PearC will sink the Mac
@verizon.com Mocassin Joe
It seems that Apple can't do Jack Shit about it.
http://www.macworld.co.uk/mac/news/index.cfm?newsid=25692
Mac clone maker PearC plans Mac OS X laptop
"The PearC offers a very good performance at a very fair price. You have an
extensible case; where you can change hard drives, memory, add expansion
cards. Things you can't do in a Mac mini or iMac. The Mac Pro is too
expensive for most people."
Chris Clement
you are retarded if you think people will actually buy that piece of
shit. lol.....just look at it. It looks like something my local
screwdriver shop just threw together. keep dreaming.
ZnU
"Mocassin Joe" <JoeMocasanto @ verizon.com> wrote:
Because what average consumers really want is a big clunky tower, so
they can install six drives in it. All the average consumers I know do
that.
Seriously, this machine will be of some interest to computer hobbyists,
though most would probably build their own generic OS X box instead. It
won't sell very well to consumers because the Mac mini and the iMac line
up better with *actual* consumer priorities, and it won't sell very well
to existing Mac Pro customers because nobody is going to use a machine
that could break with any software update in a professional context.
--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
Sermo Malifer
It looks like a fine computer to me. But then my computers are for
work, not fashion statements.
I think I'll wait to see how this Psystar thing plays out, and buy one if
they win. That way I can try out OSX without paying the Apple tax.
Lloyd Parsons
Sermo Malifer <sermom...@noemail.com> wrote:
If you need OSX for actual work, then you also need dependability and
assurance that the machine you buy to use it will in fact, keep running
it. That means that as an investment in a tool to get work done, this
could end up costing you more in potential downtime or compatibility
issues at some future date.
So if it is a WORK machine you are buying, get an Apple. If it is just
another box to do hobby/home things, who cares....
Sermo Malifer
> In article <grnmnc$9vp$5...@news.albasani.net>,
> Sermo Malifer <sermom...@noemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 05:40:39 -0700, Chris Clement wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 9, 6:57 pm, "Mocassin Joe" <JoeMocasanto @ verizon.com> wrote:
>> >> First it was Psystar.
>> >> It seems that Apple can't do Jack Shit about it.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.macworld.co.uk/mac/news/index.cfm?newsid=25692
>> >>
>> >> Mac clone maker PearC plans Mac OS X laptop
>> >>
>> >> "The PearC offers a very good performance at a very fair price. You
>> >> have an extensible case; where you can change hard drives, memory,
>> >> add expansion cards. Things you can't do in a Mac mini or iMac. The
>> >> Mac Pro is too expensive for most people."
>> >
>> > you are retarded if you think people will actually buy that piece of
>> > shit. lol.....just look at it. It looks like something my local
>> > screwdriver shop just threw together. keep dreaming.
>>
>> It looks like a fine computer to me. But then my computers are for
>> work, not fashion statements.
>>
>> I think I'll wait to see how this Psystar thing plays out, and buy one
>> if they win. That way I can try out OSX without paying the Apple tax.
>
> If you need OSX for actual work,
I don't.
> then you also need dependability and
> assurance that the machine you buy to use it will in fact, keep running
> it. That means that as an investment in a tool to get work done, this
> could end up costing you more in potential downtime or compatibility
> issues at some future date.
Your FUD is ineffective.
> So if it is a WORK machine you are buying, get an Apple.
My non-Apple computers have all put in years of faithful service.
> If it is just
> another box to do hobby/home things, who cares....
I care.
Lloyd Parsons
Sermo Malifer <sermom...@noemail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 10:00:00 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>
> > In article <grnmnc$9vp$5...@news.albasani.net>,
> > Sermo Malifer <sermom...@noemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 05:40:39 -0700, Chris Clement wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Apr 9, 6:57 pm, "Mocassin Joe" <JoeMocasanto @ verizon.com> wrote:
> >> >> First it was Psystar.
> >> >> It seems that Apple can't do Jack Shit about it.
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.macworld.co.uk/mac/news/index.cfm?newsid=25692
> >> >>
> >> >> Mac clone maker PearC plans Mac OS X laptop
> >> >>
> >> >> "The PearC offers a very good performance at a very fair price. You
> >> >> have an extensible case; where you can change hard drives, memory,
> >> >> add expansion cards. Things you can't do in a Mac mini or iMac. The
> >> >> Mac Pro is too expensive for most people."
> >> >
> >> > you are retarded if you think people will actually buy that piece of
> >> > shit. lol.....just look at it. It looks like something my local
> >> > screwdriver shop just threw together. keep dreaming.
> >>
> >> It looks like a fine computer to me. But then my computers are for
> >> work, not fashion statements.
> >>
> >> I think I'll wait to see how this Psystar thing plays out, and buy one
> >> if they win. That way I can try out OSX without paying the Apple tax.
> >
> > If you need OSX for actual work,
>
> I don't.
>
Ah, so your initial statement that your computers are for work was a bit
of a stretch?
> > then you also need dependability and
> > assurance that the machine you buy to use it will in fact, keep running
> > it. That means that as an investment in a tool to get work done, this
> > could end up costing you more in potential downtime or compatibility
> > issues at some future date.
>
> Your FUD is ineffective.
>
It isn't FUD. It is a fact that any non-apple machine could be one
update away from not working with the current version. If that is a
concern, then it is a legitimate issue.
> > So if it is a WORK machine you are buying, get an Apple.
>
> My non-Apple computers have all put in years of faithful service.
>
Running OSX?
Snit
AM:
...
>> If you need OSX for actual work,
>
> I don't.
>
>> then you also need dependability and
>> assurance that the machine you buy to use it will in fact, keep running
>> it. That means that as an investment in a tool to get work done, this
>> could end up costing you more in potential downtime or compatibility
>> issues at some future date.
>
> Your FUD is ineffective.
>
>> So if it is a WORK machine you are buying, get an Apple.
>
> My non-Apple computers have all put in years of faithful service.
Sure: but do you deny that Macs almost always are reported to have better
service records and higher user satisfaction ratings?
Still, get what works for you...
>> If it is just
>> another box to do hobby/home things, who cares....
>
> I care.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
AM:
Apple tax? Er? Heck, even the shipping was free!
But interesting that you now admit you have not even *tried* OS X. You know
*nothing* about it.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sermo Malifer
> Sermo Malifer stated in post grnmnc$9vp$5...@news.albasani.net on 4/10/09
> 7:56 AM:
>
>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 05:40:39 -0700, Chris Clement wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 9, 6:57 pm, "Mocassin Joe" <JoeMocasanto @ verizon.com> wrote:
>>>> First it was Psystar.
>>>> It seems that Apple can't do Jack Shit about it.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.macworld.co.uk/mac/news/index.cfm?newsid=25692
>>>>
>>>> Mac clone maker PearC plans Mac OS X laptop
>>>>
>>>> "The PearC offers a very good performance at a very fair price. You
>>>> have an extensible case; where you can change hard drives, memory,
>>>> add expansion cards. Things you can't do in a Mac mini or iMac. The
>>>> Mac Pro is too expensive for most people."
>>>
>>> you are retarded if you think people will actually buy that piece of
>>> shit. lol.....just look at it. It looks like something my local
>>> screwdriver shop just threw together. keep dreaming.
>>
>> It looks like a fine computer to me. But then my computers are for
>> work, not fashion statements.
>>
>> I think I'll wait to see how this Psystar thing plays out, and buy one
>> if they win. That way I can try out OSX without paying the Apple tax.
>
> Apple tax? Er?
The difference in price between Apple's hardware and better hardware sold
by somebody else.
> Heck, even the shipping was free!
Amazon ships free too, fan boy.
> But interesting that you now admit you have not even *tried* OS X.
Now admit? When did I say I had tried it? What's so "interesting"
about that?
> You know *nothing* about it.
Yet another of your innumerable lies.
Steve Carroll
> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 09:04:55 -0700, Snit wrote:
> > 7:56 AM:
>
> >> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 05:40:39 -0700, Chris Clement wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 9, 6:57 pm, "Mocassin Joe" <JoeMocasanto @ verizon.com> wrote:
> >>>> First it was Psystar.
> >>>> It seems that Apple can't do Jack Shit about it.
>
> >>>>http://www.macworld.co.uk/mac/news/index.cfm?newsid=25692
>
> >>>> Mac clone maker PearC plans Mac OS X laptop
>
> >>>> "The PearC offers a very good performance at a very fair price. You
> >>>> have an extensible case; where you can change hard drives, memory,
> >>>> add expansion cards. Things you can't do in a Mac mini or iMac. The
> >>>> Mac Pro is too expensive for most people."
>
> >>> you are retarded if you think people will actually buy that piece of
> >>> shit. lol.....just look at it. It looks like something my local
> >>> screwdriver shop just threw together. keep dreaming.
>
> >> It looks like a fine computer to me. But then my computers are for
> >> work, not fashion statements.
>
> >> I think I'll wait to see how this Psystar thing plays out, and buy one
> >> if they win. That way I can try out OSX without paying the Apple tax.
>
> > Apple tax? Er?
>
> The difference in price between Apple's hardware and better hardware sold
> by somebody else.
I've seen no indication that it's better quality-wise but I haven't
researched it much. On what basis are you claiming this?
> > Heck, even the shipping was free!
>
> Amazon ships free too, fan boy.
>
> > But interesting that you now admit you have not even *tried* OS X.
>
> Now admit? When did I say I had tried it? What's so "interesting"
> about that?
Lying in this particular manner is part of Snit's usual MO... as is
this: You are now a lying troll in Snit's mind because you've question
Snit's lie here.
> > You know *nothing* about it.
>
> Yet another of your innumerable lies.
This one is not necessarily a lie, it's just Snit exercising the other
portion of his MO. Next to lying... it's doing the thing he does best
(talking outta his ass). His BS aside, as usual, he misses the point:
For some users the price difference will, among other things, offset
these 'reportedly' better service records and higher user
satisfaction ratings. ZnU is probably right, though... of those
interested in running OSX at all there will be a small percentage of
people (hobbyists) that will buy these but the average consumer will
still buy from Apple.
Sermo Malifer
> Sermo Malifer stated in post grnp85$htn$3...@news.albasani.net on 4/10/09
> 8:39 AM:
>
> ...
>>> If you need OSX for actual work,
>>
>> I don't.
>>
>>> then you also need dependability and
>>> assurance that the machine you buy to use it will in fact, keep
>>> running it. That means that as an investment in a tool to get work
>>> done, this could end up costing you more in potential downtime or
>>> compatibility issues at some future date.
>>
>> Your FUD is ineffective.
>>
>>> So if it is a WORK machine you are buying, get an Apple.
>>
>> My non-Apple computers have all put in years of faithful service.
>
> Sure: but do you deny that Macs almost always are reported to have
> better service records and higher user satisfaction ratings?
I tend to ignore the fan boys.
> Still, get what works for you...
I always do.
Sermo Malifer
I'm not saying it is.
> but I haven't
> researched it much. On what basis are you claiming this?
On the specs, on what hardware you get, such as a quad core 4 GB PC for
less than the price of a Mac Mini.
>> > Heck, even the shipping was free!
>>
>> Amazon ships free too, fan boy.
>>
>> > But interesting that you now admit you have not even *tried* OS X.
>>
>> Now admit? When did I say I had tried it? What's so "interesting"
>> about that?
>
> Lying in this particular manner is part of Snit's usual MO... as is
> this: You are now a lying troll in Snit's mind because you've question
> Snit's lie here.
Yes. I've seen him make up a lot of crap and post it as my views, then
argue against the crap he made up himself! He must run an automated
straw man factory!
>> > You know *nothing* about it.
>>
>> Yet another of your innumerable lies.
>
> This one is not necessarily a lie, it's just Snit exercising the other
> portion of his MO. Next to lying... it's doing the thing he does best
> (talking outta his ass). His BS aside, as usual, he misses the point:
> For some users the price difference will, among other things, offset
> these 'reportedly' better service records and higher user satisfaction
> ratings. ZnU is probably right, though... of those interested in running
> OSX at all there will be a small percentage of people (hobbyists) that
> will buy these but the average consumer will still buy from Apple.
I've done a fair amount of reading about Mac OSX, and even though I
haven't used it, I don't think one can honestly say I know nothing about
it. Back when I bought my Mac clone from PowerComputing, it seemed to me
that more than hobbyists were interested in non-Apple Macs, and I think
that would still be true today.
Sermo Malifer
No stretch at all.
>> > then you also need dependability and
>> > assurance that the machine you buy to use it will in fact, keep
>> > running it. That means that as an investment in a tool to get work
>> > done, this could end up costing you more in potential downtime or
>> > compatibility issues at some future date.
>>
>> Your FUD is ineffective.
>>
> It isn't FUD. It is a fact that any non-apple machine could be one
> update away from not working with the current version. If that is a
> concern, then it is a legitimate issue.
I thought you were talking about hardware reliability. Your issue can
be dealt with by avoiding automatic updates.
>> > So if it is a WORK machine you are buying, get an Apple.
>>
>> My non-Apple computers have all put in years of faithful service.
>>
> Running OSX?
Of course not. Why do you ask?
Snit
AM:
> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 09:04:55 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> Sermo Malifer stated in post grnmnc$9vp$5...@news.albasani.net on 4/10/09
>> 7:56 AM:
>>
>>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 05:40:39 -0700, Chris Clement wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Apr 9, 6:57 pm, "Mocassin Joe" <JoeMocasanto @ verizon.com> wrote:
>>>>> First it was Psystar.
>>>>> It seems that Apple can't do Jack Shit about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.macworld.co.uk/mac/news/index.cfm?newsid=25692
>>>>>
>>>>> Mac clone maker PearC plans Mac OS X laptop
>>>>>
>>>>> "The PearC offers a very good performance at a very fair price. You
>>>>> have an extensible case; where you can change hard drives, memory,
>>>>> add expansion cards. Things you can't do in a Mac mini or iMac. The
>>>>> Mac Pro is too expensive for most people."
>>>>
>>>> you are retarded if you think people will actually buy that piece of
>>>> shit. lol.....just look at it. It looks like something my local
>>>> screwdriver shop just threw together. keep dreaming.
>>>
>>> It looks like a fine computer to me. But then my computers are for
>>> work, not fashion statements.
>>>
>>> I think I'll wait to see how this Psystar thing plays out, and buy one
>>> if they win. That way I can try out OSX without paying the Apple tax.
>>
>> Apple tax? Er?
>
> The difference in price between Apple's hardware and better hardware sold
> by somebody else.
Ah, the ol' price myth springs back up! How fun!
Yes, if you just compare machines without considering looking for comparable
hardware *and* software, you can make either Macs or PCs look cheaper -
often considerably so. Generally, since Apple has limited markets / use
cases they target, this has been used to make Macs look more expensive than
PCs. And there is some validity to this: if you do not need everything that
comes with a Mac then why pay for it?
On the other hand: if you compare Macs with *comparable* Windows machines,
comparison after comparison has shown that the prices are pretty close:
sometimes the Mac is a bit cheaper, sometimes the Windows machine is. Even
this, though, might not be 100% fair: often these comparisons are done
shortly after Apple has released a new product. Apple tends to keep their
prices constant over the life of the machine, so at the start of the
life-cycle it makes sense it would compare more favorably.
Hopefully that help you to understand this supposed "Apple tax" a bit better
- not completely untrue, but not quite what many make of it, either.
>> Heck, even the shipping was free!
>
> Amazon ships free too, fan boy.
I was in reference to your tax comment: generally the benefit of buying
online, as many Mac users do, is no tax (depending on the circumstances).
But you pay for shipping. Apple does charge tax to more users because they
have physical stores in so many places.
>> But interesting that you now admit you have not even *tried* OS X.
>
> Now admit? When did I say I had tried it? What's so "interesting"
> about that?
You are in CSMA posting when you know nothing about OS X. Explains why you
incorrectly assume people are like you such as when you erroneously claim
people who clearly *do* use Linux do not. It is deeper insight into where
your logical flaws come from.
>> You know *nothing* about it.
>
> Yet another of your innumerable lies.
See: you post in CSMA but know nothing of Macs... you project and assume
others are like you. You lie a great deal... and, again, you project and
assume others are like you.
You are an interesting subject, to say the least.
By the way: I commented on it to others, but I am not sure I directly
congratulated you on your "win". You got me to give you lots and lots of
attention - exactly what you wanted - and in doing so I acted poorly
(pointing out your same lies using the same text, over and over, and even
asking you about your lies in threads I should not have). You "won" in that
you got to me... few trolls do these days. Well done. I have no idea what
appeal you find in disrupting groups and encouraging others to, but you
succeeded.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
MuahMan
> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 10:52:33 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > Sermo Malifer <sermomali...@noemail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 10:00:00 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>
My brand new iMac's motherboard died in less than 2 months. Had to
take it apart with a plunger. Once you get inside you get a true idea
for how shitty the components in a Mac are.
MuahMan
Lotta bites on that lure! Good work!
Snit
10:13 AM:
> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 09:03:54 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> Sermo Malifer stated in post grnp85$htn$3...@news.albasani.net on 4/10/09
>> 8:39 AM:
>>
>> ...
>>>> If you need OSX for actual work,
>>>
>>> I don't.
>>>
>>>> then you also need dependability and
>>>> assurance that the machine you buy to use it will in fact, keep
>>>> running it. That means that as an investment in a tool to get work
>>>> done, this could end up costing you more in potential downtime or
>>>> compatibility issues at some future date.
>>>
>>> Your FUD is ineffective.
>>>
>>>> So if it is a WORK machine you are buying, get an Apple.
>>>
>>> My non-Apple computers have all put in years of faithful service.
>>
>> Sure: but do you deny that Macs almost always are reported to have
>> better service records and higher user satisfaction ratings?
>>
>> Still, get what works for you...
>
> I always do.
OK.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
10:38 AM:
...
>> Lying in this particular manner is part of Snit's usual MO... as is
>> this: You are now a lying troll in Snit's mind because you've question
>> Snit's lie here.
>
> Yes. I've seen him make up a lot of crap and post it as my views, then
> argue against the crap he made up himself! He must run an automated
> straw man factory!
Hmmmm: you made up stories about me not being able to use Linux... and then
made up stories about how clearly technically competent people who post to a
Linux advocacy forum cannot even install Linux.
I noted, correctly, how if you really believe such people cannot install
Linux then you have very, very little faith in the ease of use of desktop
Linux.
You claimed I somehow made something up about your views... but the reality
is you made things up about me and about others and it back fired on you.
Poor, poor Sermo... the only one he can find to support his BS are people
such as Steve Carroll, one of the biggest liars to ever infest Usenet. Oh
well... birds of a feather and all that: not surprising to see you two
cuddle.
It is even kinda cute, in a pathetic sort of way. :)
>>>> You know *nothing* about it.
>>>
>>> Yet another of your innumerable lies.
>>
>> This one is not necessarily a lie, it's just Snit exercising the other
>> portion of his MO. Next to lying... it's doing the thing he does best
>> (talking outta his ass). His BS aside, as usual, he misses the point:
>> For some users the price difference will, among other things, offset
>> these 'reportedly' better service records and higher user satisfaction
>> ratings. ZnU is probably right, though... of those interested in running
>> OSX at all there will be a small percentage of people (hobbyists) that
>> will buy these but the average consumer will still buy from Apple.
>
> I've done a fair amount of reading about Mac OSX, and even though I
> haven't used it, I don't think one can honestly say I know nothing about
> it. Back when I bought my Mac clone from PowerComputing, it seemed to me
> that more than hobbyists were interested in non-Apple Macs, and I think
> that would still be true today.
Ah, you have *read* about OS X... you know lots about it. LOL!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Lloyd Parsons
Sermo Malifer <sermom...@noemail.com> wrote:
Only for as long as Apple doesn't take steps to prevent cloners from
using OSX. 1st step is the courts to determine the legality of them
doing it at all. That is already in progress.
Then they might consider a change to things so it doesn't work on any
but Apple.
> >> > So if it is a WORK machine you are buying, get an Apple.
> >>
> >> My non-Apple computers have all put in years of faithful service.
> >>
> > Running OSX?
>
> Of course not. Why do you ask?
>
Because your posting was about the PearC and OSX. Your initial comments
give an initial impression that you might know something about OSX, but
your later ones indicate you don't know anything at all about it.
Snit
10:44 AM:
>> It isn't FUD. It is a fact that any non-apple machine could be one
>> update away from not working with the current version. If that is a
>> concern, then it is a legitimate issue.
>
> I thought you were talking about hardware reliability. Your issue can
> be dealt with by avoiding automatic updates.
Part of the value of my machine is knowing that at least for some time I
will be able to use OS X updates... and when the time comes when I cannot
use the newest updates there is no concern that I might accidently update
and cause myself great grief.
Such things do not seem to be of much value to you. So be it. Different
standards.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sermo Malifer
Which is why I said I'd wait to see how this thing with Psystar plays out.
>> >> > So if it is a WORK machine you are buying, get an Apple.
>> >>
>> >> My non-Apple computers have all put in years of faithful service.
>> >>
>> > Running OSX?
>>
>> Of course not. Why do you ask?
>>
> Because your posting was about the PearC and OSX. Your initial comments
> give an initial impression that you might know something about OSX,
It should, because I do.
> but
> your later ones indicate you don't know anything at all about it.
No, Snit, they only indicate I don't use Mac OS X.
Lloyd Parsons
Sermo Malifer <sermom...@noemail.com> wrote:
The Pystar issue is a legal one, but it isn't the only way that Apple
could ensure that OSX wouldn't work on non-Apple equipment.
A technical change in the OS could be made so that it wouldn't install
on non-Apple equipment at all, and they can do that without any legal
ramifications.
> >> >> > So if it is a WORK machine you are buying, get an Apple.
> >> >>
> >> >> My non-Apple computers have all put in years of faithful service.
> >> >>
> >> > Running OSX?
> >>
> >> Of course not. Why do you ask?
> >>
> > Because your posting was about the PearC and OSX. Your initial comments
> > give an initial impression that you might know something about OSX,
>
> It should, because I do.
>
Only what you've read as you have indicated. It takes more than that to
appreciate OSX imo.
> > but
> > your later ones indicate you don't know anything at all about it.
>
> No, Snit, they only indicate I don't use Mac OS X.
>
I'm not Snit.
Steve Carroll
I would fall into that category. People using Macs for audio and/or
video might be very interested in such a machine... but, like ZnU
points out, their numbers are far from the average user. While I
wish Apple would address this market segment, I can see why they
don't. I may just buy a non Apple OSX machine next time around.
Steve Carroll
(snip)
> >> Apple tax? Er?
>
> > The difference in price between Apple's hardware and better hardware sold
> > by somebody else.
>
> Ah, the ol' price myth springs back up! How fun!
>
> Yes, if you just compare machines without considering looking for comparable
> hardware *and* software, you can make either Macs or PCs look cheaper -
> often considerably so.
You're aware that a non-Mac computer owner (like a Pystar owner, for
example) can buy software like iWork and iLife, right?
> Generally, since Apple has limited markets / use
> cases they target, this has been used to make Macs look more expensive than
> PCs. And there is some validity to this: if you do not need everything that
> comes with a Mac then why pay for it?
Have you actually looked at the pricing? Hint: You can still "pay for
it" and pay less than if you had purchased an extensible OSX machine
from Apple. ZDnet reported that PearC is charging an additional $67
for the inclusion of iWork 09 and iLife 09 with the sale of their
Stylence clones.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=3613
> On the other hand: if you compare Macs with *comparable* Windows machines,
> comparison after comparison has shown that the prices are pretty close:
> sometimes the Mac is a bit cheaper, sometimes the Windows machine is.
In the case of a low priced, extensible OSX compatible machine there
is no current Apple product that competes. BTW, why are you changing
to topic to "Windows" machines? How did you manage to get confused so
quickly?
@verizon.com Mocassin Joe
"ZnU" <z...@fake.invalid> wrote in message
news:znu-359141.1...@mara100-84.onlink.net...
> In article <u%uDl.26565$i9.2...@bignews8.bellsouth.net>,
> "Mocassin Joe" <JoeMocasanto @ verizon.com> wrote:
>
>> First it was Psystar.
>> It seems that Apple can't do Jack Shit about it.
>>
>> http://www.macworld.co.uk/mac/news/index.cfm?newsid=25692
>>
>> Mac clone maker PearC plans Mac OS X laptop
>>
>> "The PearC offers a very good performance at a very fair price. You have
>> an
>> extensible case; where you can change hard drives, memory, add expansion
>> cards. Things you can't do in a Mac mini or iMac. The Mac Pro is too
>> expensive for most people."
>
> Because what average consumers really want is a big clunky tower, so
> they can install six drives in it. All the average consumers I know do
> that.
So expandability is a bad thing? But of course if the mini were expandable,
then it would be a good thing. Is it hard speaking from both sides of your
mouth at the same time?
ZnU
"Mocassin Joe" <JoeMocasanto @ verizon.com> wrote:
> "ZnU" <z...@fake.invalid> wrote in message
> news:znu-359141.1...@mara100-84.onlink.net...
> > In article <u%uDl.26565$i9.2...@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Mocassin
> > Joe" <JoeMocasanto @ verizon.com> wrote:
> >
> >> First it was Psystar. It seems that Apple can't do Jack Shit about
> >> it.
> >>
> >> http://www.macworld.co.uk/mac/news/index.cfm?newsid=25692
> >>
> >> Mac clone maker PearC plans Mac OS X laptop
> >>
> >> "The PearC offers a very good performance at a very fair price.
> >> You have an extensible case; where you can change hard drives,
> >> memory, add expansion cards. Things you can't do in a Mac mini or
> >> iMac. The Mac Pro is too expensive for most people."
> >
> > Because what average consumers really want is a big clunky tower,
> > so they can install six drives in it. All the average consumers I
> > know do that.
>
> So expandability is a bad thing?
It's a thing that doesn't matter to most consumers.
> But of course if the mini were expandable, then it would be a good
> thing. Is it hard speaking from both sides of your mouth at the same
> time?
Did you actually just invent something you think I would say and then
accuse me of talking out of both sides of my mouth because your
invented nonsense contradicts what I actually said?
Sermo Malifer
If I can't legally run Mac OS X without buying a computer from Apple I
won't ever run Mac OS X.
>> >> >> > So if it is a WORK machine you are buying, get an Apple.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> My non-Apple computers have all put in years of faithful service.
>> >> >>
>> >> > Running OSX?
>> >>
>> >> Of course not. Why do you ask?
>> >>
>> > Because your posting was about the PearC and OSX. Your initial
>> > comments give an initial impression that you might know something
>> > about OSX,
>>
>> It should, because I do.
>>
> Only what you've read as you have indicated.
You didn't read anything that indicated I "don't know anything at all
about it."
> It takes more than that to appreciate OSX imo.
You're entitled to your opinion. I'm not putting up $600 to $1,000 in a
gamble to find out whether or not Mac OS X is worth it.
>> > but
>> > your later ones indicate you don't know anything at all about it.
>>
>> No, Snit, they only indicate I don't use Mac OS X.
>>
> I'm not Snit.
Then you ought to refrain from posting the same type of remarks he does.
Sermo Malifer
> Sermo Malifer stated in post gro0ii$htn$1...@news.albasani.net on 4/10/09
> 10:44 AM:
>
>>> It isn't FUD. It is a fact that any non-apple machine could be one
>>> update away from not working with the current version. If that is a
>>> concern, then it is a legitimate issue.
>>
>> I thought you were talking about hardware reliability. Your issue can
>> be dealt with by avoiding automatic updates.
>
> Part of the value of my machine is knowing that at least for some time I
> will be able to use OS X updates... and when the time comes when I
> cannot use the newest updates there is no concern that I might
> accidently update and cause myself great grief.
IOW, the G4 and G5 Macs that can't update once OSX is Intel only have no
value.
> Such things do not seem to be of much value to you. So be it.
> Different standards.
You're wrong, as always. You never get tired of putting words in other
people's mouths, do you?
@verizon.com Mocassin Joe
"MuahMan" <mua...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a80d0c3b-da63-4450...@k38g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
They're hand picked. Right out of the "ON SALE" bin. And when those run
out, they get them from the "OBSOLETE" bin.
@verizon.com Mocassin Joe
"ZnU" <z...@fake.invalid> wrote in message
I know that you know that I know what you know you said. Your implication
was clear. But if you want to retract what you said - feel free - I'm easy.
Snit
PM:
> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 11:52:17 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> Sermo Malifer stated in post gro0ii$htn$1...@news.albasani.net on 4/10/09
>> 10:44 AM:
>>
>>>> It isn't FUD. It is a fact that any non-apple machine could be one
>>>> update away from not working with the current version. If that is a
>>>> concern, then it is a legitimate issue.
>>>
>>> I thought you were talking about hardware reliability. Your issue can
>>> be dealt with by avoiding automatic updates.
>>
>> Part of the value of my machine is knowing that at least for some time I
>> will be able to use OS X updates... and when the time comes when I
>> cannot use the newest updates there is no concern that I might
>> accidently update and cause myself great grief.
>
> IOW, the G4 and G5 Macs that can't update once OSX is Intel only have no
> value.
What makes you think that? Wow. My wife has a G4 800 that she still makes
good use of. Sure, at some point she should get a newer machine and clearly
it is limited... but it cannot run the newest OS. Now, if it *could* run
the newest OS and do so well that would be a clear benefit. With a
non-Apple OS X machine you do not know if you have that benefit even over
the short run... and if you try to exercise that benefit you may be stuck
having to re-install an older OS and, potentially, even losing data (though
presumably you would have it backed up, but still a pain).
>> Such things do not seem to be of much value to you. So be it.
>> Different standards.
>
> You're wrong, as always.
I value the ability to upgrade the OS on my machine. You have made it clear
it is not as much of a value to you - hence the reason why a non-Apple OS X
machine is more appealing to you. I have no desire for one. Heck, you
mentioned PowerComputing: my experiences with my PowerComputing machine that
ran Mac OS was enough to teach me to *never* make that mistake again. It
was like using a Mac with half the problems of a PC. Ick. No thanks.
Driver issues were far, far greater with that POS.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Chance Furlong
"Mocassin Joe" <JoeMocasanto @ verizon.com> wrote:
> I'm easy.
Is that what Steve Ballmer said about you?
--
Apple über alles! Heil Steve Jobs!
ZnU
So when I said that expandability doesn't matter to most consumers the
implication that expandability does matter to consumers was clear?
ZnU
Lloyd Parsons <lloydp...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <gro4ho$4q5$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> Sermo Malifer <sermom...@noemail.com> wrote:
> > Which is why I said I'd wait to see how this thing with Psystar plays out.
> >
> The Pystar issue is a legal one, but it isn't the only way that Apple
> could ensure that OSX wouldn't work on non-Apple equipment.
>
> A technical change in the OS could be made so that it wouldn't install
> on non-Apple equipment at all, and they can do that without any legal
> ramifications.
Probably not. DRM doesn't work. Apple is probably too smart to invest
much time in implementing a technical solution that will inevitably get
cracked within a week of being deployed.
Nor is there much reason for Apple to actually want to prevent this sort
of thing. Oh, sure, they don't want it to become mainstream, which is
why they challenge it in court. But a few hobbyists with Hackintoshs
aren't going to hurt Apple, and some probably probably even discover OS
X this way and then go on to buy actual Apple hardware.
[snip]
Sermo Malifer
You were totally wrong, as usual. Most makers tote their expandability
because that's what most buyers want.
> the
> implication that expandability does matter to consumers was clear?
It should be, because it does matter to consumers.
Snit
PM:
...
>>>> Did you actually just invent something you think I would say and then
>>>> accuse me of talking out of both sides of my mouth because your
>>>> invented nonsense contradicts what I actually said?
>>>
>>> I know that you know that I know what you know you said. Your
>>> implication was clear. But if you want to retract what you said - feel
>>> free - I'm easy.
>>
>> So when I said that expandability doesn't matter to most consumers
>
> You were totally wrong, as usual. Most makers tote their expandability
> because that's what most buyers want.
Internal upgrades are rare in the consumer world. People do add external
hard drives and peripherals and applications, and, especially on Macs,
update their OS. The risk of not being able to do the latter is one of the
reasons that the non-Apple OS X machines are not as appealing as the Apple
made ones, at least to many.
>> the
>> implication that expandability does matter to consumers was clear?
>
> It should be, because it does matter to consumers.
A lot of people buy computers with the idea they will later upgrade, but
relatively few really do. This is not to say it is not a large enough group
to keep parts flowing at BestBuy and the like, but it is not the norm.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
@verizon.com Mocassin Joe
"ZnU" <z...@fake.invalid> wrote in message
Are you now asking me to clarify what you said? Don't you know?
Sermo Malifer
> Sermo Malifer stated in post grod4l$frd$2...@news.albasani.net on 4/10/09
> 2:19 PM:
>
>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 11:52:17 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> Sermo Malifer stated in post gro0ii$htn$1...@news.albasani.net on
>>> 4/10/09 10:44 AM:
>>>
>>>>> It isn't FUD. It is a fact that any non-apple machine could be one
>>>>> update away from not working with the current version. If that is a
>>>>> concern, then it is a legitimate issue.
>>>>
>>>> I thought you were talking about hardware reliability. Your issue
>>>> can be dealt with by avoiding automatic updates.
>>>
>>> Part of the value of my machine is knowing that at least for some time
>>> I will be able to use OS X updates... and when the time comes when I
>>> cannot use the newest updates there is no concern that I might
>>> accidently update and cause myself great grief.
>>
>> IOW, the G4 and G5 Macs that can't update once OSX is Intel only have
>> no value.
>
> What makes you think that? Wow.
It's YOUR thoughts! "Wow" indeed.
> My wife has a G4 800 that she still
> makes good use of. Sure, at some point she should get a newer machine
> and clearly it is limited... but it cannot run the newest OS.
So there's no automatic updates for it, just as I suggested turning them
off for the Psystar.
The difference being that Psystar provides its own updates, your wife's
Mac has none.
> Now, if
> it *could* run the newest OS and do so well that would be a clear
> benefit.
So the Psystar has a clear benefit that you lack.
> With a non-Apple OS X machine you do not know if you have that
> benefit even over the short run... and if you try to exercise that
> benefit you may be stuck having to re-install an older OS and,
> potentially, even losing data (though presumably you would have it
> backed up, but still a pain).
You're wrong, as always.
>>> Such things do not seem to be of much value to you. So be it.
>>> Different standards.
>>
>> You're wrong, as always.
>
> I value the ability to upgrade the OS on my machine.
Yet you and your wife have machines that can not be upgraded.
> You have made it
> clear it is not as much of a value to you -
You're wrong, as always. One is torn between calling you an idiot or a
liar, and ends up deciding you're both.
> hence the reason why a
> non-Apple OS X machine is more appealing to you.
You're wrong, as always. The OS on any machine that appeals to me is
just as upgradeable as any machine Apple sells, and that includes Psystar!
> I have no desire for
> one. Heck, you mentioned PowerComputing: my experiences with my
> PowerComputing machine that ran Mac OS was enough to teach me to *never*
> make that mistake again. It was like using a Mac with half the problems
> of a PC. Ick. No thanks. Driver issues were far, far greater with that
> POS.
Those are the opinions and problems of a man who can't match a two year
old girl in the use of Linux.
Sermo Malifer
All you can do is repeat your same tired old lies and insults.
You don't even make a good troll.
Snit
PM:
> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:14:08 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> Sermo Malifer stated in post grod4l$frd$2...@news.albasani.net on 4/10/09
>> 2:19 PM:
>>
>>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 11:52:17 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sermo Malifer stated in post gro0ii$htn$1...@news.albasani.net on
>>>> 4/10/09 10:44 AM:
>>>>
>>>>>> It isn't FUD. It is a fact that any non-apple machine could be one
>>>>>> update away from not working with the current version. If that is a
>>>>>> concern, then it is a legitimate issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought you were talking about hardware reliability. Your issue
>>>>> can be dealt with by avoiding automatic updates.
>>>>
>>>> Part of the value of my machine is knowing that at least for some time
>>>> I will be able to use OS X updates... and when the time comes when I
>>>> cannot use the newest updates there is no concern that I might
>>>> accidently update and cause myself great grief.
>>>
>>> IOW, the G4 and G5 Macs that can't update once OSX is Intel only have
>>> no value.
>>
>> What makes you think that? Wow.
>
> It's YOUR thoughts! "Wow" indeed.
Nope. You speak for yourself: not me.
>> My wife has a G4 800 that she still
>> makes good use of. Sure, at some point she should get a newer machine
>> and clearly it is limited... but it cannot run the newest OS.
>
> So there's no automatic updates for it
There sure are! You are simply wrong.
>
>> Now, if it *could* run the newest OS and do so well that would be a clear
>> benefit.
>>
>> With a non-Apple OS X machine you do not know if you have that
>> benefit even over the short run... and if you try to exercise that
>> benefit you may be stuck having to re-install an older OS and,
>> potentially, even losing data (though presumably you would have it
>> backed up, but still a pain).
>
> You're wrong, as always.
But, of course, you cannot say why or how... just an empty claim from you.
Boring.
>
>>>> Such things do not seem to be of much value to you. So be it.
>>>> Different standards.
>>>
>>> You're wrong, as always.
>>
>> I value the ability to upgrade the OS on my machine.
>
> Yet you and your wife have machines that can not be upgraded.
What makes you think I cannot upgrade the OS in my machine? Oh, you are
just lying.
And what makes you think my old G4 could not be upgraded for years? Oh, you
have no evidence to support that... because it could.
>> You have made it clear it is not as much of a value to you - hence the reason
>> why a non-Apple OS X machine is more appealing to you. I have no desire for
>> one. Heck, you mentioned PowerComputing: my experiences with my
>> PowerComputing machine that ran Mac OS was enough to teach me to *never* make
>> that mistake again. It was like using a Mac with half the problems of a PC.
>> Ick. No thanks. Driver issues were far, far greater with that POS.
>
> Those are the opinions and problems of a man who can't match a two year
> old girl in the use of Linux.
I was speaking of your views... and look how you speak of yourself. OK.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
PM:
You act like I want to be like you - a troll. Nope.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Chance Furlong
Snit <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Sermo Malifer stated in post grpdhk$khq$2...@news.albasani.net on 4/10/09 11:32
> PM:
> >
> > All you can do is repeat your same tired old lies and insults.
> >
> > You don't even make a good troll.
>
> You act like I want to be like you, a troll. Nope.
You act like you are begging for Sermo Malifer's attention.
--
Apple uber alles! Heil Steve Jobs!
Snit
T-Bone-3FCF24....@unlimited.newshosting.com on 4/11/09 12:38 AM:
I have been giving he and HPT too much attention recently... frankly they
are boring. I hope CSMA and COLA have more interesting conversations than
what they can offer. Heck, with HPT cuddling up to Carroll and begging to
be included in his little "crew", I am even indirectly giving Carroll
attention... and that can only serve to make Carroll have another of his
fits. He *hates* truth... so he hates me. Sermo and HPT are cut from that
same cloth. Heck, so are you, even if you are a paler shade.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
High Plains Thumper
> Chance Furlong stated:
>> Snit wrote:
>>> Sermo Malifer stated:
>>>
>>>> All you can do is repeat your same tired old lies and
>>>> insults.
>>>>
>>>> You don't even make a good troll.
>>>
>>> You act like I want to be like you, a troll. Nope.
>>
>> You act like you are begging for Sermo Malifer's attention.
>
> I have been giving he and HPT too much attention recently...
You beg for my attention a lot.
> frankly they are boring. I hope CSMA and COLA have more
> interesting conversations than what they can offer. Heck,
> with HPT cuddling up to Carroll and begging to be included in
> his little "crew", I am even indirectly giving Carroll
> attention... and that can only serve to make Carroll have
> another of his fits. He *hates* truth... so he hates me.
> Sermo and HPT are cut from that same cloth. Heck, so are you,
> even if you are a paler shade.
21- ed: "snit, you continually amaze me with how much of a liar
and loser you are. you may notice a semi-regular pattern with me
where i stop responding to your posts for stretches at a time,
then start up responding as if you were a normal person. i
suppose it's tough for the magnitude of your 'loserdom' to stick,
so it loses some of it's sharpness when i stop responding to you.
you almost always start responding back in a semi normal way, but
inevitably degenerate. it's once again that time. i can only ask
that you pass my condolences to your wife and unborn child for
having to put up with such a dishonest fool as yourself. (well,
if your wife is a loser as well, just pass those condolences to
the rug-rat to be; if not, double condolences to her). " 30 Apr 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/71f74dd6d806ce77
--
HPT
Quando omni flunkus moritati
(If all else fails, play dead)
- "Red" Green
High Plains Thumper
> Sermo Malifer stated:
>
>> You don't even make a good troll.
>
> You act like I want to be like you - a troll. Nope.
Same type disinformation tactics happens in CSMA as it does in COLA:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/
[quote]
7.6 Trespasser Disinformation Tactics
[6.] When your tactics are turned on you, call your opponents
trolls. Do not accept the fact that by calling someone using
your tactics a troll that makes you the real troll.
[/quote]
--
HPT
@verizon.com Mocassin Joe
"Chance Furlong" <T-B...@megakatcity.com> wrote in message
news:T-Bone-3FCF24....@unlimited.newshosting.com...
You act like you want to sniff someone's nutsack.
Tim Murray
> My wife has a G4 800 that she still makes
> good use of. Sure, at some point she should get a newer machine and clearly
> it is limited... but it cannot run the newest OS. Now, if it *could* run
> the newest OS and do so well that would be a clear benefit.
I've heard of Leopard on a G4 800.
@verizon.com Mocassin Joe
"Tim Murray" <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C60622F3...@216.77.188.18...
Well, you "heard it", so it must be true.
Snit
4/11/09 7:35 AM:
Yes, it can be done... but not in a supported way. I have chosen to not go
there. Thanks anyway for the comment.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Tim Murray
>> I've heard of Leopard on a G4 800.
>
> Well, you "heard it", so it must be true.
That is correct.
wetpixel
<267d486b-6569-4399...@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Chris Clement <chris....@mac.com> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 6:57 pm, "Mocassin Joe" <JoeMocasanto @ verizon.com> wrote:
> > First it was Psystar.
> > It seems that Apple can't do Jack Shit about it.
> >
> > http://www.macworld.co.uk/mac/news/index.cfm?newsid=25692
> >
> > Mac clone maker PearC plans Mac OS X laptop
> >
> > "The PearC offers a very good performance at a very fair price. You have an
> > extensible case; where you can change hard drives, memory, add expansion
> > cards. Things you can't do in a Mac mini or iMac. The Mac Pro is too
> > expensive for most people."
>
> you are retarded if you think people will actually buy that piece of
> shit. lol.....just look at it. It looks like something my local
> screwdriver shop just threw together. keep dreaming.
But that's exactly what PearC (and Psystar) is -- it is only the Web
that makes it seem any larger or allows us to imagine them as a serious
long-term PC builder.
They're a PC builder taking advantage of slow international law by
taking parts someone else develops to put into a bundle.
It's no wonder they 'can' offer a Mac-like bundle for less -- they
don't have any of the expenses Apple has!
(Thus, I would hope even trolls wouldn't accuse Apple of artificially
raising the cost of the computer, but we see it even when it's that
obvious!)
Steve Carroll
> Sermo Malifer stated in post grpd9g$kh...@news.albasani.net on 4/10/09 11:28
> PM:
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:14:08 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
> >> 2:19 PM:
>
> >>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 11:52:17 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
Here was *your* view prior to you buying your iMac:
"Oh, I have no problem with saying people might like a cheaper
tower... I
happen to be one of those people. I will be getting an iMac sometime
relatively soon, but would prefer if I could have an internal second
hard
drive. Might also be nice to have two monitors that are the same...
not
possible with an iMac."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/daa64c486ca4a3ac?hl=en&dmode=source
Message-ID: <C2522CED.7E487%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Upon reading the above, I pointed out something that should have been
extremely obvious to you:
"It doesn't seem to occur to you that you're settling for something
you don't
really want because Apple doesn't make anything in the price range
you're
comfortable with."
You claimed you were not "settling":
"Gee, Steve... what a shock! Well... to you... heck, you could not
figure
out that and thought I was "settling". No, Steve, I hardly call it
"settling..."
Hmmm... it sure looks like you settled for an iMac because Apple
didn't make a "cheaper", extensible tower that you would like to have
bought... you obviously gave up on things you'd "prefer" to have had.
Now, of course, you will pretend that you didn't... despite the fact
that google just proved you did.
Sermo Malifer
> In article
> <267d486b-6569-4399...@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> Chris Clement <chris....@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 9, 6:57 pm, "Mocassin Joe" <JoeMocasanto @ verizon.com> wrote:
> > > First it was Psystar.
> > > It seems that Apple can't do Jack Shit about it.
> > >
> > > http://www.macworld.co.uk/mac/news/index.cfm?newsid=25692
> > >
> > > Mac clone maker PearC plans Mac OS X laptop
> > >
> > > "The PearC offers a very good performance at a very fair price. You have an
> > > extensible case; where you can change hard drives, memory, add expansion
> > > cards. Things you can't do in a Mac mini or iMac. The Mac Pro is too
> > > expensive for most people."
> >
> > you are retarded if you think people will actually buy that piece of
> > shit. lol.....just look at it. It looks like something my local
> > screwdriver shop just threw together. keep dreaming.
>
> But that's exactly what PearC (and Psystar) is -- it is only the Web
> that makes it seem any larger or allows us to imagine them as a serious
> long-term PC builder.
Mac clones are only a part of Psystar's business. There's nothing
about them that shows they're not a serious long time PC business.
> They're a PC builder taking advantage of slow international law by
> taking parts someone else develops to put into a bundle.
> It's no wonder they 'can' offer a Mac-like bundle for less -- they
> don't have any of the expenses Apple has!
They're only reselling legally purchased software together with legally
produced computers.
> (Thus, I would hope even trolls wouldn't accuse Apple of artificially
> raising the cost of the computer, but we see it even when it's that
> obvious!)
Apple could sell computers for the same price as either Psystar or
PearC, but they chose to sell lesser computers for more money instead!
Lloyd Parsons
Sermo Malifer <sermom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-04-14 at 13:27 -1000, wetpixel wrote:
> > In article
> > <267d486b-6569-4399...@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> > Chris Clement <chris....@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Apr 9, 6:57 pm, "Mocassin Joe" <JoeMocasanto @ verizon.com> wrote:
> > > > First it was Psystar.
> > > > It seems that Apple can't do Jack Shit about it.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.macworld.co.uk/mac/news/index.cfm?newsid=25692
> > > >
> > > > Mac clone maker PearC plans Mac OS X laptop
> > > >
> > > > "The PearC offers a very good performance at a very fair price. You
> > > > have an
> > > > extensible case; where you can change hard drives, memory, add
> > > > expansion
> > > > cards. Things you can't do in a Mac mini or iMac. The Mac Pro is too
> > > > expensive for most people."
> > >
> > > you are retarded if you think people will actually buy that piece of
> > > shit. lol.....just look at it. It looks like something my local
> > > screwdriver shop just threw together. keep dreaming.
> >
> > But that's exactly what PearC (and Psystar) is -- it is only the Web
> > that makes it seem any larger or allows us to imagine them as a serious
> > long-term PC builder.
>
> Mac clones are only a part of Psystar's business. There's nothing
> about them that shows they're not a serious long time PC business.
>
There's nothing on their website to indicate that they are anything but
a run of the mill clone maker either.
Sermo Malifer
How does that support the idea they're not a "serious long-time PC
builder?"
<snip>
Alan Baker
Sermo Malifer <sermom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-04-14 at 13:27 -1000, wetpixel wrote:
> > In article
> > <267d486b-6569-4399...@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> > Chris Clement <chris....@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Apr 9, 6:57 pm, "Mocassin Joe" <JoeMocasanto @ verizon.com> wrote:
> > > > First it was Psystar.
> > > > It seems that Apple can't do Jack Shit about it.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.macworld.co.uk/mac/news/index.cfm?newsid=25692
> > > >
> > > > Mac clone maker PearC plans Mac OS X laptop
> > > >
> > > > "The PearC offers a very good performance at a very fair price. You
> > > > have an
> > > > extensible case; where you can change hard drives, memory, add
> > > > expansion
> > > > cards. Things you can't do in a Mac mini or iMac. The Mac Pro is too
> > > > expensive for most people."
> > >
> > > you are retarded if you think people will actually buy that piece of
> > > shit. lol.....just look at it. It looks like something my local
> > > screwdriver shop just threw together. keep dreaming.
> >
> > But that's exactly what PearC (and Psystar) is -- it is only the Web
> > that makes it seem any larger or allows us to imagine them as a serious
> > long-term PC builder.
>
> Mac clones are only a part of Psystar's business. There's nothing
> about them that shows they're not a serious long time PC business.
Other than their complete non-existence prior to appearing on the scene
as a seller of systems running Mac OS X...
>
> > They're a PC builder taking advantage of slow international law by
> > taking parts someone else develops to put into a bundle.
> > It's no wonder they 'can' offer a Mac-like bundle for less -- they
> > don't have any of the expenses Apple has!
>
> They're only reselling legally purchased software together with legally
> produced computers.
And then violating the EULA when they install the software...
>
>
> > (Thus, I would hope even trolls wouldn't accuse Apple of artificially
> > raising the cost of the computer, but we see it even when it's that
> > obvious!)
>
> Apple could sell computers for the same price as either Psystar or
> PearC, but they chose to sell lesser computers for more money instead!
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
Snit
on 4/15/09 11:27 AM:
> On Tue, 2009-04-14 at 13:27 -1000, wetpixel wrote:
>> In article
>> <267d486b-6569-4399...@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
>> Chris Clement <chris....@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 9, 6:57 pm, "Mocassin Joe" <JoeMocasanto @ verizon.com> wrote:
>>>> First it was Psystar.
>>>> It seems that Apple can't do Jack Shit about it.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.macworld.co.uk/mac/news/index.cfm?newsid=25692
>>>>
>>>> Mac clone maker PearC plans Mac OS X laptop
>>>>
>>>> "The PearC offers a very good performance at a very fair price. You have an
>>>> extensible case; where you can change hard drives, memory, add expansion
>>>> cards. Things you can't do in a Mac mini or iMac. The Mac Pro is too
>>>> expensive for most people."
>>>
>>> you are retarded if you think people will actually buy that piece of
>>> shit. lol.....just look at it. It looks like something my local
>>> screwdriver shop just threw together. keep dreaming.
>>
>> But that's exactly what PearC (and Psystar) is -- it is only the Web
>> that makes it seem any larger or allows us to imagine them as a serious
>> long-term PC builder.
>
> Mac clones are only a part of Psystar's business. There's nothing
> about them that shows they're not a serious long time PC business.
Can you point me to some evidence of their longevity in the market?
>> They're a PC builder taking advantage of slow international law by
>> taking parts someone else develops to put into a bundle.
>> It's no wonder they 'can' offer a Mac-like bundle for less -- they
>> don't have any of the expenses Apple has!
>
> They're only reselling legally purchased software together with legally
> produced computers.
The legality of their actions has yet to be determined - and the finding
might not be the same in all jurisdictions.
>> (Thus, I would hope even trolls wouldn't accuse Apple of artificially
>> raising the cost of the computer, but we see it even when it's that
>> obvious!)
>
> Apple could sell computers for the same price as either Psystar or
> PearC, but they chose to sell lesser computers for more money instead!
>
Apple sells, mostly, excellent products at reasonable prices. Disagree? Go
buy from someone else! If you want a Psystar machine, knock yourself out!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Alan Baker
Sermo Malifer <sermom...@gmail.com> wrote:
You cannot read, apparently. That reminds me of someone.
He didn't say it "supported" it, he said there is nothing about them
that shows it. And as it turns out, there is much that refutes it:
"According to Florida business records (PDF), Psystar was registered as
a company on July 6, 2007, at 10645 SW 112th Street in Miami, a
residential neighborhood in the Olympia Heights (2:05pm - Sorry, wrong
neighborhood) area south of the city center. That was the address listed
on Psystar's contact page on Monday, but at some point on Tuesday,
Psystar changed its official address to 10481 NW 28th Street, a
commercial district near Miami International Airport."
<http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-9920436-37.html>
The actual florida record is here:
<http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/cordet.exe?action=DETFIL&inq_doc_number=P0
7000077580&inq_came_from=NAMFWD&cor_web_names_seq_number=0000&names_name_
ind=N&names_cor_number=&names_name_seq=&names_name_ind=&names_comp_name=P
SYSTAR&names_filing_type=>
Now, if they were a "serious long-time PC builder" would they have been
operating out of a house in a residential neighbourhood (where
typically, it would be illegal to run such a business)?
<http://maps.google.com/maps?q=10645+SW+112th+st.+miami,+fl&ie=UTF8&oe=ut
f-8&client=firefox-a&ll=25.664965,-80.367241&spn=0.001552,0.002146&t=h&z=
19>
And from the original Cnet article:
"Several Gizmodo readers went to both addresses on Wednesday, and found
no trace of any company named Psystar. A CNET News.com reader wrote in
Tuesday night pointing out that a screen-printing company called
CottonImages.com lists their address as 10481 NW 28th Street.
A spokesman for Cottonimages.com denied any knowledge of Psystar to
Computerworld on Wednesday, and said no company by that name was located
at their address. UPDATED 1:30 p.m. PDT--Gizmodo notes that Psystar's
address has changed again, this time to 10471 NW 28th Street. Maybe the
10481 address was just a typo, but it's not clear. UPDATED 4:25
pm--Believe it or not, they changed it again. Psystar is now located at
10475 NW 28th Street. This is really weird."
Do actual "serious long-time PC builder[s]" change their address that
many times in such a short span?
--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)
Sermo Malifer
I accidentally removed the line I replied to:
Lloyd: "There's nothing on their website to indicate that they are
anything but a run of the mill clone maker either."
> > How does that support the idea they're not a "serious long-time PC
> > builder?"
>
> You cannot read, apparently.
they're not a serious long time PC business.
Apparent to who, Snit?
> That reminds me of someone.
Yourself?
> He didn't say it "supported" it, he said there is nothing about them
> that shows it.
I don't need to be told what he said. I've already responded that
their web site supports the idea they're a "serious long time PC
builder." Him calling Psystar a "run of the mill clone maker" does not
support they idea "they're not a serious long time PC business."
That nonsense was all cleared up long ago, as being nothing but sound
and fury from the fan boys, as usual.
You can dig up the bones of the past and grind your axes, but Psystar
shows they're here to stay:
http://www.lockergnome.com/osx/2009/04/02/psystar-marches-on-with-a-new-pc-release/
As if taking on Apple head-to-head in open court weren't enough!
Alan Baker
Sermo Malifer <sermom...@gmail.com> wrote:
Really? What about their website supports that? Don't be afraid to be
specific.
Really? How was it "cleared up"? Don't be afraid to be specific.
>
> You can dig up the bones of the past and grind your axes, but Psystar
> shows they're here to stay:
>
> http://www.lockergnome.com/osx/2009/04/02/psystar-marches-on-with-a-new-pc-rel
> ease/
>
> As if taking on Apple head-to-head in open court weren't enough!
--
Snit
on 4/15/09 12:55 PM:
> On Wed, 2009-04-15 at 12:57 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
...
>> You cannot read, apparently.
> they're not a serious long time PC business.
> Apparent to who, Snit?
Given that you could not figure out who you were replying to, it is apparent
to everyone! :)
...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sermo Malifer
They never were an exclusive seller of OSX systems.
> >
> > > They're a PC builder taking advantage of slow international law by
> > > taking parts someone else develops to put into a bundle.
> > > It's no wonder they 'can' offer a Mac-like bundle for less -- they
> > > don't have any of the expenses Apple has!
> >
> > They're only reselling legally purchased software together with legally
> > produced computers.
>
> And then violating the EULA when they install the software...
That's already been addressed.
Alan Baker
Sermo Malifer <sermom...@gmail.com> wrote:
Really? You can support that, can you?
>
> > >
> > > > They're a PC builder taking advantage of slow international law by
> > > > taking parts someone else develops to put into a bundle.
> > > > It's no wonder they 'can' offer a Mac-like bundle for less -- they
> > > > don't have any of the expenses Apple has!
> > >
> > > They're only reselling legally purchased software together with legally
> > > produced computers.
> >
> > And then violating the EULA when they install the software...
>
> That's already been addressed.
LOL
Sermo Malifer
Anybody who visited their site when it opened knows it's true. If you
did, your question is very dishonest.
<snip>
Sermo Malifer
I figured out who your sock puppet is!
Sermo Malifer
If you need to be told you can't understand the answer!
Use Google and catch up on your own.
Alan Baker
Sermo Malifer <sermom...@gmail.com> wrote:
LOL
And there's nowhere on the entire world wide web that you can find that
supports that claim, I guess...
LOL
>
> <snip>
Alan Baker
Sermo Malifer <sermom...@gmail.com> wrote:
Your usual failure to back up your claims is noted.
My references are there. You claim it was cleared up, but your
references are...
...sadly missing.
Snit
on 4/15/09 1:36 PM:
...
>>> I don't need to be told what he said. I've already responded that
>>> their web site supports the idea they're a "serious long time PC
>>> builder." Him calling Psystar a "run of the mill clone maker" does not
>>> support they idea "they're not a serious long time PC business."
>>
>> Really? What about their website supports that? Don't be afraid to be
>> specific.
>
> If you need to be told you can't understand the answer!
...
>>> That nonsense was all cleared up long ago, as being nothing but sound
>>> and fury from the fan boys, as usual.
>>
>> Really? How was it "cleared up"? Don't be afraid to be specific.
>
> Use Google and catch up on your own.
Your dodging and running is sad.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
on 4/15/09 1:34 PM:
You made a mistake. We all do from time to time... note I put a smiley at
the end of my comment. While you do say and do a lot of things I find to be
pathetic, making such a mistake is not one of them.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sermo Malifer
Did you fail to visit their web site when it opened, or are you being
dishonest?
I'm guessing it's the latter.
Where on the web do you suggest I go to find what existed on a Web site
in the past? Even if I found it, would you do anything but ask me
what it means with the words "be specific," as you did for what their
site currently shows?
> >
> > <snip>
>
Sermo Malifer
Noted by whom? What would you want me to write that couldn't be better
viewed on Psystar's own site?
Why bother? You can't even tell what's on the sites you are referred
to!
You don't think it was cleared up? Psystar's address is unknown and
suspicious? How do you think Apple's lawyer's found them to serve
court papers? Who has been filling their orders all this time?
Why am I bothering with one of Snit's sock puppets?
Snit
on 4/15/09 2:23 PM:
> On Wed, 2009-04-15 at 14:27 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
...
>> My references are there. You claim it was cleared up, but your
>> references are...
>>
>> ...sadly missing.
>
> Why bother?
Why bother to make controversial claims you cannot support?
> You can't even tell what's on the sites you are referred
> to!
Ah, and to deal with your failure you spew insults. OK.
> You don't think it was cleared up? Psystar's address is unknown and
> suspicious? How do you think Apple's lawyer's found them to serve
> court papers? Who has been filling their orders all this time?
>
> Why am I bothering with one of Snit's sock puppets?
LOL! Anyone who helps you make a fool of yourself is now me. Well, makes
more sense than Wally's claim that if someone quotes someone else correctly
and then later notes they did so, this somehow "proves" they used a sock
puppet.
Wally never did explain his thought process behind that bit of stupidity...
just as you will not explain your "thoughts" above. You are just begging
for my attention.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sermo Malifer
> Sermo Malifer stated in post 1239827645.8...@localhost.localdomain
> on 4/15/09 1:34 PM:
>
> > On Wed, 2009-04-15 at 14:04 -0700, Snit wrote:
> >> Sermo Malifer stated in post 1239825352.8...@localhost.localdomain
> >> on 4/15/09 12:55 PM:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, 2009-04-15 at 12:57 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> >> ...
> >>>> You cannot read, apparently.
> >>> they're not a serious long time PC business.
> >>> Apparent to who, Snit?
> >>
> >> Given that you could not figure out who you were replying to, it is apparent
> >> to everyone! :)
> >> ...
> >
> > I figured out who your sock puppet is!
> >
> You made a mistake.
By replying to your Alan Baker sock puppet as if it were somebody
besides you?
> We all do from time to time... note I put a smiley at
> the end of my comment. While you do say and do a lot of things I find to be
> pathetic, making such a mistake is not one of them.
Then why did you write "you were wrong... again" in another of your
replies? Just to make your sock puppet seem to be not you?
Alan Baker
Sermo Malifer <sermom...@gmail.com> wrote:
LOL
I guessing you haven't the slightest clue what their website said when
it opened.
>
> Where on the web do you suggest I go to find what existed on a Web site
> in the past?
Did you not notice that the news articles I referenced dated from April
2008?
> Even if I found it, would you do anything but ask me
> what it means with the words "be specific," as you did for what their
> site currently shows?
What from their website did I answer with "be specific"; please provide
the quote.
Snit
on 4/15/09 2:33 PM:
> On Wed, 2009-04-15 at 14:29 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> Sermo Malifer stated in post 1239827645.8...@localhost.localdomain
>> on 4/15/09 1:34 PM:
>>
>>> On Wed, 2009-04-15 at 14:04 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>> Sermo Malifer stated in post 1239825352.8...@localhost.localdomain
>>>> on 4/15/09 12:55 PM:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 2009-04-15 at 12:57 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>>> You cannot read, apparently.
>>>>> they're not a serious long time PC business.
>>>>> Apparent to who, Snit?
>>>>
>>>> Given that you could not figure out who you were replying to, it is
>>>> apparent
>>>> to everyone! :)
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> I figured out who your sock puppet is!
>>>
>> You made a mistake.
>
> By replying to your Alan Baker sock puppet as if it were somebody
> besides you?
Ah, you made a silly mistake... twice. To deal with your backing yourself
into a corner with your BS, you lash out with silly, inane accusations not
even you believe.
>> We all do from time to time... note I put a smiley at
>> the end of my comment. While you do say and do a lot of things I find to be
>> pathetic, making such a mistake is not one of them.
>
> Then why did you write "you were wrong... again" in another of your
> replies?
You were wrong once. Then you were wrong again. Now you show confusion
about why someone would note you were wrong. Again.
Wow. Just wow.
> Just to make your sock puppet seem to be not you?
Ah, more of your BS to deal with the fact you have backed yourself into a
corner with your BS. Again.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sermo Malifer
You confirmed your dishonesty then, as you hoped I didn't know what was
there.
>
> >
> > Where on the web do you suggest I go to find what existed on a Web site
> > in the past?
>
> archive.org?
You confirmed your dishonesty then.
> Did you not notice that the news articles I referenced dated from April
> 2008?
Yes, I noted you brought up things that were cleared up a long time ago.
> > Even if I found it, would you do anything but ask me
> > what it means with the words "be specific," as you did for what their
> > site currently shows?
>
> What from their website did I answer with "be specific"; please provide
> the quote.
You're misreading again, Snit.
Snit
on 4/15/09 3:04 PM:
> On Wed, 2009-04-15 at 15:36 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
At this point you are just lashing out with BS as you lick your wounds over
having made a complete and total fool of yourself. Do now worry: Steve
Carroll will be along any moment to slap you on your back for spewing
insults in my direction. He does that a lot, you know.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Alan Baker
Sermo Malifer <sermom...@gmail.com> wrote:
How does that confirm my dishonesty, Edwin?
I've put forward my case: news stories that describe Psystar at the time
that it started sell systems with Mac OS X on them.
You've put forward...
...nothing...
...as usual.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Where on the web do you suggest I go to find what existed on a Web site
> > > in the past?
> >
> > archive.org?
>
> You confirmed your dishonesty then.
How's that, Edwin?
>
> > Did you not notice that the news articles I referenced dated from April
> > 2008?
>
> Yes, I noted you brought up things that were cleared up a long time ago.
>
> > > Even if I found it, would you do anything but ask me
> > > what it means with the words "be specific," as you did for what their
> > > site currently shows?
> >
> > What from their website did I answer with "be specific"; please provide
> > the quote.
>
> You're misreading again, Snit.
You claimed "as you did for what their website currently shows", Edwin,
and now you won't quote where I "did" that.
:-)
Steve de Mena
> Only for as long as Apple doesn't take steps to prevent cloners from
> using OSX. 1st step is the courts to determine the legality of them
> doing it at all. That is already in progress.
>
> Then they might consider a change to things so it doesn't work on any
> but Apple.
Don't you think they would have done that by now?
I believe Psystar just celebrated 1 year of selling Mac clones.
Steve
Walter Bushell
Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
> Do actual "serious long-time PC builder[s]" change their address that
> many times in such a short span?
And if what they are doing is legal, why won't the big guys put them out
of business? What kind of long term business is that?
Alan Baker
Sermo Malifer <sermom...@gmail.com> wrote:
If it's so easy to support your claim from their website, let's see the
quotes and the references...
It's not my job to go to those sites. If they say what you claim, quote
them with references.
>
> You don't think it was cleared up? Psystar's address is unknown and
> suspicious? How do you think Apple's lawyer's found them to serve
> court papers? Who has been filling their orders all this time?
>
I think that the fact that Psystar's address in official business
registration papers filed in 2007 shows that they were operating out of
a residence refutes the idea that they are a "serious long-time PC
builder" very well.
> Why am I bothering with one of Snit's sock puppets?
LOL
You're just pissed you've already been found out.
Lloyd Parsons
No I don't think they want to. Instead, let the legalities get settled
in court, then others won't be out there trying the same thing.
Snit
alangbaker-958EA...@news.shawcable.com on 4/15/09 6:33 PM:
>>> My references are there. You claim it was cleared up, but your
>>> references are...
>>>
>>> ...sadly missing.
>>
>> Why bother? You can't even tell what's on the sites you are referred
>> to!
>
> It's not my job to go to those sites. If they say what you claim, quote
> them with references.
>
>>
>> You don't think it was cleared up? Psystar's address is unknown and
>> suspicious? How do you think Apple's lawyer's found them to serve
>> court papers? Who has been filling their orders all this time?
>>
>
> I think that the fact that Psystar's address in official business
> registration papers filed in 2007 shows that they were operating out of
> a residence refutes the idea that they are a "serious long-time PC
> builder" very well.
>
>> Why am I bothering with one of Snit's sock puppets?
>
> LOL
>
> You're just pissed you've already been found out.
Sermo... Edwin or not... clearly knows he has backed himself into a corner
and is just obfuscating and lashing out.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sermo Malifer
Their business was never based exclusively on selling Mac clones. That
may be just a stunt to attract attention to themselves! They certainly
got a lot of free advertising out of it.
Sermo Malifer
> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>
> > Only for as long as Apple doesn't take steps to prevent cloners from
> > using OSX. 1st step is the courts to determine the legality of them
> > doing it at all. That is already in progress.
> >
> > Then they might consider a change to things so it doesn't work on any
> > but Apple.
>
> Don't you think they would have done that by now?
How could they do that without killing upgrades for all the Macs they
have sold? They'd have to go back to the days of software dongles!
> I believe Psystar just celebrated 1 year of selling Mac clones.
Yes, and they recently expanded their Mac clone line, too.
Sermo Malifer
> In article <1239833051.8...@localhost.localdomain>,
> Sermo Malifer <sermom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Sermo Malifer
Whatever you say, Alan... I mean Snit... I mean Alan...
Alan Baker
Sermo Malifer <sermom...@gmail.com> wrote:
Their business may not have been selling Mac clones, but you cannot
produce any information whatsoever that they sold computers prior to
selling machines running Mac OS X...
Sermo Malifer
> In article <1239837118.2...@localhost.localdomain>,
> Sermo Malifer <sermom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2009-04-15 at 20:47 -0400, Walter Bushell wrote:
> > > In article <alangbaker-95EC9...@news.shawcable.com>,
> > > Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Do actual "serious long-time PC builder[s]" change their address that
> > > > many times in such a short span?
> > >
> > > And if what they are doing is legal, why won't the big guys put them out
> > > of business? What kind of long term business is that?
> >
> > Their business was never based exclusively on selling Mac clones. That
> > may be just a stunt to attract attention to themselves! They certainly
> > got a lot of free advertising out of it.
>
> Their business may not have been selling Mac clones,
It wasn't.
> but you cannot
> produce any information whatsoever that they sold computers prior to
> selling machines running Mac OS X...
I have no need to do so.
Alan Baker
Sermo Malifer <sermom...@gmail.com> wrote:
Of course not, Edwin. You hardly ever support your claims!
Sermo Malifer
> In article <1239912670.2...@localhost.localdomain>,
> Sermo Malifer <sermom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2009-04-16 at 10:45 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> > > In article <1239837118.2...@localhost.localdomain>,
> > > Sermo Malifer <sermom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, 2009-04-15 at 20:47 -0400, Walter Bushell wrote:
> > > > > In article <alangbaker-95EC9...@news.shawcable.com>,
> > > > > Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Do actual "serious long-time PC builder[s]" change their address that
> > > > > > many times in such a short span?
> > > > >
> > > > > And if what they are doing is legal, why won't the big guys put them
> > > > > out
> > > > > of business? What kind of long term business is that?
> > > >
> > > > Their business was never based exclusively on selling Mac clones. That
> > > > may be just a stunt to attract attention to themselves! They certainly
> > > > got a lot of free advertising out of it.
> > >
> > > Their business may not have been selling Mac clones,
> >
> > It wasn't.
> >
> > > but you cannot
> > > produce any information whatsoever that they sold computers prior to
> > > selling machines running Mac OS X...
> >
> > I have no need to do so.
>
> Of course not, Edwin. You hardly ever support your claims!
You're lying again, Snit. You're demanding I support a claim I never
made too.
Steve Carroll
> In article <1239830607.8563.155.ca...@localhost.localdomain>,
So who won the contest this time? ;)
I was probably way late to the party... but here's my entry:
(dated Fri, Apr 10 2009 11:16 am)
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/144cc0a03634258a?hl=en&dmode=source
Alan Baker
Sermo Malifer <sermom...@gmail.com> wrote:
Your claim is that their website supports the contention that the were a
"serious long-time PC builder" before they started selling machines with
Mac OS X on them.
--
Alan Baker
<6648efe1-5c96-48ee...@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
Steve Carroll <fret...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > You don't think it was cleared up? Psystar's address is unknown and
> > > suspicious? How do you think Apple's lawyer's found them to serve
> > > court papers? Who has been filling their orders all this time?
> >
> > I think that the fact that Psystar's address in official business
> > registration papers filed in 2007 shows that they were operating out of
> > a residence refutes the idea that they are a "serious long-time PC
> > builder" very well.
> >
> > > Why am I bothering with one of Snit's sock puppets?
> >
> > LOL
> >
> > You're just pissed you've already been found out.
>
> So who won the contest this time? ;)
>
> I was probably way late to the party... but here's my entry:
>
> (dated Fri, Apr 10 2009 11:16 am)
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/144cc0a03634258a?hl=e
> n&dmode=source
You may be the winner, Steve. I had my suspicions but I didn't give them
voice for longer than that.
:-)
Wally
"Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
As you are clearly begging for *my* attention Snit I will indulge you just a
little bit!
I did of course explain the process that shows you to be Rhino Plastee ...
Which reads...
"You want proof that you and Rhino Plastee are the same person Snit?...
Rhino Plastee stated:
"Clearly this is a bigoted postion you are pushing, Wally."-Rhino Plastee
I replied...
"Clearly for your argument to hold up you need to put words in my mouth!
tsk,tsk!"-Wally
Your (Snit's) response...
"Nope: I quote you directly and in context:"-Snit
LOL
Three things are clearly seen here,....
1) As Steve Carroll is always telling you people simply are not as stupid as
you need them to be!
2) You are as dishonest as people have stated that you are!
3) You are totally incapable of following a simple thread without shooting
yourself in the foot!
ROTFLMAO!"-Wally
Obviously as you are clearly aware of the explanation that I gave and
reproduce again here, it is plain that you are lying when you say that I did
not offer an explanation Snit! Why is it that you tell such obvious lies?
Do you really think that they won't be noticed or are you so desperate for
attention that you really don't care?
Steve Carroll
> On 16/4/09 6:13 AM, in article C60BAA2D.294F1%c...@gallopinginsanity.com,
>
>
>
> "Snit" <c...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > Sermo Malifer stated in post 1239830607.8563.155.ca...@localhost.localdomain
While this kind of puppet outing of one of Snit's many socks is fun to
watch I still long for the days where Snit argues with himself (where
he simply forgot who had posted what). Yes, I mean *directly* argues
with himself (as in posting to himself), not the type of arguments he
posts almost daily that contradict each other;)
Snit
AM:
And the million dollar question: what quote was I in reference to?
That's right! The quotes I had provided... from you:
Wally:
Not to mention that not all the race of people that you claim
to dislike are residing in Israel, what would your long term
answer to that be? ... Nuke wherever they can be found?
Snit:
What race of people has he claimed to dislike? Can you quote
him stating his dislike for some race?
Wally:
He has claimed to "dislike" the policies of a country are you
suggesting that his dislike would not extend to those responsible
for said policies Snit?
Snit:
Do you not see the bigotry in your comment?
Wally:
There is no sign of bigotry that can be attributed to my comments
Snit!
You made comments that showed you were a bigot. I and others called you on
it. You denied it. I noted that the quotes I provided from you were
accurate.
So, yes, you have shown where I noted the quotes I provided from you were
accurate. And your conclusion:
> LOL
>
> Three things are clearly seen here,....
Oh, please do tell what noting the accuracy of the quote of you showing
yourself to be a bigot says about *me*... what does it mean when someone
quotes someone correctly:
> 1) As Steve Carroll is always telling you people simply are not as stupid as
> you need them to be!
Ah, I quote you correctly... I show you are a bigot... and that, to you,
says something about other people's intelligence or lack thereof. LOL!
> 2) You are as dishonest as people have stated that you are!
Ah, I quote you correctly... I show you are a bigot... and that, to you,
somehow shows something bad about *me*. LOL!
> 3) You are totally incapable of following a simple thread without shooting
> yourself in the foot!
Ah, I quote you correctly... I show you are a bigot... and that, to you, is
an example of me shooting myself in the foot! LOL!
> ROTFLMAO!"-Wally
>
>
> Obviously as you are clearly aware of the explanation that I gave and
> reproduce again here, it is plain that you are lying when you say that I did
> not offer an explanation Snit! Why is it that you tell such obvious lies?
> Do you really think that they won't be noticed or are you so desperate for
> attention that you really don't care?
I have read that drivel repeatedly: you have yet to explain why someone
noting they have quoted someone correctly proves they use sock puppets.
For that matter: you, above, just claimed to have quoted things correctly -
so based on your "logic" you just proved you use sock puppets.
So while your "logic" is absurd, clearly you must believe it, right? Thus
you have just admitted you use sock puppets. Amazing.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Tim Murray
> Apple could sell computers for the same price as either Psystar or
> PearC, but they chose to sell lesser computers for more money instead!
Jesus what a stupid statement.