod to become the success it is?
>
> It didn't take half a decade!
Remember, the mp3 market was relatively new with the iPod (and, no, I am
not trying to say the iPod invented the mp3 player market). Here we are
talking about a very established and mature market. Shifts would tend to
happen slowly and take a while to develop.
>
> Years.
[PC guy below here]
> You have numbers to support this?
http://www.systemshootouts.org/ipod_sales.html
>
> Add to that the fact that OSX has continuously gotten better over the years,
> and you have the reasons you were
> seeking. But, since they don't support your biases, you will ignore them and
> call me names.
[below is PC Guy]
> OS X has improved but not that much. Face it David...you just can't accept
> that Windows is what is selling the Macintosh. Instead you ignore reality
> for an alternative (which, for a Mactard, isn't all that surprising).
Actually, it has improved that much. I have used OSX from 10.1 now
through 10.5. The improvement is quite massive. And, it is quite funny
that you ascribe your own biases (in reverse, of course) to me. You
truly are a hypocrite.
And, I'll believe that it is Windows that is selling the Mac when you,
you know, actually provide some evidence. Thus far, you have only
provided insults and your own biases.
> > IOW, you are doing exactly what you claim the people you call
> > "Mactards" are doing.
> >
> > I don't attibute Mactards to doing anything intelligent so obviously this
> > statement is wrong.
>
> Unable to actually make an intelligent comment on my point, PCGuy
> decides to throw in a gratuitous insult. And he wonders why I keep
> saying he is acting like an ass...
[PCGuy again]
> What I keep wondering is, if I'm an ass, why you keep responding to me. You
> Mactards whine about how my ilk infect your forum yet you respond to us ALL
> THE TIME! LOL!
I'm bored, and it is fun to point out your stupidity.
No comments on any of the above. I wonder why?
David Fritzinger
Mitch <mi...@hawaii.rr> wrote:
Good point.
Tim Adams
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-6DEBB1.08...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net on
> 12/23/07 6:12 AM:
>
> > In article <C3932A0C.9EBF1%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> >> teadams$2$0$0$3-647443.22...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net on
> >> 12/22/07 8:46 PM:
> >>
> >>
> >>>> This is what I wrote:
> >>>>
> >>> we know you wrote that you're an asshole. No need for you to keep
> >>> repeating
> >>> it.
> >>
> >> ---------
> >> This is what I wrote:
> >>
> >
> > we know you wrote that you're an asshole. No need for you to keep repeating
> > it.
>
> ---------
> This is what I wrote:
>
we know you wrote that you're an asshole. No need for you to keep repeating it.
--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
Tim Adams
"PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:teadams$2$0$0$3-AC63C5.20...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net...
> > In article <y-SdnUQ6j54-CfDa...@comcast.com>,
> > "PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> news:teadams$2$0$0$3-035AB3.17...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net..
> >> .
> >> > In article <7u6dnd1Uk9zb_vDa...@comcast.com>,
> >> > "PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Mitch" <mi...@hawaii.rr> wrote in message
> >> >> news:221220070859518044%mi...@hawaii.rr...
> >> >> > In article <RJydnYIVFf_8ufDa...@comcast.com>, PC Guy
> >> >> > <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> Sure they did. Or can you provide some other reason Macintosh
> >> >> >> >> has started gaining marketshare after all these years?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > The continued success of the iPod introduced Macs to people that
> >> >> >> > never
> >> >> >> > paid
> >> >> >> > much attention to them before.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Oh please! The iPod has been out since when, 2001? It's just now,
> >> >> >> four
> >> >> >> years
> >> >> >> later that it's halo effect is gaining traction? Please.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Why isn't that possible?
> >> >>
> >> >> I guess it's possible, though unlikely.
> >> >
> >> > Actually it's very likely since the iPod didn't really take off until
> >> > the
> >> > itunes
> >> > store opened in 2003 (US) and other locations at a much later time.
> >>
> >> LOL! And you wonder why we're here. This kind of response is exactly why
> >> I'm
> >> here. So we have iTunres opening two years earlier
> >
> > Poor pc guy can't seem to telldates.
>
> LOL! So this is your defense? Pointing out that I made a mistake and wrote
> "earlier" instead of "later"? LOL! Well, OK...I guess you take em when you
> can get em since they don't come by too often.
>
> > If he could he would see the iTunes store opened 2 year AFTER the iPod was
> > released.
>
> iPod released: 2001
> iTunes store: 2003
> Intel Macs released: 2005
> Sizeable (for the Mac anyway) Mac market share increase: 2005
That had been growing since 2003. You really didn't expect everybody to go out
and buy new computer all at once did you?
>
~snip
Tim Adams
"PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
and going from <3% around 2003 to 4.21% in January of 2006 was just what?
Something you conveniently ignore?
>
> > The first Intel Macs weren't available until January of 2006.
>
> Theory intact.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> > The iPod's sales rose steadily in that time, and I'm not suggesting
> >> > people
> >> > would rush out and throw away a perfectly good PC and buy
> >> > a Mac just because they bought an iPod. I just think that the next
> >> > time
> >> > iPod lovers needed a new PC, they'd be more open to considering a Mac.
> >> > I
> >> > also agree that the switch to Intel helped- it made the purchase of a
> >> > Mac
> >> > "safer" for those that felt they needed Windows as a fall-back option.
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> > --
> > Alan Baker
> > Vancouver, British Columbia
> > "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
> > to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
> > sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
--
Snit
12/23/07 8:19 PM:
>> ---------
>> This is what I wrote:
>>
>
> we know you wrote that you're an asshole. No need for you to keep repeating
> it.
---------
This is what I wrote:
-----
My goodnees - are you *still* flaming me in your every post?
Pathetic. Really. Will you take responsibility for your own
actions or blame me and *lie*, saying *I* need to do
something for you to grow up and stop flaming me?
Oh well...
-----
Notice your dishonest snipping. You show no ability to be honest - just as
you show no ability to stop yourself from trolling me in your every post.
Even Carroll was able to show greater maturity than you, at least in this
area - I always had you pegged as the one who would mature more quickly.
---------
Amazing how much you fear those few words of mine. All you can do is snip
and run... you simply cannot face your own trolling, immaturity, or
dishonesty. Oh well - that comes as no surprise. You, simply, are who you
are and are not pleased with yourself. I do not blame you for not liking
who you are... and you make it *very* clear you do not - if you did like
yourself you would be able to face who and what you are.
--
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
--Aldous Huxley
Tim Adams
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-F43923.22...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net on
> 12/23/07 8:19 PM:
>
> >> ---------
> >> This is what I wrote:
> >>
> >
> > we know you wrote that you're an asshole. No need for you to keep repeating
> > it.
>
> ---------
> This is what I wrote:
>
we know you wrote that you're an asshole. No need for you to keep repeating it.
--
Snit
12/24/07 6:32 AM:
>> ---------
>> This is what I wrote:
>>
>
> we know you wrote that you're an asshole. No need for you to keep repeating
> it.
---------
This is what I wrote:
-----
My goodnees - are you *still* flaming me in your every post?
Pathetic. Really. Will you take responsibility for your own
actions or blame me and *lie*, saying *I* need to do
something for you to grow up and stop flaming me?
Oh well...
-----
Notice your dishonest snipping. You show no ability to be honest - just as
you show no ability to stop yourself from trolling me in your every post.
Even Carroll was able to show greater maturity than you, at least in this
area - I always had you pegged as the one who would mature more quickly.
---------
Amazing how much you fear those few words of mine. All you can do is snip
and run... you simply cannot face your own trolling, immaturity, or
dishonesty. Oh well - that comes as no surprise. You, simply, are who you
are and are not pleased with yourself. I do not blame you for not liking
who you are... and you make it *very* clear you do not - if you did like
yourself you would be able to face who and what you are.
--
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please
everyone. -- Bill Cosby
PC Guy
"Mitch" <mi...@hawaii.rr> wrote in message
> In article <NvmdnSRRyNb_TfPa...@comcast.com>, PC Guy
> <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Just as it isn't enough for the Mac to be better to get people to
>> > switch
>> > from what they're currently using.
>>
>> Why not?
> Why don't people change whatever they are using to something that is
> better?
> Because they have to LEARN that it is better, and _if_ it is better in
> a way they can use or appreciate, and be willing to put in some effort.
So educate me. Why is OS X better?
PC Guy
They seem to be doing it more since the release of the Intel Macs. Did you
look at Alan's chart? The increase stands out like a sore thumb. You don't
even need to look at the dates along the bottom it's so obvious. Try and
spin this away any way you want. The ability to run Windows is what's
selling more Macs. Not some superiority of OS X.
PC Guy
"David Fritzinger" <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzin-5ADC81...@johnf2.biosci.ohio-state.edu...
You're just now figuring this out? Despite being told a number of times?
Damn, you really do earn the characterization of Mactard.
>>
>> > > Now, as to what you wrote. What I said is a general concept in data
>> > > analysis, namely that temporal correlations are not all that
>> > > reliable.
>> >
>> > > I admit it's not proof. But one would be foolish to deny the two were
>> > > just
>> > > coincidences.
>> >
>> > Actually, no it wouldn't. There are many possible reasons why Mac
>> > sales have increased. The one you present is only one, and you offer
>> > no other evidence than your own biases to support your conclusion.
>> >
>> > Fine. Give me another reason. So far the examples of the dinosaurs
>> > becoming
>> > extinct isn't cutting it.
>>
>> I gave several. Perhaps if you could ignore your own biases for a
>> change, you might see them.
> [below non-sequitur is from PCGuy]
>> I don't think the extinction of the dinosaurs had anything to do with it.
>> But thanks for playing!
>
> As I stated in my previous post, non-sequiturs do not make a good
> argument. Thank you for demonstrating that fact yet again.
Then why do you keep making them? You know they're no good but make them you
do.
Sheesh! Here we are again with this. How many times is it going to take
before it sinks into your Mactard head?
>
>> > Now, as I said above, there are many possible reasons why Mac market
>> > share could be increasing. The iPod halo effect is one.
>> >
>> > So is the dinosaurs becoming extinct.
>>
>> Non-sequiturs do not good arguments make. Perhaps you should learn
>> that.
> [PCGuy again]
>> Then why did you make them?
>
> I didn't. You, however did, and continued to do so. Do you enjoy looking
> like a fool? I ask for information only.
Sure you did.
>>
>> > The ability to run Windows is also one. Another is the amount of press
>> > Apple has been receiving recently because of things like the iPhone
>> > and iPods (IOW, mindshare, which Apple has been very good at getting).
>> > You offer your reason because you apparently cannot believe that
>> > people could find the Mac to be a superior computing solution to
>> > Windows.
>> >
>> > Oh I could *IF* it happened prior to the Macs ability to run Windows
>> > natively. The fact is the Mac, as it exists today and with minor
>> > changes,
>> > have been available since 2001. If it were something inherent to OS X
>> > then
>> > why did we not see it earlier? Why did it take half a goddamn decade?
>>
>> Consumer trends take time.
> [PC Guy again below]
>> Half a decade? Please David. Just because you're a moron doesn't mean the
>> rest of us are!
>
> Just possibly. After all, we are not seeing a massive jump to Macs, just
> a gradual increase in market share.
Gradual increase? Did you take a look at Alans graph? It looks like a cliff
beginning in August 2006
>>
>> How long did it take the iPod to become the success it is?
>>
>> It didn't take half a decade!
>
> Remember, the mp3 market was relatively new with the iPod (and, no, I am
> not trying to say the iPod invented the mp3 player market). Here we are
> talking about a very established and mature market. Shifts would tend to
> happen slowly and take a while to develop.
Again I point you to Alans graph where Mac marketshare almost doubled from
August 2006 to present. That's what you consider gradual?
>>
>> Years.
> [PC guy below here]
>> You have numbers to support this?
>
> http://www.systemshootouts.org/ipod_sales.html
>>
>> Add to that the fact that OSX has continuously gotten better over the
>> years,
>> and you have the reasons you were
>> seeking. But, since they don't support your biases, you will ignore them
>> and
>> call me names.
> [below is PC Guy]
>> OS X has improved but not that much. Face it David...you just can't
>> accept
>> that Windows is what is selling the Macintosh. Instead you ignore reality
>> for an alternative (which, for a Mactard, isn't all that surprising).
>
> Actually, it has improved that much. I have used OSX from 10.1 now
> through 10.5. The improvement is quite massive. And, it is quite funny
> that you ascribe your own biases (in reverse, of course) to me. You
> truly are a hypocrite.
It's been refined. Hardly the changes that warrant an almost doubling of
marketshare.
> And, I'll believe that it is Windows that is selling the Mac when you,
> you know, actually provide some evidence. Thus far, you have only
> provided insults and your own biases.
I've provided my opinion. Opinion based on logical deduction. I've clearly
stated it doesn't prove anything. But I have yet to see anything other than
non-sequiturs from you.
>
>> > IOW, you are doing exactly what you claim the people you call
>> > "Mactards" are doing.
>> >
>> > I don't attibute Mactards to doing anything intelligent so obviously
>> > this
>> > statement is wrong.
>>
>> Unable to actually make an intelligent comment on my point, PCGuy
>> decides to throw in a gratuitous insult. And he wonders why I keep
>> saying he is acting like an ass...
> [PCGuy again]
>> What I keep wondering is, if I'm an ass, why you keep responding to me.
>> You
>> Mactards whine about how my ilk infect your forum yet you respond to us
>> ALL
>> THE TIME! LOL!
>
> I'm bored, and it is fun to point out your stupidity.
So, let me get this straight. You actually are announcing to the world that
you are an ass, and enjoy acting like one?
>>
Snit
EqGdnbg-k4VwUPLa...@comcast.com on 12/24/07 8:19 AM:
>>> iPod released: 2001
>>> iTunes store: 2003
>>> Intel Macs released: 2005
>>> Sizeable (for the Mac anyway) Mac market share increase: 2005
>>
>> That had been growing since 2003. You really didn't expect everybody to go
>> out
>> and buy new computer all at once did you?
>
> They seem to be doing it more since the release of the Intel Macs. Did you
> look at Alan's chart? The increase stands out like a sore thumb. You don't
> even need to look at the dates along the bottom it's so obvious. Try and
> spin this away any way you want. The ability to run Windows is what's
> selling more Macs. Not some superiority of OS X.
Moving to Intel did a number of things other than just allowing users to run
Windows on a Mac - if nothing else it allowed Macs to get a *lot* of
publicity and it allowed them to be able to make faster computers,
especially laptops (the G5 simply did not live up to its earlier promises).
The fact that Macs can now run Windows is, of course, a benefit - and one I
enjoy. If it were not for that fact I would have had to buy two computers -
now I got two for the price of one. Excellent! I do not even use Boot
Camp, I use VMWare's fusion when I have a need to run Windows and am able to
test websites, for example, on both IE 6 and IE 7 without rebooting... and
yet do the design and development on a Mac.
--
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/f351
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
PC Guy
Paltry compared to the almost doubling seen from August 2006 to present. In
your timeframe Mac gained 1.21% (I am going to assume your numbers are
correct) over a 3 year period of time. In my timeframe Mac gained almost 3%
in 1 1/2 years. A review of the graph Alan provided shows a .75% increase
from August 2006 to October 2006. That one quarter increase represents 60%
of the growth seen in your timeframe. The next quarter is even
larger...growing about 1%. These two quarters alone represent more growth
than your time frame. It's the rate of growth that's telling, not that
growth was happening.
David Fritzinger
"PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
It is the holiday season, and I had some hope for you. However, if you
must continue to be an ass, I shall treat you like one.
>
>
> >>
> >> > > Now, as to what you wrote. What I said is a general concept in data
> >> > > analysis, namely that temporal correlations are not all that
> >> > > reliable.
> >> >
> >> > > I admit it's not proof. But one would be foolish to deny the two were
> >> > > just
> >> > > coincidences.
> >> >
> >> > Actually, no it wouldn't. There are many possible reasons why Mac
> >> > sales have increased. The one you present is only one, and you offer
> >> > no other evidence than your own biases to support your conclusion.
> >> >
> >> > Fine. Give me another reason. So far the examples of the dinosaurs
> >> > becoming
> >> > extinct isn't cutting it.
> >>
> >> I gave several. Perhaps if you could ignore your own biases for a
> >> change, you might see them.
> > [below non-sequitur is from PCGuy]
> >> I don't think the extinction of the dinosaurs had anything to do with it.
> >> But thanks for playing!
> >
> > As I stated in my previous post, non-sequiturs do not make a good
> > argument. Thank you for demonstrating that fact yet again.
>
> Then why do you keep making them? You know they're no good but make them you
> do.
You know, the above comment really makes you look stupid (which is
nothing new for you I realize, but I thought I would point it out). The
only one here using non-sequiturs is you. But, you continue to be an
ass.
Odd that someone would announce to the world that their goal in life is
to be an asshole. Well, it will make you happy to know that I believe
you are doing a fine job. Keep it up.
>
>
> >
> >> > Now, as I said above, there are many possible reasons why Mac market
> >> > share could be increasing. The iPod halo effect is one.
> >> >
> >> > So is the dinosaurs becoming extinct.
> >>
> >> Non-sequiturs do not good arguments make. Perhaps you should learn
> >> that.
> > [PCGuy again]
> >> Then why did you make them?
> >
> > I didn't. You, however did, and continued to do so. Do you enjoy looking
> > like a fool? I ask for information only.
>
> Sure you did.
Now, point out where. Oh, you can't. So you are not only an ass, but a
liar (of course, you have shown that before as well).
>
>
> >>
> >> > The ability to run Windows is also one. Another is the amount of press
> >> > Apple has been receiving recently because of things like the iPhone
> >> > and iPods (IOW, mindshare, which Apple has been very good at getting).
> >> > You offer your reason because you apparently cannot believe that
> >> > people could find the Mac to be a superior computing solution to
> >> > Windows.
> >> >
> >> > Oh I could *IF* it happened prior to the Macs ability to run Windows
> >> > natively. The fact is the Mac, as it exists today and with minor
> >> > changes,
> >> > have been available since 2001. If it were something inherent to OS X
> >> > then
> >> > why did we not see it earlier? Why did it take half a goddamn decade?
> >>
> >> Consumer trends take time.
> > [PC Guy again below]
> >> Half a decade? Please David. Just because you're a moron doesn't mean the
> >> rest of us are!
> >
> > Just possibly. After all, we are not seeing a massive jump to Macs, just
> > a gradual increase in market share.
>
> Gradual increase? Did you take a look at Alans graph? It looks like a cliff
> beginning in August 2006
It is the continuation of an increase that started before the Intel
transition. Indeed, many were predicting that Mac sales would slump
between the announcement of the transition to Intel and the actual
transition. They didn't.
>
>
> >>
> >> How long did it take the iPod to become the success it is?
> >>
> >> It didn't take half a decade!
> >
> > Remember, the mp3 market was relatively new with the iPod (and, no, I am
> > not trying to say the iPod invented the mp3 player market). Here we are
> > talking about a very established and mature market. Shifts would tend to
> > happen slowly and take a while to develop.
>
> Again I point you to Alans graph where Mac marketshare almost doubled from
> August 2006 to present. That's what you consider gradual?
>
Now try reading what I wrote above for content, if you are indeed
capable of doing so. Now, read it again. Got it yet?
Oh well, I didn't think you would get it...
>
> >>
> >> Years.
> > [PC guy below here]
> >> You have numbers to support this?
> >
> > http://www.systemshootouts.org/ipod_sales.html
> >>
> >> Add to that the fact that OSX has continuously gotten better over the
> >> years,
> >> and you have the reasons you were
> >> seeking. But, since they don't support your biases, you will ignore them
> >> and
> >> call me names.
> > [below is PC Guy]
> >> OS X has improved but not that much. Face it David...you just can't
> >> accept
> >> that Windows is what is selling the Macintosh. Instead you ignore reality
> >> for an alternative (which, for a Mactard, isn't all that surprising).
> >
> > Actually, it has improved that much. I have used OSX from 10.1 now
> > through 10.5. The improvement is quite massive. And, it is quite funny
> > that you ascribe your own biases (in reverse, of course) to me. You
> > truly are a hypocrite.
>
> It's been refined. Hardly the changes that warrant an almost doubling of
> marketshare.
Again, read what I wrote above. In a mature market, which the PC market
surely is, these changes occur slowly.
>
>
> > And, I'll believe that it is Windows that is selling the Mac when you,
> > you know, actually provide some evidence. Thus far, you have only
> > provided insults and your own biases.
>
> I've provided my opinion. Opinion based on logical deduction. I've clearly
> stated it doesn't prove anything. But I have yet to see anything other than
> non-sequiturs from you.
>
No, I've provided facts. You have provided non-sequiturs and wishful
thinking. Well, if that is all you've got, I guess you have to go with
it.
>
> >
> >> > IOW, you are doing exactly what you claim the people you call
> >> > "Mactards" are doing.
> >> >
> >> > I don't attibute Mactards to doing anything intelligent so obviously
> >> > this
> >> > statement is wrong.
> >>
> >> Unable to actually make an intelligent comment on my point, PCGuy
> >> decides to throw in a gratuitous insult. And he wonders why I keep
> >> saying he is acting like an ass...
> > [PCGuy again]
> >> What I keep wondering is, if I'm an ass, why you keep responding to me.
> >> You
> >> Mactards whine about how my ilk infect your forum yet you respond to us
> >> ALL
> >> THE TIME! LOL!
> >
> > I'm bored, and it is fun to point out your stupidity.
>
> So, let me get this straight. You actually are announcing to the world that
> you are an ass, and enjoy acting like one?
Nope. I am saying that someone needs to point out how utterly clueless
you are, and I have elected myself. I tried to actually have a
discussion with you, but you proved yourself entirely too clueless for
that to happen.
BTW, please do try to be original. I know it takes intelligence...
Oh wait! I forgot who I was talking to <G>
[snip of more stuff that PC Guy didn't respond to.]
PC Guy
"David Fritzinger" <dfri...@nospam.mac.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzin-CF6C41...@news-server.hawaii.rr.com...
So two wrongs make a right? I've been treated like one the moment the first
Mactard saw my handle. They immediately went into attack mode before reading
word one of what I wrote. I am merely reciprocating to their behavior.
You forgot about your non-sequiturs: iPod halo effect
Not my life. Just my life wrt Mactards.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >> > Now, as I said above, there are many possible reasons why Mac market
>> >> > share could be increasing. The iPod halo effect is one.
>> >> >
>> >> > So is the dinosaurs becoming extinct.
>> >>
>> >> Non-sequiturs do not good arguments make. Perhaps you should learn
>> >> that.
>> > [PCGuy again]
>> >> Then why did you make them?
>> >
>> > I didn't. You, however did, and continued to do so. Do you enjoy
>> > looking
>> > like a fool? I ask for information only.
>>
>> Sure you did.
>
> Now, point out where.
iPod halo effect. You're welcome.
It's a huge increase David. It isn't the "continuation of". It looks like a
cliff wall.
> Indeed, many were predicting that Mac sales would slump
> between the announcement of the transition to Intel and the actual
> transition. They didn't.
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> How long did it take the iPod to become the success it is?
>> >>
>> >> It didn't take half a decade!
>> >
>> > Remember, the mp3 market was relatively new with the iPod (and, no, I
>> > am
>> > not trying to say the iPod invented the mp3 player market). Here we are
>> > talking about a very established and mature market. Shifts would tend
>> > to
>> > happen slowly and take a while to develop.
>>
>> Again I point you to Alans graph where Mac marketshare almost doubled
>> from
>> August 2006 to present. That's what you consider gradual?
>>
> Now try reading what I wrote above for content, if you are indeed
> capable of doing so. Now, read it again. Got it yet?
Noper. So spell it out for me.
> Oh well, I didn't think you would get it...
Good. We're on the same page. I don't get it. So spell it out.
But it's not occuring slowly, it's happening rapidly. In two quarters time
the Macs marketshare increased more than a three year period prior to the
Intel Macs introduction. Now I know your slow but that doesn't mean
everything else is.
>>
>>
>> > And, I'll believe that it is Windows that is selling the Mac when you,
>> > you know, actually provide some evidence. Thus far, you have only
>> > provided insults and your own biases.
>>
>> I've provided my opinion. Opinion based on logical deduction. I've
>> clearly
>> stated it doesn't prove anything. But I have yet to see anything other
>> than
>> non-sequiturs from you.
>>
>
> No, I've provided facts.
Really? Where?
> You have provided non-sequiturs and wishful
> thinking. Well, if that is all you've got, I guess you have to go with
> it.
I've provide a logical deduction based on the information at hand. No
surprise you can't see it. After all, you're a Mactard.
>>
>> >
>> >> > IOW, you are doing exactly what you claim the people you call
>> >> > "Mactards" are doing.
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't attibute Mactards to doing anything intelligent so obviously
>> >> > this
>> >> > statement is wrong.
>> >>
>> >> Unable to actually make an intelligent comment on my point, PCGuy
>> >> decides to throw in a gratuitous insult. And he wonders why I keep
>> >> saying he is acting like an ass...
>> > [PCGuy again]
>> >> What I keep wondering is, if I'm an ass, why you keep responding to
>> >> me.
>> >> You
>> >> Mactards whine about how my ilk infect your forum yet you respond to
>> >> us
>> >> ALL
>> >> THE TIME! LOL!
>> >
>> > I'm bored, and it is fun to point out your stupidity.
>>
>> So, let me get this straight. You actually are announcing to the world
>> that
>> you are an ass, and enjoy acting like one?
>
> Nope. I am saying that someone needs to point out how utterly clueless
> you are, and I have elected myself.
Why? Is it in the Mactard mission statement?
> I tried to actually have a discussion with you, but you proved yourself
> entirely too clueless for
> that to happen.
Come now David. Am I clueless and incapable? Or am I being an ass? Can't
have it both ways.
> BTW, please do try to be original. I know it takes intelligence...
Why? You aren't. Why waste good material?
Tim Adams
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-E19361.08...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net on
> 12/24/07 6:32 AM:
>
> >> ---------
> >> This is what I wrote:
> >>
> >
> > we know you wrote that you're an asshole. No need for you to keep repeating
> > it.
>
> ---------
> This is what I wrote:
>
we know you wrote that you're an asshole. Funny how you keep repeating it.
Snit
12/24/07 9:34 AM:
>> ---------
>> This is what I wrote:
>>
>
> we know you wrote that you're an asshole. Funny how you keep repeating it.
Wow... you just keep snipping and showing you are unable to face your own
actions and who you are. Sad.
--
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
David Fritzinger
"PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Want some cheese with you whine?
We've been through this before, I believe. And I believe it was shown
you were lying.
I don't believe I said that, but market analysts have. And, how is that
a non-sequitur?
This should be good...
Yet the only impression anyone here gets of you is that you are an ass.
If that makes you feel good, I guess you should run with it. But, I can
understand why you don't post under your real name. If I were you, I
wouldn't either.
>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> > Now, as I said above, there are many possible reasons why Mac market
> >> >> > share could be increasing. The iPod halo effect is one.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So is the dinosaurs becoming extinct.
> >> >>
> >> >> Non-sequiturs do not good arguments make. Perhaps you should learn
> >> >> that.
> >> > [PCGuy again]
> >> >> Then why did you make them?
> >> >
> >> > I didn't. You, however did, and continued to do so. Do you enjoy
> >> > looking
> >> > like a fool? I ask for information only.
> >>
> >> Sure you did.
> >
> > Now, point out where.
>
> iPod halo effect. You're welcome.
Again, please explain how that is a non-sequitur. It has been brought up
by market analysts as an explanation for Apple's success. They
undoubtedly know more than you on the subject.
It is still a continuation of an increase that started *before* the
Intel transition. As such, it casts doubt on your "hypothesis".
>
> > Indeed, many were predicting that Mac sales would slump
> > between the announcement of the transition to Intel and the actual
> > transition. They didn't.
> >>
No comment here?
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> How long did it take the iPod to become the success it is?
> >> >>
> >> >> It didn't take half a decade!
> >> >
> >> > Remember, the mp3 market was relatively new with the iPod (and, no, I
> >> > am
> >> > not trying to say the iPod invented the mp3 player market). Here we are
> >> > talking about a very established and mature market. Shifts would tend
> >> > to
> >> > happen slowly and take a while to develop.
> >>
> >> Again I point you to Alans graph where Mac marketshare almost doubled
> >> from
> >> August 2006 to present. That's what you consider gradual?
> >>
> > Now try reading what I wrote above for content, if you are indeed
> > capable of doing so. Now, read it again. Got it yet?
>
> Noper. So spell it out for me.
>
> > Oh well, I didn't think you would get it...
>
> Good. We're on the same page. I don't get it. So spell it out.
In a mature market, such as the personal computer market, market share
will change much more slowly than it will in a relatively new market,
such as the MP3 player market in 2001. Most people who are interested in
having computers already have one. Therefore, one platform can only gain
or lose market share as people replace the computers they already have.
We are seeing an increase in Mac market share as people start buying
Macs over Windows computers, or in addition to Windows computers. Do you
get it now?
First, spare me the gratuitous insults, as they only make you look more
like an ass (not that you need help). Second, it is still the
continuation of a trend that started before the Intel switch. Sure,
there are some people for whom the ability to still run Windows programs
influenced their decision. I have stated that all along. But that is not
the sole reason for their buying Macs now.
>
>
> >>
> >>
> >> > And, I'll believe that it is Windows that is selling the Mac when you,
> >> > you know, actually provide some evidence. Thus far, you have only
> >> > provided insults and your own biases.
> >>
> >> I've provided my opinion. Opinion based on logical deduction. I've
> >> clearly
> >> stated it doesn't prove anything. But I have yet to see anything other
> >> than
> >> non-sequiturs from you.
> >>
> >
> > No, I've provided facts.
>
> Really? Where?
Above.
>
> > You have provided non-sequiturs and wishful
> > thinking. Well, if that is all you've got, I guess you have to go with
> > it.
>
> I've provide a logical deduction based on the information at hand. No
> surprise you can't see it. After all, you're a Mactard.
No, you provided a deduction, based on the fact that you obviously
dislike Macs. Your deduction is based only on your biases.
>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> > IOW, you are doing exactly what you claim the people you call
> >> >> > "Mactards" are doing.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I don't attibute Mactards to doing anything intelligent so obviously
> >> >> > this
> >> >> > statement is wrong.
> >> >>
> >> >> Unable to actually make an intelligent comment on my point, PCGuy
> >> >> decides to throw in a gratuitous insult. And he wonders why I keep
> >> >> saying he is acting like an ass...
> >> > [PCGuy again]
> >> >> What I keep wondering is, if I'm an ass, why you keep responding to
> >> >> me.
> >> >> You
> >> >> Mactards whine about how my ilk infect your forum yet you respond to
> >> >> us
> >> >> ALL
> >> >> THE TIME! LOL!
> >> >
> >> > I'm bored, and it is fun to point out your stupidity.
> >>
> >> So, let me get this straight. You actually are announcing to the world
> >> that
> >> you are an ass, and enjoy acting like one?
> >
> > Nope. I am saying that someone needs to point out how utterly clueless
> > you are, and I have elected myself.
>
> Why? Is it in the Mactard mission statement?
Unable to provide a logical response, PC Guy goes with the only thing he
has. To wit, name calling.
>
> > I tried to actually have a discussion with you, but you proved yourself
> > entirely too clueless for
> > that to happen.
>
> Come now David. Am I clueless and incapable? Or am I being an ass? Can't
> have it both ways.
Actually, you can. Just look at your posts. You clearly demonstrate that
you are a cluless ass.
8^)
>
> > BTW, please do try to be original. I know it takes intelligence...
>
> Why? You aren't. Why waste good material?
Actually, your actions belie your words. Since you were copying me...
BTW, thank you for fixing your newsreader.
[snip]
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-7E4887.11...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net on
> 12/24/07 9:34 AM:
>
> >> ---------
> >> This is what I wrote:
> >>
> >
> > we know you wrote that you're an asshole. Funny how you keep repeating it.
>
> Wow...
I agree... you really should stop repeating it, Snit;)
PC Guy
Why yes. You with yours?
> We've been through this before, I believe. And I believe it was shown
> you were lying.
LOL! No need to demonstrate why you've earned the label Mactard David. We
already know.
Dave Fritzinger
PC Guy wrote:
> "David Fritzinger" <dfri...@nospam.mac.com> wrote in message
> news:dfritzin-F06F25...@news-server.hawaii.rr.com...
> > In article <zbqdnT7NyrIxR_La...@comcast.com>,
> > "PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "David Fritzinger" <dfri...@nospam.mac.com> wrote in message
> >> news:dfritzin-CF6C41...@news-server.hawaii.rr.com...
> >> > In article <JIydnSLMdIYeUvLa...@comcast.com>,
> >> > "PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
[big snip]
> >> >> > We can, and I tried. You, on the other hand, have shown a distinct
> >> >> > lack
> >> >> > of ability to do so. IOW, you insist on acting like an ass.
> >> >>
> >> >> You're just now figuring this out? Despite being told a number of
> >> >> times?
> >> >> Damn, you really do earn the characterization of Mactard.
> >> >
> >> > It is the holiday season, and I had some hope for you. However, if you
> >> > must continue to be an ass, I shall treat you like one.
> >>
> >> So two wrongs make a right? I've been treated like one the moment the
> >> first
> >> Mactard saw my handle. They immediately went into attack mode before
> >> reading
> >> word one of what I wrote. I am merely reciprocating to their behavior.
> >
> > Want some cheese with you whine?
>
> Why yes. You with yours?
What gives you the impression I'm whining. You are the one who came in
here calling anyone who disagreed with you a "Mactard", and then
whining that no one treated you nicely. Hypocrite.
>
> > We've been through this before, I believe. And I believe it was shown
> > you were lying.
>
> LOL! No need to demonstrate why you've earned the label Mactard David. We
> already know.
Except, I am not. You, however, seem to get pleasure acting like an
idiot here. Why one can only guess.
It is noted there was no reply. I wonder why not?
None here either.
I know I should snip the above, but I believe it is instructive that
PC Guy included the whole post, and only responded to two lines, and
avoided the substantive parts of my post. And, the only thing PC Guy
posted were some insults. Ahh well, I guess that is what one should
expect of one who revels in the fact that he is an ass.
Mele Kalikamaka, anyway.
Jim Lee Jr.
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> In article <C3953473.9EF19%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> > "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> > teadams$2$0$0$3-7E4887.11...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net on
> > 12/24/07 9:34 AM:
> >
> > >> ---------
> > >> This is what I wrote:
> > >>
> > >
> > > we know you wrote that you're an asshole. Funny how you keep repeating it.
> >
> > Wow...
>
> I agree, you really should stop repeating it, Snit. ;)
Back to the bitchslapping again? Figures. You and Snit cannot keep your
mitts off each other. You and Snit are so ghey.
Snit
peejster01-C2B19...@unlimited.newshosting.com on 12/24/07 2:42
PM:
I have not replied to a single post of his - though I did respond to someone
responding to him... to offer *help*. I did also look to see if Steve
responded with anything intelligent to his comments about his problems, such
as error messages or the like. He did not. He jumped in *claiming* to have
problems to try to "prove" me incorrect (as though I ever said nobody had
any problems with OS X!) and when push came to shove it turned out there was
no reason to believe he even was having the problems he claimed to. Maybe
he read about someone else having some problem on macfixit or wherever... or
maybe the simple advice I and others gave him was enough for him to solve
his problem. Either way he jumped in to - gasp! - troll me and like the
cockroach he is he ran away as soon as the light hit him. Oh well.
--
"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs
Tim Adams
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-7E4887.11...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net on
> 12/24/07 9:34 AM:
>
> >> ---------
> >> This is what I wrote:
> >>
> >
> > we know you wrote that you're an asshole. Funny how you keep repeating it.
>
> Wow...
snit jumps into a thread, snips away ALL the on topic post and tries to start
his snit circus up again, then complains when it's pointed out to him that he an
asshole
keep trolling snit and I'll keep pointing out what an asshole you are, even
though everybody already know that already. see how reality works yet snit?
Snit
12/24/07 8:50 PM:
>> Wow...
>
> snit jumps into a thread, snips away ALL the on topic post and tries to start
> his snit circus up again, then complains when it's pointed out to him that he
> an asshole
>
> keep trolling snit and I'll keep pointing out what an asshole you are, even
> though everybody already know that already. see how reality works yet snit?
You keep snipping my content away. Let's review the facts (though the facts
bother you so much you *will* snip them away)
* I noted how in *your* post you, again (as always) posted a flame
against me. Please note I was not even involved in your discussion
and yet *you* brought me up and posted derogatory comments about me.
* I further noted how you have been doing this for some time and
have, in the past, claimed that what you post is not your
responsibility but *mine* - saying that if I were only to succumb
to some *unnamed* demand of yours you would stop acting in
such an immature fashion.
* I also noted how Carroll *used* to behave as you - posting
flames against me in his every post but that, to my pleasure
and surprise, he actually showed he was maturing and stopped
that behavior.
* You, Tim, unable to deal with those simply facts snipped them
away and outright lied about the contents of my post - as you
almost certainly will with this post.
The fact is, Tim, your trolling shows you to be a very immature person, and
you are not willing to discuss your immaturity - showing that even you, on
some level, know your actions are foolish.
So be it: we both know you are acting in an immature and foolish way with
your repeated flames in your *every* post, your dishonest snipping, and your
outright lying about the content you snip.
I can handle the facts about who and what you are. Someday I am hoping you,
too, will be able to face those facts fully. Once you can do that then
perhaps you will start maturing. I wish you well.
--
Dear Aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1123221217782777472