Re: Security firm suggests Windows users switch to Macs
Edwin
Jim Polaski wrote:
> Since by their measure, security issues have become so serious.
>
> From BBC News
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5150508.stm
>
> " Web perils advise switch to Macs
>
> Security threats to PCs with Microsoft Windows have increased so much
> that computer users should consider using a Mac, says a leading security
> firm.
>
> Sophos security said that the 10 most commonly found pieces of malicious
> software all targeted Windows machines.
>
> In contrast, it said, none of the "malware" were capable of infecting
> the Mac OS X operating system."
>
>
> more in the article as usual...
>
> before the WinNuts go wonky,
>
>
> M$ pledges Vista to be more secure, and
>
> Sophos says that viruses have decreased and malware(trojans) has
> dramatically increased.
Why the hell would anyone pay to replace their PCs with Macs instead of
just switching to Linux and CrossOver Office?
Edwin
Jim Polaski wrote:
> In article <1152121337.4...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
I see you were unable to answer my question.
Mike
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > Why the hell would anyone pay to replace their PCs with Macs instead of
> > > just switching to Linux and CrossOver Office?
> >
> > Sophos knows that this suggestion would get under your fur.
>
> I see you were unable to answer my question.
Because to the extent that Macs and OS X are even on the radar screens
of most of the computer using public (i.e., very little), Linux is
nowhere to be seen. If people are hesitant to "switch" to Macs, then
Linux isn't even an option because no one has heard of it outside of the
server room.
Until some big name gets behind Linux and actually standardizes it and
advertises it and gets major desktop software support, it's not going to
go anywhere on the desktop.
It's kinda like how Personal Computers were in the early days. You
had Apple 2s, Apple 3s, TRS-80 1s, 2s, 3s and 4s, Commodores, and a
whole slew of CP/M vendors battling each other with incompatible disk
formats, CPU architectures, etc. Then along came IBM, who created The
Standard that everyone has been using since.
It will take something along those lines for Linux to be taken seriously.
Mike
tom_...@earthlink.net
<jpol...@NOSPMync.net> wrote:
>Since by their measure, security issues have become so serious.
>
>From BBC News
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5150508.stm
>
>" Web perils advise switch to Macs
>
> Security threats to PCs with Microsoft Windows have increased so much
>that computer users should consider using a Mac, says a leading security
>firm.
>
>Sophos security said that the 10 most commonly found pieces of malicious
>software all targeted Windows machines.
>
>In contrast, it said, none of the "malware" were capable of infecting
>the Mac OS X operating system."
>
>
>more in the article as usual...
>
>before the WinNuts go wonky,
>
>
>M$ pledges Vista to be more secure, and
>
>Sophos says that viruses have decreased and malware(trojans) has
>dramatically increased.
Right. Get about 20% of the world on Macs and watch security software
sales soar as Swiss-Cheese OS X comes under serious attack. Very
clever of them.
John Slade
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1152121337.4...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
My thought exactly. For any company or home user the cost of switching
to another computer is high. However they could go get a Linux or Unix
distribution. Hell if Apple had any sense it would reduce the price of it's
clones and sell OS X to the masses. But they have no balls to compete with
Windows so they want to rely on a small group of Mac Kooks to buy every
computer they come up with no matter if it's a really good new computer or a
laptop stuffed in a small case and marketed as a home computer.
John
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Not Important
> Why the hell would anyone pay to replace their PCs with Macs instead of
> just switching to Linux and CrossOver Office?
That's an easily answered question.
Microsoft has gotten into the Windows Anti-Virus market and is
expected to take anyway a LARGE chunk from the existing Anti-Virus
market leaders.
Linux users generally don't PAY for software and Mac users do.
Thus the best bet may be to chase customers to a platform that
Microsoft doesn't own but has customers known to spend money.
Of course for this to work the number of Mac Virus and Trojan
software would need to explode, but that could easily fixed when
the time is right.
Edwin
Mike wrote:
> In article <1152132454.2...@v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Why the hell would anyone pay to replace their PCs with Macs instead of
> > > > just switching to Linux and CrossOver Office?
> > >
> > > Sophos knows that this suggestion would get under your fur.
> >
> > I see you were unable to answer my question.
>
> Because to the extent that Macs and OS X are even on the radar screens
> of most of the computer using public (i.e., very little), Linux is
> nowhere to be seen. If people are hesitant to "switch" to Macs, then
> Linux isn't even an option because no one has heard of it outside of the
> server room.
IOW, you think Wal-Mart is *the* place for SysAdmins? Or you're just
displaying your typical dishonesty again? After all, you've been told
umpteen times about all the mainstream places that sell Linux desktops.
> Until some big name gets behind Linux and actually standardizes it and
> advertises it and gets major desktop software support, it's not going to
> go anywhere on the desktop.
You mean like Sun, Novell, IBM, HP, Dell, or any of the other big names
that have been standardizing Linux for years, and all of which you've
been told about umpteen times?
> It's kinda like how Personal Computers were in the early days. You
> had Apple 2s, Apple 3s, TRS-80 1s, 2s, 3s and 4s, Commodores, and a
> whole slew of CP/M vendors battling each other with incompatible disk
> formats, CPU architectures, etc. Then along came IBM, who created The
> Standard that everyone has been using since.
You very well know that the various Linux distros aren't incompatible
as were those early personal computers.
> It will take something along those lines for Linux to be taken seriously.
Linux is already taken seriously. MS has already labeled it as a
threat to their business.
Edwin
Not Important wrote:
> In article
> <1152121337.4...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > Why the hell would anyone pay to replace their PCs with Macs instead of
> > just switching to Linux and CrossOver Office?
>
> That's an easily answered question.
Yet no answer appears below.
> Microsoft has gotten into the Windows Anti-Virus market and is
> expected to take anyway a LARGE chunk from the existing Anti-Virus
> market leaders.
What has that to do with escaping viruses by switching to a Mac?
> Linux users generally don't PAY for software and Mac users do.
Yet Apple sells Shake to Linux users for $5,000 a pop. Go figure.
> Thus the best bet may be to chase customers to a platform that
> Microsoft doesn't own but has customers known to spend money.
Who's going to "chase customers?" Where's the answer to the question
at the top of this post?
> Of course for this to work the number of Mac Virus and Trojan
> software would need to explode, but that could easily fixed when
> the time is right.
WTF are you talking about?
C Lund
"John Slade" <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> My thought exactly. For any company or home user the cost of switching
> to another computer is high. However they could go get a Linux or Unix
> distribution. Hell if Apple had any sense it would reduce the price of it's
> clones and sell OS X to the masses.
Because:
1) Apple is a hardware company.
2) You don't have to "sell to the masses" in order to run a healthy
business.
3) Products that "sell to the masses" tend to be lowest common
denominator products, such as McDonalds, Britney Spears, and Hollywood
spew.
> But they have no balls to compete with
> Windows so they want to rely on a small group of Mac Kooks to buy every
> computer they come up with no matter if it's a really good new computer or a
> laptop stuffed in a small case and marketed as a home computer.
IMHO Apple's recent switch to Intel was mainly motivated by the desire
to compete with Windows. But typically enough, they're doing it their
way.
> John
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Mike
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> IOW, you think Wal-Mart is *the* place for SysAdmins? Or you're just
> displaying your typical dishonesty again? After all, you've been told
> umpteen times about all the mainstream places that sell Linux desktops.
>
Told by who - you? Yeah, that's credible!
> You mean like Sun, Novell, IBM, HP, Dell, or any of the other big names
> that have been standardizing Linux for years, and all of which you've
> been told about umpteen times?
Where are the ads selling Linux for the desktop? Nowhere, that's where.
The original IBM PC ad campaign comes to mind here. Brilliant, witty
and everywhere. There has been no such thing for LOTD.
MIke
Edwin
Mike wrote:
> In article <1152160947.7...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > IOW, you think Wal-Mart is *the* place for SysAdmins? Or you're just
> > displaying your typical dishonesty again? After all, you've been told
> > umpteen times about all the mainstream places that sell Linux desktops.
>
> Told by who - you?
By me and by many others.
> Yeah, that's credible!
Where does a liar like you get off impugning my reputation? Wal-mart
selling Linux was all over the news. For you to claim (then snip
your claim) that Linux hasn't made out of the server room, shows how
little credibility you have.
> > You mean like Sun, Novell, IBM, HP, Dell, or any of the other big names
> > that have been standardizing Linux for years, and all of which you've
> > been told about umpteen times?
>
> Where are the ads selling Linux for the desktop? Nowhere, that's where.
Bring a seeing-eye dog with you the next time you visit their sites.
> The original IBM PC ad campaign comes to mind here. Brilliant, witty
> and everywhere. There has been no such thing for LOTD.
LOTD has had even better. It's had loads of free press coverage,
such as when Microsoft sued for use of the name "Lindows." Or from
the SCO suit.
Edwin
C Lund wrote:
> In article <44ac3b41$0$18488$8826...@free.teranews.com>,
> "John Slade" <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > My thought exactly. For any company or home user the cost of switching
> > to another computer is high. However they could go get a Linux or Unix
> > distribution. Hell if Apple had any sense it would reduce the price of it's
> > clones and sell OS X to the masses.
>
> Because:
>
> 1) Apple is a hardware company.
Apple is not just a hardware company.
> 2) You don't have to "sell to the masses" in order to run a healthy
> business.
Good luck convincing people that the Intel PC Apple sells now is an
elite item.
> 3) Products that "sell to the masses" tend to be lowest common
> denominator products, such as McDonalds, Britney Spears, and Hollywood
> spew.
Apple sells the same type of product as that. Some people are dumb
enough to pay through the nose for a designer label (or an Apple logo).
> > But they have no balls to compete with
> > Windows so they want to rely on a small group of Mac Kooks to buy every
> > computer they come up with no matter if it's a really good new computer or a
> > laptop stuffed in a small case and marketed as a home computer.
>
> IMHO Apple's recent switch to Intel was mainly motivated by the desire
> to compete with Windows.
What happened to your claims about Apple not needing to sell to the
"masses?"
> But typically enough, they're doing it their
> way.
Selling underpowered, overpriced computers at high margins.
Mike
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > The original IBM PC ad campaign comes to mind here. Brilliant, witty
> > and everywhere. There has been no such thing for LOTD.
>
> LOTD has had even better. It's had loads of free press coverage,
> such as when Microsoft sued for use of the name "Lindows." Or from
> the SCO suit.
Yet Linux remains in the sub 1% basement of desktop use.
Again, no one knows about it outside of geeks (like us) and the server
room.
Mike
Mike
> Where does a liar like you get off impugning my reputation?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
You have no reputation to impugn. Go get a decent reputation so I can
then impugn it, OK?
Mike
Edwin
Mike wrote:
> In article <1152196852.8...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > The original IBM PC ad campaign comes to mind here. Brilliant, witty
> > > and everywhere. There has been no such thing for LOTD.
> >
> > LOTD has had even better. It's had loads of free press coverage,
> > such as when Microsoft sued for use of the name "Lindows." Or from
> > the SCO suit.
>
> Yet Linux remains in the sub 1% basement of desktop use.
No it doesn't.
> Again, no one knows about it outside of geeks (like us) and the server
> room.
Is that your explanation for why Wal-Mart is selling Linux boxes?
Mike
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > Yet Linux remains in the sub 1% basement of desktop use.
>
> No it doesn't.
Yes it does. On the desktop, absolutely. Got any figures to show
otherwise?
>
> > Again, no one knows about it outside of geeks (like us) and the server
> > room.
>
> Is that your explanation for why Wal-Mart is selling Linux boxes?
Selling to who? How many? Got any numbers? How many Windows
boxes do they sell?
Mike
Edwin
Sheesh, I stepped in some Mike. Anybody got a scraper?
Edwin
Mike wrote:
> In article <1152202250.6...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > Yet Linux remains in the sub 1% basement of desktop use.
> >
> > No it doesn't.
>
> Yes it does. On the desktop, absolutely. Got any figures to show
> otherwise?
You mean you want me to give them to you again?
> > > Again, no one knows about it outside of geeks (like us) and the server
> > > room.
> >
> > Is that your explanation for why Wal-Mart is selling Linux boxes?
>
> Selling to who? How many? Got any numbers?
Why do you want numbers? You say only geeks and SysAdmins shop for
computers at Wal-Mart, right?
> How many Windows
> boxes do they sell?
At least one to you.
Mike
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> Mike wrote:
> > In article <1152202250.6...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Yet Linux remains in the sub 1% basement of desktop use.
> > >
> > > No it doesn't.
> >
> > Yes it does. On the desktop, absolutely. Got any figures to show
> > otherwise?
>
> You mean you want me to give them to you again?
Once would be nice.
Mike
Mike
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
You'll find it in the trash, right beside your "reputation" in this
group.
Edwin
You've been given them several times.
Edwin
No scraper then. I'll just scrape my shoe off on the curb... the
Mike on its sole is really starting to stink!
Mike
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > Once would be nice.
>
> You've been given them several times.
Then they were so memorable that they are useless.
Mike
Peter Hayes
I thought Apple's recent switch to Intel was mainly motivated by the
desire to match high end PC performance, especially in the laptop space.
The result is a fascinating playing field, with all sorts of
possibilities not available in the Windows PC market place.
--
Peter
Edwin
No, it's just that you're so dishonest you'll keep asking for the
figures as if you never got them.
Edwin
Are these "possibilities" things one would do with a computer, or just
the possibilty of running stuff that has an Apple logo on it?
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > Linux users generally don't PAY for software and Mac users do.
>
> Yet Apple sells Shake to Linux users for $5,000 a pop. Go figure.
So then you admit that Shake is still an "industry standard" by your
definition, right?
Edwin
Nope. Apple is just trying to make inroads into the Linux community.
They want to convert them to Mac OS X on Mac hardware. That's why
the Mac version is $500 and the Linux version is $5000.
You ought to read the Shake groups. Apple hasn't made any friends in
the Shake community.
Shake stopped being an industry standard when Apple dropped the Irix
and Windows versions.
So get Nuke instead. It does the same thing, and it runs on Windows,
Irix, and Linux.
Jim Lee Jr.
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> Shake stopped being an industry standard when Apple dropped the Irix
> and Windows versions.
Show us chapter and verse why Apple owes Windoze users support on
anything.
I thought Windoze users have all the software they need.
Alan Baker
But your argument was that software is always priced to "what the
traffic will bear", right? Hence, the Linux version must still be very
important to the film industry, since the traffic will bear a lot.
How can it be very important to them if it's not an industry standard,
Edwin?
Tim Murray
> My thought exactly. For any company or home user the cost of switching
> to another computer is high. However they could go get a Linux or Unix
> distribution. Hell if Apple had any sense it would reduce the price of it's
> clones and sell OS X to the masses.
One good reason you don't want to sell to the masses is support costs. As
soon as every moron with leftover beer money buys your computer, your support
costs skyrocket.
C Lund
> > to compete with Windows.
> I thought Apple's recent switch to Intel was mainly motivated by the
> desire to match high end PC performance, especially in the laptop space.
That's why I said "mainly". The PPC wasn't going anywhere any longer
except into gaming consoles.
> The result is a fascinating playing field, with all sorts of
> possibilities not available in the Windows PC market place.
Yeah; A mac that'll run all three OSes.. ;)
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> C Lund wrote:
> > In article <44ac3b41$0$18488$8826...@free.teranews.com>,
> > "John Slade" <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > My thought exactly. For any company or home user the cost of
> > > switching
> > > to another computer is high. However they could go get a Linux or Unix
> > > distribution. Hell if Apple had any sense it would reduce the price of
> > > it's
> > > clones and sell OS X to the masses.
> > Because:
> > 1) Apple is a hardware company.
> Apple is not just a hardware company.
What are they then?
> > 2) You don't have to "sell to the masses" in order to run a healthy
> > business.
> Good luck convincing people that the Intel PC Apple sells now is an
> elite item.
Who said anything about "elite"?
> > 3) Products that "sell to the masses" tend to be lowest common
> > denominator products, such as McDonalds, Britney Spears, and Hollywood
> > spew.
> Apple sells the same type of product as that. Some people are dumb
> enough to pay through the nose for a designer label (or an Apple logo).
Or for a system that "just works"...
> > > But they have no balls to compete with
> > > Windows so they want to rely on a small group of Mac Kooks to buy every
> > > computer they come up with no matter if it's a really good new computer
> > > or a
> > > laptop stuffed in a small case and marketed as a home computer.
> > IMHO Apple's recent switch to Intel was mainly motivated by the desire
> > to compete with Windows.
> What happened to your claims about Apple not needing to sell to the
> "masses?"
Grabbing some more marketshare is not the same as lowering oneself to
the lowest common denominator.
> > But typically enough, they're doing it their
> > way.
> Selling underpowered, overpriced computers at high margins.
And yet, somehow, in all these years... you've never managed to find a
PC that beats a similarly priced Mac...
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Snit
1152197803.8...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com on 7/6/06 7:56 AM:
>
> C Lund wrote:
>> In article <44ac3b41$0$18488$8826...@free.teranews.com>,
>> "John Slade" <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> My thought exactly. For any company or home user the cost of switching
>>> to another computer is high. However they could go get a Linux or Unix
>>> distribution. Hell if Apple had any sense it would reduce the price of it's
>>> clones and sell OS X to the masses.
>>
>> Because:
>>
>> 1) Apple is a hardware company.
>
> Apple is not just a hardware company.
No, but hardware is a very important part of the company.
>
>> 2) You don't have to "sell to the masses" in order to run a healthy
>> business.
>
> Good luck convincing people that the Intel PC Apple sells now is an
> elite item.
It is likely few people buy food formulated for elderly dogs (as compared to
all other dog food), it just is not marketed for the masses.
Do you think people with elderly dogs are elite?
>> 3) Products that "sell to the masses" tend to be lowest common
>> denominator products, such as McDonalds, Britney Spears, and Hollywood
>> spew.
>
> Apple sells the same type of product as that.
When do you plan on supporting that claim?
> Some people are dumb enough to pay through the nose for a designer label (or
> an Apple logo).
Other than showing off your ignorance, what was the point of your sentence?
--
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
€ Teaching is a "real job"
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
Edwin
C Lund wrote:
> In article <1152197803.8...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > C Lund wrote:
> > > In article <44ac3b41$0$18488$8826...@free.teranews.com>,
> > > "John Slade" <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > My thought exactly. For any company or home user the cost of
> > > > switching
> > > > to another computer is high. However they could go get a Linux or Unix
> > > > distribution. Hell if Apple had any sense it would reduce the price of
> > > > it's
> > > > clones and sell OS X to the masses.
> > > Because:
> > > 1) Apple is a hardware company.
> > Apple is not just a hardware company.
>
> What are they then?
You need to be told that Apple makes software and runs an online music
store too? Why don't you know this?
> > > 2) You don't have to "sell to the masses" in order to run a healthy
> > > business.
> > Good luck convincing people that the Intel PC Apple sells now is an
> > elite item.
>
> Who said anything about "elite"?
You did, in your snobbish comments.
> > > 3) Products that "sell to the masses" tend to be lowest common
> > > denominator products, such as McDonalds, Britney Spears, and Hollywood
> > > spew.
> > Apple sells the same type of product as that. Some people are dumb
> > enough to pay through the nose for a designer label (or an Apple logo).
>
> Or for a system that "just works"...
Only idiots stll repeat that cliche.
> > > > But they have no balls to compete with
> > > > Windows so they want to rely on a small group of Mac Kooks to buy every
> > > > computer they come up with no matter if it's a really good new computer
> > > > or a
> > > > laptop stuffed in a small case and marketed as a home computer.
> > > IMHO Apple's recent switch to Intel was mainly motivated by the desire
> > > to compete with Windows.
> > What happened to your claims about Apple not needing to sell to the
> > "masses?"
>
> Grabbing some more marketshare is not the same as lowering oneself to
> the lowest common denominator.
Good. It didn't mean that for Windows or the PC either then.
> > > But typically enough, they're doing it their
> > > way.
> > Selling underpowered, overpriced computers at high margins.
>
> And yet, somehow, in all these years... you've never managed to find a
> PC that beats a similarly priced Mac...
Yes I have. Many times over. I'm typing from one of them now. In
all these years there's been no way to blast through your rock-hard
head and let reality sink into it.
Edwin
Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <1152226508.2...@s16g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > In article <1152161261.3...@j8g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Linux users generally don't PAY for software and Mac users do.
> > > >
> > > > Yet Apple sells Shake to Linux users for $5,000 a pop. Go figure.
> > >
> > > So then you admit that Shake is still an "industry standard" by your
> > > definition, right?
> >
> > Nope. Apple is just trying to make inroads into the Linux community.
> > They want to convert them to Mac OS X on Mac hardware. That's why
> > the Mac version is $500 and the Linux version is $5000.
> >
> > You ought to read the Shake groups. Apple hasn't made any friends in
> > the Shake community.
> >
> > Shake stopped being an industry standard when Apple dropped the Irix
> > and Windows versions.
> >
> > So get Nuke instead. It does the same thing, and it runs on Windows,
> > Irix, and Linux.
>
> But your argument was that software is always priced to "what the
> traffic will bear", right?
What the market will bear.
> Hence, the Linux version must still be very
> important to the film industry, since the traffic will bear a lot.
No, it's just a way to force Linux guys to buy a Mac. Apple priced
the Linux version to be more than the price of a Mac with the Mac
version of Shake. I doubt many Linux users trust mecurial Apple
enough to hand them $5K of their hard-earned green stuff.
> How can it be very important to them if it's not an industry standard,
> Edwin?
You haven't been keeping up. It was an industry standard before Apple
hijacked it. Now Nuke and others are the industry standards. Shake
has become just something that's unique to Macs, like Arperture or
IiLife...
Sandman
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > Hence, the Linux version must still be very
> > important to the film industry, since the traffic will bear a lot.
>
> No, it's just a way to force Linux guys to buy a Mac. Apple priced
> the Linux version to be more than the price of a Mac with the Mac
> version of Shake.
Uh, you got it backwards - Apple *lowered* the price of both the mac
and Linux version, but lowered the price of the mac version more.
Before Apple bought Shake:
Linux version $9999
Windows version $9999
Irix version $9999
Now:
Linux version $4999
Windows version cancelled
Irix version cancelled
Mac version $499
> I doubt many Linux users trust mecurial Apple
> enough to hand them $5K of their hard-earned green stuff.
But they trusted Sony Imageworks to pay them $10K ?
> > How can it be very important to them if it's not an industry standard,
> > Edwin?
>
> You haven't been keeping up. It was an industry standard before Apple
> hijacked it. Now Nuke and others are the industry standards. Shake
> has become just something that's unique to Macs, like Arperture or
> IiLife...
Here are some movies where Shake was used:
The Lord of the Rings, King Kong, all Harry Potter movies, War of the
Worlds, Star Wars Episode III, Fantastic 4, Mission Impossible 3,
Poseidon, The Incredibles, Hulk, Pirates of the Caribbean 2.
--
Sandman[.net]
Walter Bushell
C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
Are there not 57 varieties of Linux alone?
--
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any
charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his
peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totali-
tarian government whether Nazi or Communist." -- W. Churchill, Nov 21, 1943
Edwin
Sandman wrote:
> In article <1152260267.8...@k73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > Hence, the Linux version must still be very
> > > important to the film industry, since the traffic will bear a lot.
> >
> > No, it's just a way to force Linux guys to buy a Mac. Apple priced
> > the Linux version to be more than the price of a Mac with the Mac
> > version of Shake.
>
> Uh, you got it backwards - Apple *lowered* the price of both the mac
> and Linux version, but lowered the price of the mac version more.
You repeated what I said above after you called what I said
"backwards."
> Before Apple bought Shake:
> Linux version $9999
> Windows version $9999
> Irix version $9999
>
> Now:
> Linux version $4999
> Windows version cancelled
> Irix version cancelled
> Mac version $499
No longer industry standard, now forcing Linux users to the Mac
hardware. Even though it's not as good as the hardware they already
have. Even though the hardware they already have would run Mac OS X
if Apple would remove its blocks to that.
> > I doubt many Linux users trust mecurial Apple
> > enough to hand them $5K of their hard-earned green stuff.
>
> But they trusted Sony Imageworks to pay them $10K ?
YES!
> > > How can it be very important to them if it's not an industry standard,
> > > Edwin?
> >
> > You haven't been keeping up. It was an industry standard before Apple
> > hijacked it. Now Nuke and others are the industry standards. Shake
> > has become just something that's unique to Macs, like Arperture or
> > IiLife...
>
> Here are some movies where Shake was used:
>
> The Lord of the Rings, King Kong, all Harry Potter movies, War of the
> Worlds, Star Wars Episode III, Fantastic 4, Mission Impossible 3,
> Poseidon, The Incredibles, Hulk, Pirates of the Caribbean 2.
Wow, those Irix, Linux, and Windows users really put Shake to good use!
Why don't you check what Nuke was used on?
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
How are they "forced"?
>
> > > I doubt many Linux users trust mecurial Apple
> > > enough to hand them $5K of their hard-earned green stuff.
> >
> > But they trusted Sony Imageworks to pay them $10K ?
>
> YES!
>
> > > > How can it be very important to them if it's not an industry standard,
> > > > Edwin?
> > >
> > > You haven't been keeping up. It was an industry standard before Apple
> > > hijacked it. Now Nuke and others are the industry standards. Shake
> > > has become just something that's unique to Macs, like Arperture or
> > > IiLife...
> >
> > Here are some movies where Shake was used:
> >
> > The Lord of the Rings, King Kong, all Harry Potter movies, War of the
> > Worlds, Star Wars Episode III, Fantastic 4, Mission Impossible 3,
> > Poseidon, The Incredibles, Hulk, Pirates of the Caribbean 2.
>
> Wow, those Irix, Linux, and Windows users really put Shake to good use!
>
> Why don't you check what Nuke was used on?
Why don't you tell us and insist that no Macs were used on those
productions...
...all without actually knowing whether it's true or not.
Edwin
Read the thread.
> >
> > > > I doubt many Linux users trust mecurial Apple
> > > > enough to hand them $5K of their hard-earned green stuff.
> > >
> > > But they trusted Sony Imageworks to pay them $10K ?
> >
> > YES!
> >
> > > > > How can it be very important to them if it's not an industry standard,
> > > > > Edwin?
> > > >
> > > > You haven't been keeping up. It was an industry standard before Apple
> > > > hijacked it. Now Nuke and others are the industry standards. Shake
> > > > has become just something that's unique to Macs, like Arperture or
> > > > IiLife...
> > >
> > > Here are some movies where Shake was used:
> > >
> > > The Lord of the Rings, King Kong, all Harry Potter movies, War of the
> > > Worlds, Star Wars Episode III, Fantastic 4, Mission Impossible 3,
> > > Poseidon, The Incredibles, Hulk, Pirates of the Caribbean 2.
> >
> > Wow, those Irix, Linux, and Windows users really put Shake to good use!
> >
> > Why don't you check what Nuke was used on?
>
> Why don't you tell us and insist that no Macs were used on those
> productions...
>
> ...all without actually knowing whether it's true or not.
IOW, you're suggesting that I should go into Alan Baker mode.
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
I have. Nobody's forcing them.
They can continue to buy Shake for less than it cost them before Apple
bought it.
>
> > >
> > > > > I doubt many Linux users trust mecurial Apple
> > > > > enough to hand them $5K of their hard-earned green stuff.
> > > >
> > > > But they trusted Sony Imageworks to pay them $10K ?
> > >
> > > YES!
> > >
> > > > > > How can it be very important to them if it's not an industry
> > > > > > standard,
> > > > > > Edwin?
> > > > >
> > > > > You haven't been keeping up. It was an industry standard before
> > > > > Apple
> > > > > hijacked it. Now Nuke and others are the industry standards.
> > > > > Shake
> > > > > has become just something that's unique to Macs, like Arperture or
> > > > > IiLife...
> > > >
> > > > Here are some movies where Shake was used:
> > > >
> > > > The Lord of the Rings, King Kong, all Harry Potter movies, War of the
> > > > Worlds, Star Wars Episode III, Fantastic 4, Mission Impossible 3,
> > > > Poseidon, The Incredibles, Hulk, Pirates of the Caribbean 2.
> > >
> > > Wow, those Irix, Linux, and Windows users really put Shake to good use!
> > >
> > > Why don't you check what Nuke was used on?
> >
> > Why don't you tell us and insist that no Macs were used on those
> > productions...
> >
> > ...all without actually knowing whether it's true or not.
>
> IOW, you're suggesting that I should go into Alan Baker mode.
Sorry, but that was an accurate description of what you do when talking
about companies that make movies and what computers they use to make
them. Think "Pixar" and "all PC shop".
Edwin
You're wrong... AGAIN!
> They can continue to buy Shake for less than it cost them before Apple
> bought it.
Pay Apple $5K for a program that will probably be Steved tomorrow?
You'd have to be nuts or Alan Baker to do that...
You're lying... AGAIN!
> Think "Pixar" and "all PC shop".
To remember a time when you made a real freak out of yourself.
Peter Hayes
> Peter Hayes wrote:
> > The result [of Intel Macs] is a fascinating playing field, with all sorts of
> > possibilities not available in the Windows PC market place.
>
> Are these "possibilities" things one would do with a computer, or just
> the possibilty of running stuff that has an Apple logo on it?
The possibility of running the best apps for your needs, be it Windows,
Linux or OS X apps, and of course run them simultaneously. Your workflow
isn't constrained by your choice of platform or the need to invest in
unnecessary hardware.
--
Peter
Edwin
Peter Hayes wrote:
> Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > Peter Hayes wrote:
>
> > > The result [of Intel Macs] is a fascinating playing field, with all sorts of
> > > possibilities not available in the Windows PC market place.
> >
> > Are these "possibilities" things one would do with a computer, or just
>
> The possibility of running the best apps for your needs, be it Windows,
> Linux or OS X apps, and of course run them simultaneously. Your workflow
> isn't constrained by your choice of platform or the need to invest in
> unnecessary hardware.
You were supposed to list "possibilities not available in the Windows
PC market place." Everything you listed, with the exception of Mac OS
X, is available for the Windows PC market place. Most Mac OS X
applications are available for Windows or Linux, so there's no extra
"possibilities" gained through Mac OS X.
George Graves
Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
Is this like the "Pixar uses no Macs" assertion that the Ediot made a
few months ago without knowing one way of the other?
--
George Graves
The health of our society is a direct result of the men
and women we choose to admire.
Sandman
> > Here are some movies where Shake was used:
> >
> > The Lord of the Rings, King Kong, all Harry Potter movies, War of the
> > Worlds, Star Wars Episode III, Fantastic 4, Mission Impossible 3,
> > Poseidon, The Incredibles, Hulk, Pirates of the Caribbean 2.
>
> Wow, those Irix, Linux, and Windows users really put Shake to good use!
Using that industry standard tool named Shake...
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > They can continue to buy Shake for less than it cost them before Apple
> > bought it.
>
> Pay Apple $5K for a program that will probably be Steved tomorrow?
And that would be a problem because they won't have time to... order
it?
You know, if an application gets "Steved", it doesn't mean that Steve
Jobs actually comes to your house and snatches your copy of Shake from
you.
--
Sandman[.net]
NRen2k5
> Since by their measure, security issues have become so serious.
>
> From BBC News
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5150508.stm
No mention of Linux, though?
Peter Hayes
> Jim Polaski wrote:
> > Since by their measure, security issues have become so serious.
> >
> > From BBC News
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5150508.stm
>
> No mention of Linux, though?
Give them time. It's only the past year or so that the media have woken
up to the fact that there's more than just Windows available.
--
Peter
C Lund
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <clund-BEEC22....@amstwist00.chello.com>,
> C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> > In article <1hi2hmn.4h0c6dfcxhheN%not_i...@btinternet.com>,
> > not_i...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> > > C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> > > > IMHO Apple's recent switch to Intel was mainly motivated by the desire
> > > > to compete with Windows.
> > > I thought Apple's recent switch to Intel was mainly motivated by the
> > > desire to match high end PC performance, especially in the laptop space.
> > That's why I said "mainly". The PPC wasn't going anywhere any longer
> > except into gaming consoles.
> > > The result is a fascinating playing field, with all sorts of
> > > possibilities not available in the Windows PC market place.
> > Yeah; A mac that'll run all three OSes.. ;)
> Are there not 57 varieties of Linux alone?
There are also umpteen varieties of Windows and OS X.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> You were supposed to list "possibilities not available in the Windows
> PC market place." Everything you listed, with the exception of Mac OS
> X, is available for the Windows PC market place.
How about a malware-free OS?
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> C Lund wrote:
> > > > > to another computer is high. However they could go get a Linux or
> > > > > Unix
> > > > > distribution. Hell if Apple had any sense it would reduce the price
> > > > > of
> > > > > it's
> > > > > clones and sell OS X to the masses.
> > > > Because:
> > > > 1) Apple is a hardware company.
> > > Apple is not just a hardware company.
> > What are they then?
> You need to be told that Apple makes software and runs an online music
> store too? Why don't you know this?
Where does Apple make the bulk of it's income, edwin? Hardware or
software?
> > > > 2) You don't have to "sell to the masses" in order to run a healthy
> > > > business.
> > > Good luck convincing people that the Intel PC Apple sells now is an
> > > elite item.
> > Who said anything about "elite"?
> You did, in your snobbish comments.
Not pandering to the lowest common denominator doesn't make one a snob.
> > > > 3) Products that "sell to the masses" tend to be lowest common
> > > > denominator products, such as McDonalds, Britney Spears, and Hollywood
> > > > spew.
> > > Apple sells the same type of product as that. Some people are dumb
> > > enough to pay through the nose for a designer label (or an Apple logo).
> > Or for a system that "just works"...
> Only idiots stll repeat that cliche.
Doesn't make it any less true.
> > > > But typically enough, they're doing it their
> > > > way.
> > > Selling underpowered, overpriced computers at high margins.
> > And yet, somehow, in all these years... you've never managed to find a
> > PC that beats a similarly priced Mac...
> Yes I have. Many times over.
Really? Then why did you never tell us about them in those PC / mac
comparison threads we've had here?
> I'm typing from one of them now.
Care to fill us in on the details?
> In
> all these years there's been no way to blast through your rock-hard
> head and let reality sink into it.
.. or maybe it's the other way around..?
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Josh McKee
C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
Got it.
Josh
Steve Carroll
Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
Yeah... I see you posted this from OSX.
--
"Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD" - Snit
"Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
like myself" - Snit
Josh McKee
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> In article <jtmckee-98717E...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <clund-66F7D0....@amstwist00.chello.com>,
> > C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <1152295512....@s53g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > You were supposed to list "possibilities not available in the Windows
> > > > PC market place." Everything you listed, with the exception of Mac OS
> > > > X, is available for the Windows PC market place.
> > >
> > > How about a malware-free OS?
> >
> > Got it.
> >
> > Josh
>
> Yeah... I see you posted this from OSX.
How can that be? I'm a Wintroll...remember?
Josh
Steve Carroll
Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
> In article <noone-829FF6....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <jtmckee-98717E...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> > Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <clund-66F7D0....@amstwist00.chello.com>,
> > > C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <1152295512....@s53g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > You were supposed to list "possibilities not available in the Windows
> > > > > PC market place." Everything you listed, with the exception of Mac
> > > > > OS
> > > > > X, is available for the Windows PC market place.
> > > >
> > > > How about a malware-free OS?
> > >
> > > Got it.
> > >
> > > Josh
> >
> > Yeah... I see you posted this from OSX.
>
> How can that be? I'm a Wintroll...remember?
>
Where is it written that a Wintroll can't own a Mac? According to your
logic here, as I own a PC, I must not be a 'Maccie'.
Lars Träger
> No, it's just a way to force Linux guys to buy a Mac. Apple priced
> the Linux version to be more than the price of a Mac with the Mac
> version of Shake. I doubt many Linux users trust mecurial Apple
> enough to hand them $5K of their hard-earned green stuff.
Yeah, edbonk, you are right - why would they pay half of what they payed
before Apple took over, when they can can just stop using instead.
--
Lars T.
Josh McKee
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> In article <jtmckee-D8390C...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <noone-829FF6....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> > Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <jtmckee-98717E...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> > > Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <clund-66F7D0....@amstwist00.chello.com>,
> > > > C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article <1152295512....@s53g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > You were supposed to list "possibilities not available in the
> > > > > > Windows
> > > > > > PC market place." Everything you listed, with the exception of
> > > > > > Mac
> > > > > > OS
> > > > > > X, is available for the Windows PC market place.
> > > > >
> > > > > How about a malware-free OS?
> > > >
> > > > Got it.
> > > >
> > > > Josh
> > >
> > > Yeah... I see you posted this from OSX.
> >
> > How can that be? I'm a Wintroll...remember?
> >
>
> Where is it written that a Wintroll can't own a Mac?
Owning a Macintosh seems at odds with being a Wintroll don't you think?
I mean...why would a Wintroll own a Macintosh? It's understandable why a
Maccie would own a PC. But why would a Wintroll own or use a Mac?
Doesn't make sense.
Josh
Snit
jtmckee-1ACC8A...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 7/8/06 12:30 PM:
In the end, who cares what type troll Steve wants to be categorized as? He
is a bigoted troll who has admitted he is a moron and asshole who does not
care if he is believed.
And he is not.
As far as people who are primarily Mac users having Windows machines and
vice versa I do not see anything wrong with that, though I suspect people
who have both would *tend* to agree with many of my claims about Macs and
Windows, many of which can be seen here:
<http://comp.gallopinginsanity.com/>. There would be, of course, some
disagreement and that is a Very Good Think (as would be written in Winnie
the Pooh book.)
--
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
Steve Carroll
Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
I wouldn't know... don't know what a "Maccie" is. As to the PC, I only
'own' one because it was given to me. Basically, it sits in my house
unused... even the kids don't mess with it. A neighbor kid has expressed
an interest in it, though... I'll probably give it to him.
> But why would a Wintroll own or use a Mac?
> Doesn't make sense.
Making sense has never been part of the Wintroll credo... as shown here
by your use of a double standard.
Josh McKee
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
Then your analogy wasn't comparable.
> A neighbor kid has expressed an interest in it, though... I'll probably give it
> to him.
At least you can give a PC away. I've been trying to unload a couple of
Macintosh computers for over a week now. Not a single taker despite the
fact that I'm giving them away.
> > But why would a Wintroll own or use a Mac?
> > Doesn't make sense.
>
>
> Making sense has never been part of the Wintroll credo... as shown here by your use of a double standard.
What double standard would that be?
Josh
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
That's a good question Snit. So why do you go on endlessly engaging him?
Intelligent people recognize when the "discussion" with him has boiled
down to nothing more than "he said" "she said" bickering and break it
off with him.
Josh
Snit
>>> Owning a Macintosh seems at odds with being a Wintroll don't you think?
>>> I mean...why would a Wintroll own a Macintosh? It's understandable why a
>>> Maccie would own a PC. But why would a Wintroll own or use a Mac?
>>> Doesn't make sense.
>>
>> In the end, who cares what type troll Steve wants to be categorized as? He
>> is a bigoted troll who has admitted he is a moron and asshole who does not
>> care if he is believed.
>
> That's a good question Snit. So why do you go on endlessly engaging him?
It amuses me, at least from time to time. He is back to being ignored for
now.
> Intelligent people recognize when the "discussion" with him has boiled
> down to nothing more than "he said" "she said" bickering and break it
> off with him.
I like to watch him as he implodes. :) With that said, though, he hit my
tolerance for his BS again and I have not read his posts since I checked to
see if he has lied 10 *more* times in a row about me.
While I would prefer for him to stop lying, I can settle with just watching
him go into frenzy mode and prove he is the biggest liar in CSMA history -
who else has *ever* spewed the *same* lie an average of more than 10 times a
day for more than four months running?
--
€ Dreamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
Snit
>> A neighbor kid has expressed an interest in it, though... I'll probably give
>> it to him.
>
> At least you can give a PC away. I've been trying to unload a couple of
> Macintosh computers for over a week now. Not a single taker despite the
> fact that I'm giving them away.
What type Macs? I will be happy to pay for shipping if you are just giving
them away are they are new enough to fit my needs.
--
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
€ Teaching is a "real job"
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.net> stated in post
> jtmckee-A85AF5...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 7/8/06 1:20 PM:
>
> >> A neighbor kid has expressed an interest in it, though... I'll probably
> >> give
> >> it to him.
> >
> > At least you can give a PC away. I've been trying to unload a couple of
> > Macintosh computers for over a week now. Not a single taker despite the
> > fact that I'm giving them away.
>
> What type Macs? I will be happy to pay for shipping if you are just giving
> them away are they are new enough to fit my needs.
G4 450MHz, 512MB RAM, 9GB SCSI HD, 100MB ZIP, keyboard, hockey puck
mouse.
9500 233MHz, 144MB RAM, 4GB SCSI HD, keyboard, mouse.
Local pickup in Denver metro area only.
Josh
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.net> stated in post
> jtmckee-2D4DE2...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 7/8/06 1:22 PM:
>
> >>> Owning a Macintosh seems at odds with being a Wintroll don't you think?
> >>> I mean...why would a Wintroll own a Macintosh? It's understandable why a
> >>> Maccie would own a PC. But why would a Wintroll own or use a Mac?
> >>> Doesn't make sense.
> >>
> >> In the end, who cares what type troll Steve wants to be categorized as? He
> >> is a bigoted troll who has admitted he is a moron and asshole who does not
> >> care if he is believed.
> >
> > That's a good question Snit. So why do you go on endlessly engaging him?
>
> It amuses me, at least from time to time.
Then you weren't seeking the truth as you had claimed.
Josh
Steve Carroll
Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
Well, I have put a bit of money into it... I did that back when I
thought I might have some use for the thing. At one time I was
contemplating making a switch from OSX to XP because the 3rd party OSX
audio stuff wasn't moving fast enough for me and I figured it might be a
good time. Also, I was given a bunch of audio software for a PC,
manuals, licenses... everything. In any event, to my way of thinking, a
true "Maccie" wouldn't be using a PC, no way, no how. I don't know how
you are using the term... your continually shifting context (like here)
makes it all but useless in my opinion.
>
> > A neighbor kid has expressed an interest in it, though... I'll probably
> > give it
> > to him.
>
> At least you can give a PC away. I've been trying to unload a couple of
> Macintosh computers for over a week now. Not a single taker despite the
> fact that I'm giving them away.
My PC is a 667Mhz P3... I've had it a little over 3 years. The only
reason I took it because, at the time, it was only about 2 or so years
old. How old are these Macs? Will they run OSX? Maybe a local school
will take them?
>
> > > But why would a Wintroll own or use a Mac?
> > > Doesn't make sense.
> >
> >
> > Making sense has never been part of the Wintroll credo... as shown here by
> > your use of a double standard.
>
> What double standard would that be?
>
You're a funny guy.
Steve Carroll
Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
LOL! Get off your high horse. Realistically, many of the arguments on
usenet are he said/she said... plenty of yours are a case in point:
A "Maccie" said -fill in the blank of your interpretation of what you
*thought* a "Maccie" said-.
Snit
Hmmm, my slow machine is a 500 MHz G3, so I am not sure even the faster of
the two you have will be of much benefit. Still, if you cannot find a home
for them I do have friends in the area and I could ask one to go pick up the
computers and ship them to me. I would, however, need your contact info; I
am not going to give friend's contact into to folks I only know from CSMA.
If you are particularly paranoid you could select a public area like a café
or something. Thanks.
Snit
In my debates with Steve I already have the truth and I post it. What
relevant "truth" do you think I said I was seeking? I do hope he will grow
up some day and realize / admit to the truth, but I do not expect that to
happen... still I hope for it and give him repeated chances to change. I
would accept him as a reasonable person if he were to act as one... though,
of course, I would be suspicious of him for some time. I am sure you can
understand why.
>> I like to watch him as he implodes. :) With that said, though, he hit my
>> tolerance for his BS again and I have not read his posts since I checked to
>> see if he has lied 10 *more* times in a row about me.
>>
>> While I would prefer for him to stop lying, I can settle with just watching
>> him go into frenzy mode and prove he is the biggest liar in CSMA history -
>> who else has *ever* spewed the *same* lie an average of more than 10 times a
>> day for more than four months running?
Please note I did not say I was "seeking truth" from Steve. I would have
better luck seeking for a new Intel Mac in a box of Cracker Jacks.
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.net> stated in post
> jtmckee-BEDAD5...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 7/8/06 1:51 PM:
>
> > In article <C0D5684A.54855%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.net> stated in post
> >> jtmckee-A85AF5...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 7/8/06 1:20 PM:
> >>
> >>>> A neighbor kid has expressed an interest in it, though... I'll probably
> >>>> give
> >>>> it to him.
> >>>
> >>> At least you can give a PC away. I've been trying to unload a couple of
> >>> Macintosh computers for over a week now. Not a single taker despite the
> >>> fact that I'm giving them away.
> >>
> >> What type Macs? I will be happy to pay for shipping if you are just giving
> >> them away are they are new enough to fit my needs.
> >
> > G4 450MHz, 512MB RAM, 9GB SCSI HD, 100MB ZIP, keyboard, hockey puck
> > mouse.
> >
> > 9500 233MHz, 144MB RAM, 4GB SCSI HD, keyboard, mouse.
> >
> > Local pickup in Denver metro area only.
> >
> > Josh
>
> Hmmm, my slow machine is a 500 MHz G3, so I am not sure even the faster of
> the two you have will be of much benefit.
lol! Wow...Apple really had people suckered into believing that the G4
was a better processor.
Josh
Josh McKee
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
Regardless of your lame attempt to back peddle your analogy wasn't
comparable. You see...I am actually using the Macintosh.
[ snip ]
> > > > But why would a Wintroll own or use a Mac?
> > > > Doesn't make sense.
> > >
> > >
> > > Making sense has never been part of the Wintroll credo... as shown here
> > > by
> > > your use of a double standard.
> >
> > What double standard would that be?
> >
>
> You're a funny guy.
I notice that you didn't answer the question. And we all know why: There
is no double standard. And you'll demonstrate as much by responding with
all kinds of irrelevant things all the while never producing anything
showing a double standard.
Josh
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.net> stated in post
> jtmckee-17ABD2...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 7/8/06 1:52 PM:
>
> > In article <C0D567F3.54854%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.net> stated in post
> >> jtmckee-2D4DE2...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 7/8/06 1:22 PM:
> >>
> >>>>> Owning a Macintosh seems at odds with being a Wintroll don't you think?
> >>>>> I mean...why would a Wintroll own a Macintosh? It's understandable why
> >>>>> a
> >>>>> Maccie would own a PC. But why would a Wintroll own or use a Mac?
> >>>>> Doesn't make sense.
> >>>>
> >>>> In the end, who cares what type troll Steve wants to be categorized as?
> >>>> He
> >>>> is a bigoted troll who has admitted he is a moron and asshole who does
> >>>> not
> >>>> care if he is believed.
> >>>
> >>> That's a good question Snit. So why do you go on endlessly engaging him?
> >>
> >> It amuses me, at least from time to time.
> >
> > Then you weren't seeking the truth as you had claimed.
>
> In my debates with Steve I already have the truth and I post it.
Then ignore him. That's what intelligent people do. They don't start
thread after thread after thread challenging him. Intelligent people
will see Steve for the troll that he is. No need to go on endlessly with
him.
Josh
Lars Träger
> Owning a Macintosh seems at odds with being a Wintroll don't you think?
You actually claim that Pratt isn't a Wintroll?
--
Lars T.
Steve Carroll
Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
(snip)
> Regardless of your lame attempt to back peddle your analogy wasn't
> comparable.
In your opinion.
> You see...I am actually using the Macintosh.
And that's makes you less a Wintroll how? As to back peddling, you'd
better get a move on cuz there's a step missing here. You're supposed to
show all these "Maccies" that have understandably bought PC's.
> [ snip ]
>
> > > > > But why would a Wintroll own or use a Mac?
> > > > > Doesn't make sense.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Making sense has never been part of the Wintroll credo... as shown here
> > > > by
> > > > your use of a double standard.
> > >
> > > What double standard would that be?
> > >
> >
> > You're a funny guy.
>
> I notice that you didn't answer the question. And we all know why: There
> is no double standard.
You said it is understandable that a "Maccie" would own a PC, yet you
haven't shown any who do or stated why they do. Perhaps it's only
understandable to you... the guy with the agenda he hasn't been able to
hide. Apple burned you and you never really recovered.
> And you'll demonstrate as much by responding with
> all kinds of irrelevant things
It's irrelevant to ask you what you mean by the word "Maccie" when used
the way you have just used it here? Like I said, you're a funny guy;)
> all the while never producing anything
> showing a double standard.
Ah, I forgot... you need to have your hand held every step of the way;)
I've already shown the double standard... you're free to disagree...
others will make up their own minds.
Steve Carroll
Lars.T...@epost.de (Lars Träger) wrote:
He obviously is.
Josh McKee
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> In article <jtmckee-23E17F...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> > Regardless of your lame attempt to back peddle your analogy wasn't
> > comparable.
>
> In your opinion.
>
> > You see...I am actually using the Macintosh.
>
> And that's makes you less a Wintroll how?
As I said earlier:
"Owning a Macintosh seems at odds with being a Wintroll don't you think?
I mean...why would a Wintroll own a Macintosh? It's understandable why a
Maccie would own a PC. But why would a Wintroll own or use a Mac?
Doesn't make sense."
Maybe one day you'll figure it out. But I won't hold my breath.
Josh
Steve Carroll
Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
In fact, you're about to bail out any minute now because I'm 'trolling'
you, right? LOL! Fact: Your suggestion that a Wintroll doesn't "own or
use a Mac" is almost as silly as some of the crap gluehead spews.
Yeah... and *you're* not trolling <rolls eyes>.
Snit
For some things it is... I have an 800 MHz G4 and a 500 Mhz G3, there are
areas where they are not that different (though the 800 MHz machines is
still faster) and places where the G4 is a lot faster - things optimized for
the G4. Heck, its like getting a complete extra G of speed. :)
Snit
> In article <C0D56FEA.54862%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.net> stated in post
>> jtmckee-17ABD2...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 7/8/06 1:52 PM:
>>
>>> In article <C0D567F3.54854%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.net> stated in post
>>>> jtmckee-2D4DE2...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 7/8/06 1:22 PM:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Owning a Macintosh seems at odds with being a Wintroll don't you think?
>>>>>>> I mean...why would a Wintroll own a Macintosh? It's understandable why a
>>>>>>> Maccie would own a PC. But why would a Wintroll own or use a Mac?
>>>>>>> Doesn't make sense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the end, who cares what type troll Steve wants to be categorized as?
>>>>>> He is a bigoted troll who has admitted he is a moron and asshole who does
>>>>>> not care if he is believed.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That's a good question Snit. So why do you go on endlessly engaging him?
>>>>>
>>>> It amuses me, at least from time to time.
>>>
>>> Then you weren't seeking the truth as you had claimed.
>>
>> In my debates with Steve I already have the truth and I post it.
What were you in reference to about me not "seeking the truth as [I] had
claimed"?
> Then ignore him.
What part of "I currently am" are you having problems with. When it amuses
me to, though, I shall get him to frenzy again, or, less likely but I would
prefer, actually stop his BS.
> That's what intelligent people do.
Explains why you are posting to him, eh? :)
> They don't start thread after thread after thread challenging him.
Any thread anyone starts is a challenge to him.
> Intelligent people will see Steve for the troll that he is. No need to go on
> endlessly with him.
Does anyone *not* know he is a troll? Anyone at all?
--
€ As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Yet here we find you saying:
"Hmmm, my slow machine is a 500 MHz G3, so I am not sure even the faster
of the two you have will be of much benefit."
Josh
Steve Carroll
Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
> In article <noone-2CB20D....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <jtmckee-23E17F...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> > Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> > > Regardless of your lame attempt to back peddle your analogy wasn't
> > > comparable.
> >
> > In your opinion.
> >
> > > You see...I am actually using the Macintosh.
> >
> > And that's makes you less a Wintroll how?
>
> As I said earlier:
>
> "Owning a Macintosh seems at odds with being a Wintroll don't you think?
As I'm saying, no. You can whine and squeal how you aren't a Wintroll
but Pratt is most definitely one, so is Elam... and he was even when he
claimed to own a Mac.
> I mean...why would a Wintroll own a Macintosh?
Why ask irrelevant questions?
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
I don't mean to imply that one should never engage him in a discussion.
If that were the case I would just killfile him. However there comes a
point in a discussion where responding no longer has any value. And to
continue doing so only serves to make the respondent look like a fool.
That's why I routinely drop out of discussions with him and other people
here. No progress is being made therefore why bother. I've done it with
Steve, I've done it with other Maccies, and I've done it with you.
> > They don't start thread after thread after thread challenging him.
>
> Any thread anyone starts is a challenge to him.
There's a difference: You're inviting him.
Josh
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.net> stated in post
> jtmckee-4146E9...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 7/8/06 2:32 PM:
(snip)
> > Intelligent people will see Steve for the troll that he is. No need to go
> > on
> > endlessly with him.
>
> Does anyone *not* know he is a troll? Anyone at all?
I've been here around about a decade... other than a few trolls and your
sock puppet army, who has called me a troll? Now, you, OTOH, were
labeled a troll by the majority of two newsgroups in fairly short order.
See how that 'people knowing who is or isn't a troll' thing works yet,
Snit;)
<smacks forehead> How silly of me to have forgotten... consensus only
counts when *you* bring it up, LOL!
Josh McKee
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> In article <jtmckee-47F503...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <noone-2CB20D....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> > Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <jtmckee-23E17F...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> > > Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > (snip)
> > >
> > > > Regardless of your lame attempt to back peddle your analogy wasn't
> > > > comparable.
> > >
> > > In your opinion.
> > >
> > > > You see...I am actually using the Macintosh.
> > >
> > > And that's makes you less a Wintroll how?
> >
> > As I said earlier:
> >
> > "Owning a Macintosh seems at odds with being a Wintroll don't you think?
>
>
> As I'm saying, no. You can whine and squeal how you aren't a Wintroll
> but Pratt is most definitely one, so is Elam... and he was even when he
> claimed to own a Mac.
What makes someone a Wintroll?
> > I mean...why would a Wintroll own a Macintosh?
>
> Why ask irrelevant questions?
I don't know as the question has relevance.
Josh
Snit
>>>>> G4 450MHz, 512MB RAM, 9GB SCSI HD, 100MB ZIP, keyboard, hockey puck
>>>>> mouse.
>>>>>
>>>>> 9500 233MHz, 144MB RAM, 4GB SCSI HD, keyboard, mouse.
>>>>>
>>>>> Local pickup in Denver metro area only.
>>>>>
>>>>> Josh
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm, my slow machine is a 500 MHz G3, so I am not sure even the faster of
>>>> the two you have will be of much benefit.
>>>
>>> lol! Wow...Apple really had people suckered into believing that the G4
>>> was a better processor.
>>
>> For some things it is... I have an 800 MHz G4 and a 500 Mhz G3, there are
>> areas where they are not that different (though the 800 MHz machines is
>> still faster) and places where the G4 is a lot faster - things optimized for
>> the G4. Heck, its like getting a complete extra G of speed. :)
>
> Yet here we find you saying:
>
> "Hmmm, my slow machine is a 500 MHz G3, so I am not sure even the faster
> of the two you have will be of much benefit."
One has the greater MHz (though not by much) the other has the extra "G' of
super power... add to that the fact the G3 has a larger hard drive and
overall is newer than the Macs with the hockey puck there likely would not
be that much of a difference - though the G4 would have greater speed in
things optimized for Altivec.
Snit
>>>> In my debates with Steve I already have the truth and I post it.
>>
>> What were you in reference to about me not "seeking the truth as [I] had
>> claimed"?
Can you please answer the question. Please.
>>
>>> Then ignore him.
>>
>> What part of "I currently am" are you having problems with. When it amuses
>> me to, though, I shall get him to frenzy again, or, less likely but I would
>> prefer, actually stop his BS.
>>
>>> That's what intelligent people do.
>>
>> Explains why you are posting to him, eh? :)
>
> I don't mean to imply that one should never engage him in a discussion.
> If that were the case I would just killfile him. However there comes a
> point in a discussion where responding no longer has any value. And to
> continue doing so only serves to make the respondent look like a fool.
> That's why I routinely drop out of discussions with him and other people
> here. No progress is being made therefore why bother. I've done it with
> Steve, I've done it with other Maccies, and I've done it with you.
There are times you do so in a reasonable way and there are times you are
clearly running from questions you do not like.
If your point is that I give Steve far, far too many chances for him to
change his colors and speak honestly you are correct. I do the same for
you, Sandman, and others. In each case I hope the person I am talking to
will start to act honest and honorably, but I am realistic enough to know
they likely will not once they have headed another direction. Sometimes I
am surprised (pleasantly) and people do so, but often it does not happen.
In those cases I just enjoy the ride.
>
>>> They don't start thread after thread after thread challenging him.
>>
>> Any thread anyone starts is a challenge to him.
>
> There's a difference: You're inviting him.
Steve sees *every* posts as an invitation to lie about me. Every single
one. He has lied about in every post I have looked at of his for the last
many months. I have asked others to find any counter example and so far
nobody has stepped up, at least not in any honest and honorable way.
Can you find any post from the last few months - any - from Steve where he
has not lied about me, even if the person he is responding to did not even
mention me? I doubt it.
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Josh McKee" <jtm...@rmac.net> stated in post
> jtmckee-68C15A...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 7/8/06 3:18 PM:
>
> >>>> In my debates with Steve I already have the truth and I post it.
> >>
> >> What were you in reference to about me not "seeking the truth as [I] had
> >> claimed"?
>
> Can you please answer the question. Please.
> >>
> >>> Then ignore him.
> >>
> >> What part of "I currently am" are you having problems with. When it amuses
> >> me to, though, I shall get him to frenzy again, or, less likely but I would
> >> prefer, actually stop his BS.
> >>
> >>> That's what intelligent people do.
> >>
> >> Explains why you are posting to him, eh? :)
> >
> > I don't mean to imply that one should never engage him in a discussion.
> > If that were the case I would just killfile him. However there comes a
> > point in a discussion where responding no longer has any value. And to
> > continue doing so only serves to make the respondent look like a fool.
> > That's why I routinely drop out of discussions with him and other people
> > here. No progress is being made therefore why bother. I've done it with
> > Steve, I've done it with other Maccies, and I've done it with you.
>
> There are times you do so in a reasonable way and there are times you are
> clearly running from questions you do not like.
I always do it because I see no reason to continue discussing something
once it's become obvious that no progress is being made. Like now.
Josh
Josh McKee
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
So what you're saying is that Apple was selling their customers a more
expensive system that offered little, if any, advantage over their lower
cost offerings.
Josh
Steve Carroll
Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
> In article <C0D578D6.5486B%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
(snip)
> > > lol! Wow...Apple really had people suckered into believing that the G4
> > > was a better processor.
> >
> > For some things it is... I have an 800 MHz G4 and a 500 Mhz G3, there are
> > areas where they are not that different (though the 800 MHz machines is
> > still faster) and places where the G4 is a lot faster - things optimized
> > for
> > the G4. Heck, its like getting a complete extra G of speed. :)
>
> Yet here we find you saying:
>
> "Hmmm, my slow machine is a 500 MHz G3, so I am not sure even the faster
> of the two you have will be of much benefit."
>
For most basic computing tasks it's probably a wash... but if the apps
to be used involve Altivec, your 450 will handily beat his G3 machine.
If your unit has a Sawtooth MB (I have one) it's USB bootable as well as
having 2 separate USB controllers and 3 FW ports (one internal). It also
has an AGP slot and 1 MB of L2 cache. Some apps won't even run with a G3
(Garageband, iDVD?). If it's a Sawtooth, it can be upgraded with
something like this:
http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-Giga-Designs-1-8GHz-G4-Processor-Upgrade-for-AGP_
W0QQitemZ190002636949QQihZ009QQcategoryZ80031QQcmdZViewItem
Josh McKee
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
Regardless the fact remains that I can't even give it away. I had no
problem finding a home for the E-machine Celeron 433MHz system that had
64MB of RAM and a 20 GB HD.
Josh
Snit
Perhaps, but there are times no progress is being made because you are
snipping and running or just ignoring questions, as you did with my one,
above. You made a claim which was even a mild accusation against me. I was
curious if you have any support. It has become clear you have none.
> Like now.
I generally am quite fond of the present. :)
--
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
Snit
Nope. Not what I was saying at all.
--
€ Professionals are not beginners in their field
€ Dreamweaver and GoLive are web design applications
€ Photoshop is an image editing application
Snit
If you cannot find another home for it, let me know. I will find someone in
you area who wants it.
> I had no problem finding a home for the E-machine Celeron 433MHz system that
> had 64MB of RAM and a 20 GB HD.
--
Snit
>> As I'm saying, no. You can whine and squeal how you aren't a Wintroll
>> but Pratt is most definitely one, so is Elam... and he was even when he
>> claimed to own a Mac.
>
> What makes someone a Wintroll?
A combination of nature and nurture? :)
Mike
Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
> > Where is it written that a Wintroll can't own a Mac?
>
> Owning a Macintosh seems at odds with being a Wintroll don't you think?
> I mean...why would a Wintroll own a Macintosh? It's understandable why a
> Maccie would own a PC. But why would a Wintroll own or use a Mac?
> Doesn't make sense.
True "Mac Advocates" don't take that into consideration. If you say
*anything* critical of Apple - or even worse, say that you actually like
Windows - then you are a "Wintroll". Mac ownership doesn't enter into
it.
I own several Macs - an SE/30 running 7.5.5, a Umax S900 (PM 9500 clone)
running OS X 10.3.9 (I think - it's been a while since I fired it up), a
"B&W G4" running 10.4.6, and, of course, 2 PCs running Intel OS X - but
I have been called a "Wintroll" many times here.
You have to drink the Kool Aide from the RDF - the Reality Distortion
Fountain - in order to *not* be a "Wintroll".
Mike
Snit
no-BC4408.21...@news.supernews.com on 7/8/06 6:27 PM:
> In article <jtmckee-1ACC8A...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> Josh McKee <jtm...@rmac.net> wrote:
>
>>> Where is it written that a Wintroll can't own a Mac?
>>
>> Owning a Macintosh seems at odds with being a Wintroll don't you think?
>> I mean...why would a Wintroll own a Macintosh? It's understandable why a
>> Maccie would own a PC. But why would a Wintroll own or use a Mac?
>> Doesn't make sense.
>
> True "Mac Advocates" don't take that into consideration. If you say
> *anything* critical of Apple - or even worse, say that you actually like
> Windows - then you are a "Wintroll". Mac ownership doesn't enter into
> it.
I am a Mac Advocate - perhaps the best currently in CSMA - and that
certainly does *not* describe me. Heck, I hardly if ever call someone a
Wintroll. Does not seem to be any consensus as to what it means - same
thing with Maccie. People use those terms generally to insult others when
they have run out of reasoned arguments.
> I own several Macs - an SE/30 running 7.5.5, a Umax S900 (PM 9500 clone)
> running OS X 10.3.9 (I think - it's been a while since I fired it up), a
> "B&W G4" running 10.4.6, and, of course, 2 PCs running Intel OS X - but
> I have been called a "Wintroll" many times here.
>
> You have to drink the Kool Aide from the RDF - the Reality Distortion
> Fountain - in order to *not* be a "Wintroll".
There are some who troll me because I do not "drink the Kool Aide" and
others who call me a "Maccie". Oh well.