Uh, in case you missed it, the Mac is dead...
Edwin
... or at least it will be when the transition to Intel chips is
complete.
Face it, Maccies, Apple is becoming just another PC OEM... nothing
remains of Macintosh hardware, in Intel 'Macs,' except for its name and
its logo...
Mac OS is gone too... all that was left of it, the "Classic
environment" is stripped out of Mac OS X for Macintel... all you have
is an embraced and extended BSD OS.
Not only are Maccies running PCs now instead of Macs, they're cheering
over BootCamp, so they can run... wait for it... Windows!
I predict one day Steve Jobs will make another "It's true"
announcement... about Apple switching from Mac OS X to Windows... it
will be an easy transition... all important Mac software already has
Window versions... and soon most 'Maccies' will have Macintels running
Windows via BootCamp anyway...
Snit
1149118636.5...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com on 5/31/06 4:37 PM:
>
> ... or at least it will be when the transition to Intel chips is complete.
>
> Face it, Maccies, Apple is becoming just another PC OEM... nothing remains of
> Macintosh hardware, in Intel 'Macs,' except for its name and its logo...
You could have bettered your trolling by blabbing about how even the rainbow
stripes have gone away and that the logo is not even really the same any
more.
>
> Mac OS is gone too... all that was left of it, the "Classic environment" is
> stripped out of Mac OS X for Macintel... all you have is an embraced and
> extended BSD OS.
>
> Not only are Maccies running PCs now instead of Macs, they're cheering over
> BootCamp, so they can run... wait for it... Windows!
>
> I predict one day Steve Jobs will make another "It's true" announcement...
> about Apple switching from Mac OS X to Windows... it will be an easy
> transition... all important Mac software already has Window versions... and
> soon most 'Maccies' will have Macintels running Windows via BootCamp anyway...
Not a very creative troll from you, Edwin. At least you did not spew
personal attacks nor author repulsive quotes and attribute them to others as
you did when you authored the following quote:
"I eat dog shit to get attention." - Edwin
Better luck next time. Or better yet, Edwin, why don't you just stop
trolling?
--
€ 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
Snit wrote:
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> stated in post
> 1149118636.5...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com on 5/31/06 4:37 PM:
>
> >
> > ... or at least it will be when the transition to Intel chips is complete.
> >
> > Face it, Maccies, Apple is becoming just another PC OEM... nothing remains of
> > Macintosh hardware, in Intel 'Macs,' except for its name and its logo...
>
> > Mac OS is gone too... all that was left of it, the "Classic environment" is
> > stripped out of Mac OS X for Macintel... all you have is an embraced and
> > extended BSD OS.
> >
> > Not only are Maccies running PCs now instead of Macs, they're cheering over
> > BootCamp, so they can run... wait for it... Windows!
> >
> > I predict one day Steve Jobs will make another "It's true" announcement...
> > about Apple switching from Mac OS X to Windows... it will be an easy
> > transition... all important Mac software already has Window versions... and
> > soon most 'Maccies' will have Macintels running Windows via BootCamp anyway...
>
[toilet flush]
> "I eat dog shit to get attention." - Snit
Thanks for sharing, but that's more information than we need. Also,
please stop doing it. It's really gross to see you eat that stuff.
[toilet flush]
--
"I eat dog shit to get attention." - Snit
John Slade
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1149118636.5...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
The poor Mac Kook does not know that they're running Unix on a PC
with a custom GUI from Apple. However they will still claim the Mac is
something unique. When Apple starts to lose money on the overpriced Intel
Macs, they'll just start getting their motherboards and parts over the
shelf. Then they might compete. However Apple is dragging it's feet with the
obvious move of releasing OS X to everyone.
John
Snit
>> "I eat dog shit to get attention." - Snit
>
> Thanks for sharing, but that's more information than we need. Also,
> please stop doing it. It's really gross to see you eat that stuff.
No matter how many times you alter quotes in your replies the Google record
will *still* not change. Your fight against Google is sure to be a losing
one for you.
* the Google archive supports
Date: 28 Jul 2005 13:26:35 -0700
Post: <1122582395.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Link: <http://snipurl.com/r4wv>
Edwin stated:
"I eat dog shit to get attention."
Sad how strongly you feel the need to lie about this.
--
€ 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
M4qfg.2799$VE1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com on 5/31/06 4:58 PM:
Who do you think Apple prevents from running OS X?
Jim Lee Jr.
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> Or at least it will be when the transition to Intel chips is
> complete.
Sorry, but my Macs are alive and well. I am posting this on my G4
Sawtooth, running 10.4.6, via MT Newswatcher.
> Face it, Mac users, Apple is becoming just another PC OEM, nothing
> remains of Macintosh hardware, in Intel "Macs,"except for its name and
> its logo.
> Mac OS is gone too, all that was left of it, the "Classic
> environment" is stripped out of Mac OS X for Macintel.
Bitch to Steve Jobs about it.
> All you have is an embraced and extended BSD OS.
Jealous, bitch?
> Not only are Maccies running PCs now instead of Macs, they're cheering
> over Boot Camp, so they can run, wait for it, Windoze!
I am not cheering over Boot Camp, if I want to run Windoze, I will get
a Pee Cee.
> I predict one day Steve Jobs will make another "It's true"
> announcement about Apple switching from Mac OS X to Windows. It
> will be an easy transition.
Dream on, bitch.
> All important Mac software already has Window versions, and soon most "Mac Users" will have Macintels running
> Windows via BootCamp anyway.
No shit, Sherlock, but why would I want to use Windoze when there is the
MacOS or Linux?
George Graves
"John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
And old saying that you might take to heart, Slade (its too late for
Edwin's redemption): Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool,
than to speak (or in this case write) and remove all doubt. Very few
doubt you here, Mr. Slade.
--
George Graves
The health of our society is a direct result of the men
and women we choose to admire.
Edwin
Jim Lee Jr. wrote:
> In article <1149118636.5...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > Or at least it will be when the transition to Intel chips is
> > complete.
>
> Sorry, but my Macs are alive and well. I am posting this on my G4
> Sawtooth, running 10.4.6, via MT Newswatcher.
G4 Sawtooth? Those were introduced in 1999 and discontinued in 2000.
Did you have it that long, or did you finally get to buy one for $150
from eBay?
In any case, you haven't been a customer of Apple for a very long time.
BTW, did you mention I said "when the transition to Intel chips is
complete?"
> > Face it, Mac users, Apple is becoming just another PC OEM, nothing
> > remains of Macintosh hardware, in Intel "Macs,"except for its name and
> > its logo.
>
> > Mac OS is gone too, all that was left of it, the "Classic
> > environment" is stripped out of Mac OS X for Macintel.
>
> Bitch to Steve Jobs about it.
What for? It's no skin off my nose. I just like giving Maccies a
big dose of reality.
> > All you have is an embraced and extended BSD OS.
>
> Jealous, bitch?
Of what? I didn't need Apple to get BSD.
> > Not only are Maccies running PCs now instead of Macs, they're cheering
> > over Boot Camp, so they can run, wait for it, Windoze!
>
> I am not cheering over Boot Camp,
But most Maccies are.
> if I want to run Windoze, I will get
> a Pee Cee.
Because there's no way you can afford a new Mac to run it on... if you
could, you wouldn't have a 7 year old clunker of a G4 Sawtooth...
> > I predict one day Steve Jobs will make another "It's true"
> > announcement about Apple switching from Mac OS X to Windows. It
> > will be an easy transition.
>
> Dream on, bitch.
Why do you keep calling me by yo' mama's name?
> > All important Mac software already has Window versions, and soon most "Mac Users" will have Macintels running
> > Windows via BootCamp anyway.
>
> No shit, Sherlock,
Why bring up another failed Apple product?
> but why would I want to use Windoze when there is the
> MacOS or Linux?
Because you'll follow the other MacLemmings over the cliff...
Snit
Your trolling here is no better than what you started the thread with. If
anything, Edwin, you sound more desperate and whiney. Perhaps you can ask
Zara for some advice - he has had pretty good success.
--
€ 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
Edwin
This personal attack from George is nothing more than confirmation he
knows what John and I wrote is true... and he has no way to refute or
deny it, other than trying to kill the messenger...
Edwin
Snit wrote:
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> stated in post
> 1149119878.5...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com on 5/31/06 4:57 PM:
>
> >> "I eat dog shit to get attention." - Snit
>
> "I eat dog shit to get attention." - Snit
Okay, we got it... stop repeating yourself!
Edwin
Snit wrote:
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> stated in post
> 1149118636.5...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com on 5/31/06 4:37 PM:
>
> >
Damn!
Mitch
> ... or at least it will be when the transition to Intel chips is
> complete.
>
> Face it, Maccies, Apple is becoming just another PC OEM... nothing
> remains of Macintosh hardware, in Intel 'Macs,' except for its name and
> its logo...
The same exact things as there have always been in Mac hardware are
still there -- consistency, reliability, and high quality.
Apple has never been so far different in hardware that it was about
having completely different stuff.
> Mac OS is gone too... all that was left of it, the "Classic
> environment" is stripped out of Mac OS X for Macintel... all you have
> is an embraced and extended BSD OS.
No, all we have left at the code level is BSD. On top of that we have a
comprehensive and complex and wonderful GUI -- the actual thing you
use, dude. It is nonsense to say the Mac OS looks or works or behaves
or is operated in the same ways as any other OS. And those are the ONLY
points that matter to everyone -- only a few techies really care about
which compile of 'fenortner.bolt.23c' is being used underneath the GUI.
> Not only are Maccies running PCs now instead of Macs, they're cheering
> over BootCamp, so they can run... wait for it... Windows!
They are stil running Macs, those Macs are just more similar to PCs in
some ways. And while a FEW are cheering about being able to ALSO use
Windows, it is as a secondary OS, not as the primary and not because
they all want to use that. It is often because they want to use a
Windows-only application.
> I predict one day Steve Jobs will make another "It's true"
> announcement... about Apple switching from Mac OS X to Windows... it
> will be an easy transition...
Easy transition for whom? Windows is garbage, and Mac users are as
aware of this and of how clumsy and graceless it is. It is being
avoided for good reasons.
> all important Mac software already has
> Window versions... and soon most 'Maccies' will have Macintels running
> Windows via BootCamp anyway...
"Most" is a ridiculous and nonsense assumption on your part. Almost
every Mac will probably only have Mac OS on it, and work happily and
better.
Mitch
> The poor Mac Kook does not know that they're running Unix on a PC
> with a custom GUI from Apple. However they will still claim the Mac is
> something unique.
Isn't it? Didn't you just give a really major reason why it is very
different? the GUI is EVERYTHING the users deals with!
> When Apple starts to lose money on the overpriced Intel
> Macs, they'll just start getting their motherboards and parts over the
> shelf. Then they might compete.
You've fallen back on price as an argument.
It clearly means a LOT less to Apple buyers than it does to you.
You are in the minority in suggesting Apple hardware is overpriced, and
you are assuming (probably mistakenly) that is where they need to
compete most.
> However Apple is dragging it's feet with the
> obvious move of releasing OS X to everyone.
I'll give you 'obvious,' but not 'smart.'
That would be a foolish move.
TheLetterK
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> stated in post
> 1149119878.5...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com on 5/31/06 4:57 PM:
>
>>> "I eat dog shit to get attention." - Snit
>>
>> Thanks for sharing, but that's more information than we need. Also,
>> please stop doing it. It's really gross to see you eat that stuff.
>
> No matter how many times you alter quotes in your replies the Google record
> will *still* not change. Your fight against Google is sure to be a losing
> one for you.
>
> * the Google archive supports
>
> Date: 28 Jul 2005 13:26:35 -0700
> Post: <1122582395.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> Link: <http://snipurl.com/r4wv>
>
> Edwin stated:
>
> "I eat dog shit to get attention."
>
> Sad how strongly you feel the need to lie about this.
As much as I hate to admit it, at least Edwin has a higher standard of
honesty than Shit does.
Snit
* the Google archive supports
Date: 28 Jul 2005 13:26:35 -0700
Post: <1122582395.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Link: <http://snipurl.com/r4wv>
Edwin stated:
"I eat dog shit to get attention."
Sad how strongly you feel the need to lie about this.
Snit
* the Google archive supports
Date: 28 Jul 2005 13:26:35 -0700
Post: <1122582395.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Link: <http://snipurl.com/r4wv>
Edwin stated:
"I eat dog shit to get attention."
Sad how strongly you feel the need to lie about this.
--
Snit
pan.2006.06.01....@none.net on 5/31/06 6:00 PM:
My claim: the Google archive is accurate. I referenced the date and time of
the post, the message ID, and offered a link.
Edwin merely tried to "defend" himself by stating the uncontested fact that,
sure, even from the start he tried to attribute his repulsive quote to me.
And you, TLK, side with Edwin. Of course, TLK, you have done the same thing
Edwin has... remember when you argued against the Google record and claimed
I authored the following quotes from you:
"I said nothing new in this post, just repeated more of the same
demands that you believe I said because I said it. I then added
my own special brand of stupid. Whatever." - TheLetterK
"I don't have anything of value to add and am simply going to spew
another load of shit where I try to obfuscate those clear, and
accurate facts you presented!" - TheLetterK
"There is nothing I understand." - TheLetterK
Sad when you and the other trolls are so desperate to *finally* catch me
doing something wrong or saying something embarrassing that you resort to
attributing your own embarrassing quotes to me.
Face it: if I was not honest and honorable you would not have to resort to
such despicable maneuvers in your trolling. As it is you each just
humiliate yourself and prove me right about you.
Steve Carroll
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
Let's see what that messenger said...
"... or at least it will be when the transition to Intel chips is
complete.
Face it, Maccies, Apple is becoming just another PC OEM... nothing
remains of Macintosh hardware, in Intel 'Macs,' except for its name and
its logo..."
I won't argue this one.
"Mac OS is gone too... all that was left of it, the "Classic
environment" is stripped out of Mac OS X for Macintel... all you have
is an embraced and extended BSD OS."
C'mon... OS-wise, the Mac's been replaced, just as Windows boxen have.
That we have alternative OS choices is good for everyone. To say 'the
Mac is dead' based on Classic being gone is silly in the extreme. I say
good riddance to that POS just as most Mac users probably do who have
used OSX for any length of time.
"Not only are Maccies running PCs now instead of Macs, they're cheering
over BootCamp, so they can run... wait for it... Windows!"
Hmmm... I detect a Mac advocacy point that can't be effectively argued
against here;)
"I predict one day Steve Jobs will make another "It's true"
announcement... about Apple switching from Mac OS X to Windows... it
will be an easy transition... all important Mac software already has
Window versions... and soon most 'Maccies' will have Macintels running
Windows via BootCamp anyway..."
I *seriously* doubt you believe that one. If you remember in years past,
you and I were talking about Apple transitioning principally to a
software company... and that I can see. But giving up every stride
they've made in this direction to sell hardware for MS's OS? No way.
--
"Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD" - Snit
"Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
like myself" - Snit
Jim Lee Jr.
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> Jim Lee Jr. wrote:
> > In article <1149118636.5...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Or at least it will be when the transition to Intel chips is
> > > complete.
> >
> > Sorry, but my Macs are alive and well. I am posting this on my G4
> > Sawtooth, running 10.4.6, via MT Newswatcher.
>
> G4 Sawtooth? Those were introduced in 1999 and discontinued in 2000.
> Did you have it that long, or did you finally get to buy one for $150
> from eBay?
Why use a whoopdee doo machine when an older one gets things done?
> In any case, you haven't been a customer of Apple for a very long time.
>
> BTW, did you mention I said "when the transition to Intel chips is
> complete?"
>
> > > Face it, Mac users, Apple is becoming just another PC OEM, nothing
> > > remains of Macintosh hardware, in Intel "Macs,"except for its name and
> > > its logo.
> >
> > > Mac OS is gone too, all that was left of it, the "Classic
> > > environment" is stripped out of Mac OS X for Macintel.
> >
> > Bitch to Steve Jobs about it.
>
> What for? It's no skin off my nose. I just like giving Maccies a
> big dose of reality.
>
> > > All you have is an embraced and extended BSD OS.
> >
> > Jealous, bitch?
>
> Of what? I didn't need Apple to get BSD.
>
> > > Not only are Maccies running PCs now instead of Macs, they're cheering
> > > over Boot Camp, so they can run, wait for it, Windoze!
> >
> > I am not cheering over Boot Camp,
>
> But most Maccies are.
Whatever trips their triggers.
> > if I want to run Windoze, I will get
> > a Pee Cee.
>
> Because there's no way you can afford a new Mac to run it on... if you
> could, you wouldn't have a 7 year old clunker of a G4 Sawtooth...
At this point in time, I cannot afford a new Mac. But that is neither
here or there. Read my lips, I get things done just fine on my G4.
> > > I predict one day Steve Jobs will make another "It's true"
> > > announcement about Apple switching from Mac OS X to Windows. It
> > > will be an easy transition.
> >
> > Dream on, bitch.
>
> Why do you keep calling me by yo' mama's name?
Maybe because you are one.
> > > All important Mac software already has Window versions, and soon most
> > > "Mac Users" will have Macintels running
> > > Windows via BootCamp anyway.
> >
> > No shit, Sherlock,
>
> Why bring up another failed Apple product?
>
> > But why would I want to use Windoze when there is the
> > MacOS or Linux?
> Because you'll follow the other Mac Lemmings over the cliff.
Since I am writing this and am alive and well, I obviously have no
intentions of going over any cliff, as have millions of Windoze users
have done.
Bob_S
Then you no longer need to come this NG, right?
--
Cheers,
Bob S
Snit
Bob_S-46A1B9....@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com on 5/31/06 7:15 PM:
He has claimed he is leaving for good. Then he came back. Tim Crowley just
said he is leaving. I wonder if he is any more honest?
This Old Mac
> ... or at least it will be when the transition to Intel chips is
> complete.
Just in case you missed it, he proves it yet again.
Snit
somewhere-310...@192.168.0.30 on 5/31/06 7:45 PM:
Well, it is not like Edwin has not said worse:
"I eat dog shit to get attention." - Edwin
The sentence started with "In my life I never..." is finished by
Edwin with "... thought very hard."
The sad thing is not only did Edwin state these things, he denies it *even
though* the evidence is clear in the Google record. Like Carroll, Tim
Adams, TLK, Wally and other trolls he argues as if his claims hold more
weight than mine *and* the Google record. What fools they are!
GreyCloud
It certainly does. The above canine scatalogical feast was attributed
and written by snit it appears.
--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
Snit
s7adnVT1pqc18uPZ...@bresnan.com on 5/31/06 9:40 PM:
Wow... GreyCloud is another troll who does not believe the Google record;
one one side we have the lightweights of Edwin, TheLetterK and GreyCloud and
on the other side is the morally correct and very honorable Snit with his
partner the Google record. Who to believe... who to believe. I am sure
the lurkers are just struggling with that one!
Hey, has Carroll put his two cents in on this? No doubt he will jump in to
say he also thinks I and the Google record are in some sort of conspiracy to
make you all look like the moronic trolls you are. :)
Alan Baker
> ... or at least it will be when the transition to Intel chips is
> complete.
>
> Face it, Maccies, Apple is becoming just another PC OEM... nothing
> remains of Macintosh hardware, in Intel 'Macs,' except for its name and
> its logo...
>
> Mac OS is gone too... all that was left of it, the "Classic
> environment" is stripped out of Mac OS X for Macintel... all you have
> is an embraced and extended BSD OS.
>
> Not only are Maccies running PCs now instead of Macs, they're cheering
> over BootCamp, so they can run... wait for it... Windows!
>
> I predict one day Steve Jobs will make another "It's true"
> announcement... about Apple switching from Mac OS X to Windows... it
> will be an easy transition... all important Mac software already has
> Window versions... and soon most 'Maccies' will have Macintels running
> Windows via BootCamp anyway...
No, Edwin. The Mac is *not* dead. The Mac has never been about the
details of the underlying hardware. It's been about the entire
experience.
Mac OS X continues to deliver that experience regardless of the chip on
which it is running.
Snit
alangbaker-7A89B...@news.telus.net on 5/31/06 10:13 PM:
Edwin, like many Windows users, does not understand the value of a positive
computer experience. Edwin also failed to understand the value of a good,
nutritious meal:
"I eat dog shit to get attention." - Edwin
Sandman
> > > Mac OS is gone too, all that was left of it, the "Classic
> > > environment" is stripped out of Mac OS X for Macintel.
> >
> > Bitch to Steve Jobs about it.
>
> What for? It's no skin off my nose. I just like giving Maccies a
> big dose of reality.
When will you begin? This thread was just a big troll. It was pretty
good. Trolls like zara and Homey should pay attention.
But in the end - it didn't really concern reality very much.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
"John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > ... or at least it will be when the transition to Intel chips is
> > complete.
> >
> > Face it, Maccies, Apple is becoming just another PC OEM... nothing
> > remains of Macintosh hardware, in Intel 'Macs,' except for its name and
> > its logo...
> >
> > Mac OS is gone too... all that was left of it, the "Classic
> > environment" is stripped out of Mac OS X for Macintel... all you have
> > is an embraced and extended BSD OS.
> >
> > Not only are Maccies running PCs now instead of Macs, they're cheering
> > over BootCamp, so they can run... wait for it... Windows!
> >
> > I predict one day Steve Jobs will make another "It's true"
> > announcement... about Apple switching from Mac OS X to Windows... it
> > will be an easy transition... all important Mac software already has
> > Window versions... and soon most 'Maccies' will have Macintels running
> > Windows via BootCamp anyway...
> >
>
> The poor Mac Kook does not know that they're running Unix on a PC
> with a custom GUI from Apple.
Sure - and while we're doing that - you're stuck running a poor
foundation on a PC with a sucky GUI from Windows. I pick Apples
approach any day, thank you.
> However they will still claim the Mac is
> something unique.
Why do you think that would be a mere claim?
> When Apple starts to lose money on the overpriced Intel
> Macs, they'll just start getting their motherboards and parts over the
> shelf. Then they might compete. However Apple is dragging it's feet with the
> obvious move of releasing OS X to everyone.
Is Apple going out of business, John?
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
> > And old saying that you might take to heart, Slade (its too late for
> > Edwin's redemption): Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool,
> > than to speak (or in this case write) and remove all doubt. Very few
> > doubt you here, Mr. Slade.
>
> This personal attack from George is nothing more than confirmation he
> knows what John and I wrote is true...
So every time you attack someone - it's for the same reason? I mean,
that's pretty much all you do these days - make personal attacks.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
TheLetterK <n...@none.net> wrote:
Of that there is no doubt. Edwin is freaking Moder theresa compared to
Snit. :P
--
Sandman[.net]
C Lund
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> ... or at least it will be when the transition to Intel chips is
> complete.
It'll still be a mac, edwin.
> Face it, Maccies, Apple is becoming just another PC OEM... nothing
> remains of Macintosh hardware, in Intel 'Macs,' except for its name and
> its logo...
So?
> Mac OS is gone too... all that was left of it, the "Classic
> environment" is stripped out of Mac OS X for Macintel... all you have
> is an embraced and extended BSD OS.
Nope. What we have is OS X - the OS MS desperately wants Vista to be.
> Not only are Maccies running PCs now instead of Macs, they're cheering
> over BootCamp, so they can run... wait for it... Windows!
Sure, so those maccies who *have* to use certain Windows-only apps
will no longer have to buy an ugly PC in order to do so.
> I predict one day Steve Jobs will make another "It's true"
> announcement... about Apple switching from Mac OS X to Windows...
Please...
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
> > > Or at least it will be when the transition to Intel chips is
> > > complete.
> > Sorry, but my Macs are alive and well. I am posting this on my G4
> > Sawtooth, running 10.4.6, via MT Newswatcher.
> G4 Sawtooth? Those were introduced in 1999 and discontinued in 2000.
> Did you have it that long, or did you finally get to buy one for $150
> from eBay?
Macs have longer useful lives than PCs. My current mac is almost five
years old and (thanks to constant OS updates and some additional RAM)
now runs faster than when I bought it - or at least feels that way.
> In any case, you haven't been a customer of Apple for a very long time.
He's running 10.4.6. How did that happen, do you think?
BTW: How often does one have to buy an Apple product in order to be an
Apple customer?
> BTW, did you mention I said "when the transition to Intel chips is
> complete?"
I think that'll happen in August or September.
> > > All you have is an embraced and extended BSD OS.
> > Jealous, bitch?
> Of what? I didn't need Apple to get BSD.
Nope. But you need Apple to get a BSD with a pleasant interface.
> > > Not only are Maccies running PCs now instead of Macs, they're cheering
> > > over Boot Camp, so they can run, wait for it, Windoze!
> > I am not cheering over Boot Camp,
> But most Maccies are.
We are?
> > if I want to run Windoze, I will get
> > a Pee Cee.
> Because there's no way you can afford a new Mac to run it on... if you
> could, you wouldn't have a 7 year old clunker of a G4 Sawtooth...
Why not? My five year old mac can do everything I need it to do. I
assume it will still be able to do so when it's seven years old - and
it won't be an "old clunker" either.
Mind you, I'm planning on getting one of those Intel towers when
they're available. Not because I need one, but because I want one.
> > but why would I want to use Windoze when there is the
> > MacOS or Linux?
> Because you'll follow the other MacLemmings over the cliff...
This from a loser who's been following MS's rainbow for the past
five(?) years in the hope it'll lead him to an OS that looks almost
like OS X... ;)
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
"Jim Lee Jr." <peejs...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> > Because there's no way you can afford a new Mac to run it on... if you
> > could, you wouldn't have a 7 year old clunker of a G4 Sawtooth...
> At this point in time, I cannot afford a new Mac. But that is neither
> here or there. Read my lips, I get things done just fine on my G4.
I suppose edwin is saying windows PCs fall apart when they reach that
age.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
"John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> The poor Mac Kook does not know that they're running Unix on a PC
> with a custom GUI from Apple.
BSD is a *nix, but it isn't Unix.
> However they will still claim the Mac is
> something unique. When Apple starts to lose money on the overpriced Intel
> Macs,
"When"? And when do you think this will happen? Could you give me a
month or year?
> they'll just start getting their motherboards and parts over the
> shelf. Then they might compete. However Apple is dragging it's feet with the
> obvious move of releasing OS X to everyone.
Please...
> John
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
RichardK
> ... or at least it will be when the transition to Intel chips is
> complete.
I'm buying an Intel iMac. I can use all my Mac stuff in a machine that
is clearly a Mac, but I can finally replace VPC and an old Dell when I
need to review PC applications.
Still...
Didn't you say you were leaving?
Richard (VPC, Edwin. Being about to run Windows on a Mac is nothing new.
6100/630 DOS systems...)
--
RichardK - http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/ - retro, music, cars.
2006 Mazda RX8, 1992 Sera Phase III -= Do Not Tempt With New Cars =-
"If the thought of something makes me giggle for more than 15 seconds I
am to assume I am not allowed to do it". * 64 is 128 for email *
RichardK
> When Apple starts to lose money on the overpriced Intel
> Macs.
Hahahahahahahaaa....
Dude...
They're amongst the most profitable computers Apple has ever released,
yet the MacBook range is faster and/or cheaper than comparable "Windows"
laptops.
And you find anything like an iMac for the money.
Really.
Richard
RichardK
>>>Mac OS is gone too, all that was left of it, the "Classic
>>>environment" is stripped out of Mac OS X for Macintel.
>>
>>Bitch to Steve Jobs about it.
>
>
> What for? It's no skin off my nose. I just like giving Maccies a
> big dose of reality.
Yes folks. Hard as it is to believe, people as stupid as Edwin really
exist. That's the reality of the world.
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Bob_S" <Bo...@NOSPAM.COM> stated in post
> Bob_S-46A1B9....@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com on 5/31/06 7:15 PM:
>
> > In article <1149118636.5...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> ... or at least it will be when the transition to Intel chips is
> >> complete.
> >>
> >> Face it, Maccies, Apple is becoming just another PC OEM... nothing
> >> remains of Macintosh hardware, in Intel 'Macs,' except for its name and
> >> its logo...
> >>
> >> Mac OS is gone too... all that was left of it, the "Classic
> >> environment" is stripped out of Mac OS X for Macintel... all you have
> >> is an embraced and extended BSD OS.
> >>
> >> Not only are Maccies running PCs now instead of Macs, they're cheering
> >> over BootCamp, so they can run... wait for it... Windows!
> >>
> >> I predict one day Steve Jobs will make another "It's true"
> >> announcement... about Apple switching from Mac OS X to Windows... it
> >> will be an easy transition... all important Mac software already has
> >> Window versions... and soon most 'Maccies' will have Macintels running
> >> Windows via BootCamp anyway...
> >
> > Then you no longer need to come this NG, right?
>
> He has claimed he is leaving for good. Then he came back. Tim Crowley just
> said he is leaving. I wonder if he is any more honest?
He's already proved himself more honest then michael glasser aka snit.
--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
Edwin
Mitch wrote:
> In article <1149118636.5...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
> Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > ... or at least it will be when the transition to Intel chips is
> > complete.
> >
> > Face it, Maccies, Apple is becoming just another PC OEM... nothing
> > remains of Macintosh hardware, in Intel 'Macs,' except for its name and
> > its logo...
> The same exact things as there have always been in Mac hardware are
> still there --
Uh, no. Mac hardware is gone. Wintel hardware is there now
instead.
> consistency, reliability, and high quality.
Pfft. As if Apple ever held a monopoly on those things.
> Apple has never been so far different in hardware that it was about
> having completely different stuff.
So we should ignore years of Mac Advocate claims to the contrary?
> > Mac OS is gone too... all that was left of it, the "Classic
> > environment" is stripped out of Mac OS X for Macintel... all you have
> > is an embraced and extended BSD OS.
> No, all we have left at the code level is BSD.
As I said, a BSD OS...
> On top of that we have a
> comprehensive and complex and wonderful GUI --
... which has been embraced and extended.
> the actual thing you
> use, dude. It is nonsense to say the Mac OS looks or works or behaves
> or is operated in the same ways as any other OS.
Double-click a Windows icon... double-click a Mac icon... no
difference...
> And those are the ONLY
> points that matter to everyone -- only a few techies really care about
> which compile of 'fenortner.bolt.23c' is being used underneath the GUI.
So we should forget all the years of Maccies crowing that they knew
what every Mac OS Extention was for? And how they berated Windows
users for not knowing the purpose of every DLL?
> > Not only are Maccies running PCs now instead of Macs, they're cheering
> > over BootCamp, so they can run... wait for it... Windows!
> They are stil running Macs, those Macs are just more similar to PCs in
> some ways. And while a FEW are cheering about being able to ALSO use
> Windows, it is as a secondary OS, not as the primary and not because
> they all want to use that. It is often because they want to use a
> Windows-only application.
>
> > I predict one day Steve Jobs will make another "It's true"
> > announcement... about Apple switching from Mac OS X to Windows... it
> > will be an easy transition...
> Easy transition for whom?
For Macintel owners.
> Windows is garbage, and Mac users are as
> aware of this and of how clumsy and graceless it is. It is being
> avoided for good reasons.
Is that your explanation for why so many Maccies were hacking their
Macs to run Windows, before BootCamp came out, let alone why Apple
produced a way to run Windows on Macintel?
> > all important Mac software already has
> > Window versions... and soon most 'Maccies' will have Macintels running
> > Windows via BootCamp anyway...
> "Most" is a ridiculous and nonsense assumption on your part.
What? I couldn't hear you... I was busy listening to iTunes for
Windows...
> Almost every Mac will probably only have Mac OS on it, and work happily and
> better.
You haven't been paying attention. Apple is giving up building Macs.
They're moving to building only Wintel PCs, running BSD Unix, which
has a new GUI and new APIs. Mac OS and Mac hardware are dead when the
transition to Intel is complete.
Enjoy running Windows on your new MacIntel!
Edwin
All you post is lies and libel, as you have in this post.
Edwin
Thank you.
> "Mac OS is gone too... all that was left of it, the "Classic
> environment" is stripped out of Mac OS X for Macintel... all you have
> is an embraced and extended BSD OS."
>
> C'mon... OS-wise, the Mac's been replaced, just as Windows boxen have.
Yes, I agree, and that's what I said. Mac OS has been replaced by
Unix BSD. But Steve just didn't make it the new OS of new Macs. He
went out of his way to get developers to stop supporting it.
> That we have alternative OS choices is good for everyone. To say 'the
> Mac is dead' based on Classic being gone is silly in the extreme.
I don't think its so silly. The classic Mac OS had a different GUI,
and a different way of operating. There were Mac advocates in the
past who argued manual memory allocation was a Good_Thing.
> I say
> good riddance to that POS just as most Mac users probably do who have
> used OSX for any length of time.
Sure, but the irony is that most of the features that would enamor a
Maccie with Mac OS X existed for years in Windows first, the OS they
berated.
> "Not only are Maccies running PCs now instead of Macs, they're cheering
> over BootCamp, so they can run... wait for it... Windows!"
>
> Hmmm... I detect a Mac advocacy point that can't be effectively argued
> against here;)
:-)
> "I predict one day Steve Jobs will make another "It's true"
> announcement... about Apple switching from Mac OS X to Windows... it
> will be an easy transition... all important Mac software already has
> Window versions... and soon most 'Maccies' will have Macintels running
> Windows via BootCamp anyway..."
>
> I *seriously* doubt you believe that one. If you remember in years past,
> you and I were talking about Apple transitioning principally to a
> software company... and that I can see. But giving up every stride
> they've made in this direction to sell hardware for MS's OS? No way.
Well, that all depends on whether Apple is willing to become a software
company. They seem to be resisting that direction, concentrating on
selling music player hardware, and closing the Mac OS X kernel so
developers can't examine it for software blocks that keep it from
running on third party PCs.
Apple's prime concern has always been its fat margins. They finally
went to Wintel hardware to keep them, in a shrinking market. How
long will it take before Steve decides parring software development
down to one OS will raise profits?
Edwin
>
> >
> > Snit wrote:
> >> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> stated in post
> >> 1149119878.5...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com on 5/31/06 4:57 PM:
> >>
> >>>> "I eat dog shit to get attention." - Snit
> >
> >>
> >> "I eat dog shit to get attention." - Snit
> >
> >
> * the Google archive supports
> I eat dog shit to get attention.
I suggest you change your diet.
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article
<1149118636.5...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>):
>
> ... or at least it will be when the transition to Intel chips is
> complete.
Nope, it just runs faster, and cooler.
> Face it, Maccies, Apple is becoming just another PC OEM... nothing
> remains of Macintosh hardware, in Intel 'Macs,' except for its name and
> its logo...
Then you have obviously never done a side-by-side comparison
between a Macbook and a Dell Inspiron or Compaq Presario. There
is nothing similar about them that matters to a user.
Apple is the only remaining company in the tech industry that
seems to have any clue at all about how to design a quality,
structurally sound chassis.
> Mac OS is gone too... all that was left of it,
False.
> the "Classic environment" is stripped out of Mac OS X for Macintel...
"The Classic environment" was an emulator for a previous OS,
exactly like running Windows XP (another previous OS) under
Parallels on OS X.
> all you have is an embraced and extended BSD OS.
There is a lot to be recommended in the underlying BSD platform,
security advantages over Windows being one of the most obvious.
Of course Apple adds a massive amount of functionality above
that POSIX base platform that allows easy porting of thousands
of UNIX/Linux applications (usually with nothing more
complicated than
$ configure ; make install
Windows on the other hand has basically nothing going for it
other than the adoration of a bunch of mindless lemmings that
will do anything, as long as they are told that "everybody is
doing it, you should too..."
> Not only are Maccies running PCs now instead of Macs, they're cheering
> over BootCamp, so they can run... wait for it... Windows!
Actually, BootCamp seems like the wrong answer, although it will
probably have it's share of adherents. Parallels is the much
better solution, which keeps Windows completely inside of a
sandbox, which is much safer given the propensity Windows has
for letting malicious code run amok.
> I predict one day Steve Jobs will make another "It's true"
> announcement... about Apple switching from Mac OS X to Windows... it
> will be an easy transition...
So you and Dvorak are both equally incapable of seeing the
obvious. I predict one day Michael Dell will announce that you
can order your Dell with OS X installed from the factory.
I'd say it's a coin flip which of the two predictions is more
likely.
--
Lefty
All of God's creatures have a place..........
.........right next to the potatoes and gravy.
See also: http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/iProduct.gif
Snit
Date: 28 Jul 2005 13:26:35 -0700
Post: <1122582395.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Link: <http://snipurl.com/r4wv>
Edwin stated:
"I eat dog shit to get attention."
Sad how strongly you feel the need to lie about this.
--
Snit
mr-C62C8A.09...@individual.net on 6/1/06 12:06 AM:
Do you think your attacks against people are not personal? Unlikely... you
attack me because I point out your lies... here was the most recent round we
had and the facts that came from it:
* Sandman belittled by web skills
* I looked at his www.sandman.net site and found it to be pretty darn bad
* your HTML does not come close to validating correctly, you repeatedly
exclude alt tags, start tags but leave out the end declaration, have
end declarations for tags you did not use, use tags in contexts where
they are not allowed (such as TD tags outside of tables), use properties
that do not exist (such as "align='no'), etc.
* your CSS does not validate correctly
* your design makes poor use of contrast and moderate use of whitespace
* your images are poorly compressed - often up to 10x as large as they
need be
* the page is not designed with the idea of printing in mind
* Sandman made all sorts of excuses for his poor code
* Sandman's CSS changed - and he denied ever changing it! It "magically"
started to validate where before it did not. This was proved with the
use of the Google cache. There is no reasonable doubt that Sandman was
lying.
* Sandman was not able to point to a single site of Snit's he thought was
done poorly. At some point he probably will, but the fact is that as
he was belittling me he could not point to any site *and* his own site
was nothing to brag about *and* he dishonestly altered in in order to
try to look better
How personally will you take my pointing out your lies and poor design
skills? How long until you create another bogus "FAQ" to try to get
revenge? LOL! No matter what you do, though, your lie will not go away.
Your CSS "magically" changed so that it would validate. LOL! No, Sandman,
you lied... plain and simple.
Snit
Are you and Sandman fighting for the same CSMA niche now?
Snit
I would say your trolling is getting a bit better, but you can still learn
from Zara. You babble too much to get the effect you are looking for.
Edwin
Take your Snit Circus elsewhere.
Edwin
Take your Snit Circus elsewhere.
Snit
>
> Take your Snit Circus elsewhere.
>
Sorry, I have no circus to go traveling with yours. Don't worry, yours is
plenty big.
--
€ 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"
John Slade
"George Graves" <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:gmgraves-803176...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <M4qfg.2799$VE1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
> "John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote in message
>> news:1149118636.5...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > complete.
>> >
>> > Face it, Maccies, Apple is becoming just another PC OEM... nothing
>> > remains of Macintosh hardware, in Intel 'Macs,' except for its name and
>> > its logo...
>> >
>> > environment" is stripped out of Mac OS X for Macintel... all you have
>> > is an embraced and extended BSD OS.
>> >
>> > over BootCamp, so they can run... wait for it... Windows!
>> >
>> > announcement... about Apple switching from Mac OS X to Windows... it
>> > Window versions... and soon most 'Maccies' will have Macintels running
>> > Windows via BootCamp anyway...
>> >
>>
>> with a custom GUI from Apple. However they will still claim the Mac is
>> something unique. When Apple starts to lose money on the overpriced Intel
>> Macs, they'll just start getting their motherboards and parts over the
>> shelf. Then they might compete. However Apple is dragging it's feet with
>> the
>> obvious move of releasing OS X to everyone.
>>
>> John
>
> Edwin's redemption): Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool,
> than to speak (or in this case write) and remove all doubt. Very few
> doubt you here, Mr. Slade.
Your post seems kind of cryptic...
There is also a saying oh hell there are lots of sayings. Here I'll
repeat some I heard from some real Mac zealots. "Macs will NEVER run on
Intel CPUs, the PowerPC is far superior." I said years ago that Apple would
be making PCs and they told me I was full of shit. Now they are making PCs
and even have a little tool that will let them run Windows. Sure Macs are
still proprietary hardware but this is the case with a few other PC clone
makers. The Mac zealots can fool themselves into thinking that a Mac is
still a Mac but it really isn't. If Macs had stayed truly "Macs" they would
have gone the way of the Amiga and Atari ST. Nice computers for their time
but they didn't last long.
John
John Slade
"Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:noone-D2038A....@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>> deny it, other than trying to kill the messenger...
>
> Let's see what that messenger said...
>
> complete.
>
> Face it, Maccies, Apple is becoming just another PC OEM... nothing
> remains of Macintosh hardware, in Intel 'Macs,' except for its name and
> its logo..."
>
>
> environment" is stripped out of Mac OS X for Macintel... all you have
> is an embraced and extended BSD OS."
>
> good riddance to that POS just as most Mac users probably do who have
> used OSX for any length of time.
I agree too that Windows did the same thing but it was not as radical
as the switch to a Unix base. I tell you that OS X is a great alternative
and I can't wait for it to be released for everyone. I've used it a little
and it's probably the most accessible of all the Unix bassed distributions.
>
> "Not only are Maccies running PCs now instead of Macs, they're cheering
> over BootCamp, so they can run... wait for it... Windows!"
>
> Hmmm... I detect a Mac advocacy point that can't be effectively argued
> against here;)
This is a good idea for Apple and it will hurt PC sales in a small way
since Intel Mac users won't have to buy a new computer. That being said I
wonder if they will go out an buy a copy of Windows XP just to run on their
Macs or will they use the one they already have. I don't think too many
people would legally buy another copy to run on their Macs, I wouldn't. If
they did, MS would win too.
>
> "I predict one day Steve Jobs will make another "It's true"
> announcement... about Apple switching from Mac OS X to Windows... it
> will be an easy transition... all important Mac software already has
> Window versions... and soon most 'Maccies' will have Macintels running
> Windows via BootCamp anyway..."
>
> I *seriously* doubt you believe that one. If you remember in years past,
> you and I were talking about Apple transitioning principally to a
> software company... and that I can see. But giving up every stride
> they've made in this direction to sell hardware for MS's OS? No way.
>
I have to agree. Apple will never scrap OS X. It's come too far. I think
when it's out there for the masses. It will probably gain 20% of the market
shortly. Another road for Apple to take is to use more off the shelf
products rather than having ATI and other companies produce Mac specific
hardware. That adds cost for consumers.
John
GreyCloud
http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/get.jsp
Seems to be very accessible. Free for the download. But first you have
to make sure that your hardware is on the Hardware Compatibility List. (HCL)
Of course you have to know what you are doing and get to know the
terminology of UNIX.
These can be had for free as well from Suns doc site.
--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
Paul
> ... or at least it will be when the transition to Intel chips is
> complete.
>
> Face it, Maccies, Apple is becoming just another PC OEM... nothing
> remains of Macintosh hardware, in Intel 'Macs,' except for its name and
> its logo...
>
> Mac OS is gone too... all that was left of it, the "Classic
> environment" is stripped out of Mac OS X for Macintel... all you have
> is an embraced and extended BSD OS.
Isn't Vista supposed to be entirely re-written? Guess you're not going
to be using Windows anymore, either. Whatever will we do! No more
Macs! No more Windows!
--
Differentiation is an integral part of calculus.
Sandman
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > This personal attack from George is nothing more than confirmation he
> > > knows what John and I wrote is true...
> >
> > So every time you attack someone - it's for the same reason? I mean,
> > that's pretty much all you do these days - make personal attacks.
>
> All you post is lies and libel, as you have in this post.
No argument with the facts? Good, Edwin. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
<C0A45A50.5048C%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>:
> [3306] Do you think your attacks against people are not personal?
What people?
> [3310] you attack me because I point out your lies.
When did you do that?
Snit summary of meaningless phrases (since 2006-05-12):
+------------------------------+------------------------------+
| troll 0 3267 | lying 1 2531 |
| incest 0 1950 | sex 0 2450 |
| guilty 1 1508 | honorable 0 2405 |
| obfuscate 0 2398 | run 0 2527 |
| dishonest 1 2452 | snip 0 2485 |
| lol 2 1286 | contrived 0 11 |
+------------------------------+------------------------------+
Snitanator v1.1 by Sandman
C Lund
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> Sure, but the irony is that most of the features that would enamor a
> Maccie with Mac OS X existed for years in Windows first, the OS they
> berated.
Which features were those?
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Edwin
Anybody who doubts lead-based paint is dangerous to developing
children's brains out to be introduced to you. All those paint chips
you ate as a kid have taken a tragic toll on you.
Sandman
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > > This personal attack from George is nothing more than confirmation he
> > > > > knows what John and I wrote is true...
> > > >
> > > > So every time you attack someone - it's for the same reason? I mean,
> > > > that's pretty much all you do these days - make personal attacks.
> > >
> > > All you post is lies and libel, as you have in this post.
> >
> > No argument with the facts? Good, Edwin. :)
>
> Anybody who doubts lead-based paint is dangerous to developing
> children's brains out to be introduced to you.
"Ought to", Edwin. Too much lead paint when you were kid, perhaps?
> All those paint chips
> you ate as a kid have taken a tragic toll on you.
At least I can spell.
--
Sandman[.net]
Edwin
RichardK wrote:
> Edwin wrote:
> > ... or at least it will be when the transition to Intel chips is
> > complete.
>
> I'm buying an Intel iMac.
With whose money?
> I can use all my Mac stuff in a machine that
> is clearly a Mac,
You must mean a pre-Intel Mac.
> but I can finally replace VPC and an old Dell when I
> need to review PC applications.
Right, you can run Windows on a PC, which just happens to have an Apple
logo on it, so you can pretend it's a Mac.
> Still...
>
> Didn't you say you were leaving?
My post must have hurt you badly, for you to snip most of it, and then
ask me that.
> Richard (VPC, Edwin. Being about to run Windows on a Mac is nothing new.
> 6100/630 DOS systems...)
Why bring up running Windows poorly under emulation? Apple will be
glad to sell you a PC to run Windows on. Too bad they're giving up
building Macs, eh?
Sandman
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
What's the definition of "Mac", Edwin?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Macintosh
--
Sandman[.net]
Edwin
RichardK wrote:
> John Slade wrote:
>
> > When Apple starts to lose money on the overpriced Intel
>
> Hahahahahahahaaa....
>
> Dude...
>
> They're amongst the most profitable computers Apple has ever released,
Nobody doubts that. Apple didn't switch to cheaper Wintel technology
to pass the savings on to buyers, they did it to keep up their fat
margins. Speed and power consumption were just convenient excuses.
> yet the MacBook range is faster and/or cheaper than comparable "Windows"
> laptops.
As long as you accept the Maccie-skewed definition of "comparable."
> And you find anything like an iMac for the money.
>
> Really.
If you're talking about AIO desktop computers, I'll have to concede
that one. No AIO desktop PC gives as much power for the same price.
OTOH, BFD. A desktop PC with a separate monitor suits me just fine.
Snit
>
> RichardK wrote:
>> Edwin wrote:
>>> ... or at least it will be when the transition to Intel chips is
>>> complete.
>>
>> I'm buying an Intel iMac.
>
> With whose money?
Presumably his, though I doubt he would complain if you sent him a check.
Are you offering to?
>> I can use all my Mac stuff in a machine that
>> is clearly a Mac,
>
> You must mean a pre-Intel Mac.
There is nothing in his statement that leads to that conclusion. Well, not
for people who are sane.
>> but I can finally replace VPC and an old Dell when I
>> need to review PC applications.
>
> Right, you can run Windows on a PC, which just happens to have an Apple
> logo on it, so you can pretend it's a Mac.
Er? The Mac can run Windows now... it also can run OS X. The fact this is
bothersome to you - so bothersome you feel the need to troll - does not
speak well of you.
>> Still...
>>
>> Didn't you say you were leaving?
>
> My post must have hurt you badly, for you to snip most of it, and then
> ask me that.
Did you say you were leaving? I did not see that, but I did see some other
interesting quotes from you... quotes that embarrass you enough where you
repeatedly try to attribute them to me. Here is one of my favorites:
Date: 28 Jul 2005 13:26:35 -0700
Post: <1122582395.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Link: <http://snipurl.com/r4wv>
Edwin stated:
"I eat dog shit to get attention."
Amazing how many times you claim the Google archive is wrong about this.
>> Richard (VPC, Edwin. Being about to run Windows on a Mac is nothing new.
>> 6100/630 DOS systems...)
>
> Why bring up running Windows poorly under emulation?
Do you even know what the 6100/630 DOS system is?
> Apple will be glad to sell you a PC to run Windows on. Too bad they're
> giving up building Macs, eh?
If you have info saying Apple is no longer making Macs I would like to see
it. So far they seem very excited about their new Intel based Macs.
Snit
>
> RichardK wrote:
>> John Slade wrote:
>>
>>> When Apple starts to lose money on the overpriced Intel
>>> Macs.
>>
>> Hahahahahahahaaa....
>>
>> Dude...
>>
>> They're amongst the most profitable computers Apple has ever released,
>
> Nobody doubts that. Apple didn't switch to cheaper Wintel technology
> to pass the savings on to buyers, they did it to keep up their fat
> margins. Speed and power consumption were just convenient excuses.
I look forward to your support for this. Are you suggesting speed and power
consumption are not important to you?
>> yet the MacBook range is faster and/or cheaper than comparable "Windows"
>> laptops.
>
> As long as you accept the Maccie-skewed definition of "comparable."
>
>> And you find anything like an iMac for the money.
>>
>> Really.
>
> If you're talking about AIO desktop computers, I'll have to concede
> that one. No AIO desktop PC gives as much power for the same price.
>
> OTOH, BFD. A desktop PC with a separate monitor suits me just fine.
Date: 28 Jul 2005 13:26:35 -0700
Post: <1122582395.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Link: <http://snipurl.com/r4wv>
Edwin stated:
"I eat dog shit to get attention."
I just like quoting you on that because it clearly pisses you off so badly
*and* you repeatedly try to falsely attribute your quote to me.
Edwin
The new definition? You were given it. It's a Wintel PC that has
an Apple logo on it.
Much different than the old definition.
Edwin
RichardK wrote:
> Edwin wrote:
>
> >>>Mac OS is gone too, all that was left of it, the "Classic
> >>>environment" is stripped out of Mac OS X for Macintel.
> >>
> >
> >
> > What for? It's no skin off my nose. I just like giving Maccies a
> > big dose of reality.
>
> Yes folks. Hard as it is to believe, people as stupid as Edwin really
> exist. That's the reality of the world.
Yet I look like a genius in comparison to yourself.
Snit
Keep in mind, Edwin, what you have stated about your ability to think:
The sentence started with "In my life I never..." is finished by
Edwin with "... thought very hard."
At least you were honest about it.
RichardK
> RichardK wrote:
>
>>Edwin wrote:
>>
>>>... or at least it will be when the transition to Intel chips is
>>>complete.
>>
>>I'm buying an Intel iMac.
>
>
> With whose money?
What? Yours, of course. Well, I would, if you had enough to steal. Fuck
off, Edwin ;)
>>I can use all my Mac stuff in a machine that
>>is clearly a Mac,
>
>
> You must mean a pre-Intel Mac.
Well, let's put an iMac G5 and an Intel Mac together, and get someone to
tell which is which without opening it or using system profilers.
>>but I can finally replace VPC and an old Dell when I
>>need to review PC applications.
>
>
> Right, you can run Windows on a PC, which just happens to have an Apple
> logo on it, so you can pretend it's a Mac.
*yawn*
>>Still...
>>
>>Didn't you say you were leaving?
>
>
> My post must have hurt you badly, for you to snip most of it, and then
> ask me that.
No, amazingly posts don't hurt me. I just wondered why you'd decided to
come back, once again showing yourself up in a lie. Want to put a 6500
motherboard into a 6400?
>>Richard (VPC, Edwin. Being about to run Windows on a Mac is nothing new.
>>6100/630 DOS systems...)
>
>
> Why bring up running Windows poorly under emulation? Apple will be
> glad to sell you a PC to run Windows on. Too bad they're giving up
> building Macs, eh?
Apple will be happy to sell me a Personal Computer, called a Mac, to run
OS X /and/ Windows on. I'll take Apple's word over yours when it comes
to what constitutes a Mac; I've been using them long enough to have
already seen one architecture transition.
BTW, 6100/630 DOS and relatives aren't emulators. You're an idiot.
Richard
--
RichardK - http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/ - retro, music, cars.
2006 Mazda RX8, 1992 Sera Phase III -= Do Not Tempt With New Cars =-
"If the thought of something makes me giggle for more than 15 seconds I
am to assume I am not allowed to do it". * 64 is 128 for email *
RichardK
> RichardK wrote:
>
>>John Slade wrote:
>>
>>
>>>When Apple starts to lose money on the overpriced Intel
>>>Macs.
>>
>>Hahahahahahahaaa....
>>
>>Dude...
>>
>>They're amongst the most profitable computers Apple has ever released,
>
>
> Nobody doubts that. Apple didn't switch to cheaper Wintel technology
> to pass the savings on to buyers, they did it to keep up their fat
> margins. Speed and power consumption were just convenient excuses.
And useful side effects. Well done, Apple, for delivering performance
increases AND maintaining profitability.
>>yet the MacBook range is faster and/or cheaper than comparable "Windows"
>>laptops.
>
>
> As long as you accept the Maccie-skewed definition of "comparable."
Same CPU, form factor (some chance! most "Windows" laptops are larger
and heavier), same graphics, same auxiliary functions such as WiFi and
optical drives. I've researched this a lot; the MacBook Pro is around
£100-250 more than similar 15" models - albeit with a metal casing and
thinner form factor, it's very hard to match those attributes - but the
MacBook is in many cases £50 cheaper.
No skewing involved or needed. It's hard to find 'low end' notebooks
running at 1.83GHz Core Duo; most of them are still offered as 1.66.
>>And you find anything like an iMac for the money.
>>
>>Really.
>
>
> If you're talking about AIO desktop computers, I'll have to concede
> that one. No AIO desktop PC gives as much power for the same price.
Exactly :)
Sandman
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > What's the definition of "Mac", Edwin?
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Macintosh
>
> The new definition? You were given it. It's a Wintel PC that has
> an Apple logo on it. Much different than the old definition.
Where can I read about this altered definition, Edwin?
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
mr-61296E.20...@individual.net on 6/2/06 11:17 AM:
Check your CSS files - they change in inexplicable ways... maybe they will
have definitions in them next.
You never did figure out why your CSS changed, did you... well, no way that
you are willing to admit to. The fact is you changed it and you lied. Sad
that you are so insecure with your web authoring skills that you feel the
need to do that.
Me: I asked you for constructive criticism, but you could not even point to
the site that you think is done poorly.
Edwin
RichardK wrote:
> Edwin wrote:
> > RichardK wrote:
> >
> >>Edwin wrote:
> >>
> >>>... or at least it will be when the transition to Intel chips is
> >>>complete.
> >>
> >>I'm buying an Intel iMac.
> >
> >
> > With whose money?
>
> What? Yours, of course. Well, I would, if you had enough to steal. Fuck
> off, Edwin ;)
So you're not spending your own money... I suspected as much...
> >>I can use all my Mac stuff in a machine that
> >>is clearly a Mac,
> >
> >
> > You must mean a pre-Intel Mac.
>
> Well, let's put an iMac G5 and an Intel Mac together, and get someone to
> tell which is which without opening it or using system profilers.
Sure, we'll just get them to install BootCamp and use it to run
Windows...
>
> >>but I can finally replace VPC and an old Dell when I
> >>need to review PC applications.
> >
> >
> > Right, you can run Windows on a PC, which just happens to have an Apple
> > logo on it, so you can pretend it's a Mac.
>
> *yawn*
Thinking makes you sleepy.
> >>Still...
> >>
> >>Didn't you say you were leaving?
> >
> >
> > My post must have hurt you badly, for you to snip most of it, and then
> > ask me that.
>
> No, amazingly posts don't hurt me. I just wondered why you'd decided to
> come back, once again showing yourself up in a lie. Want to put a 6500
> motherboard into a 6400?
You wasted a lot of words where a simple "yes" would have sufficed.
> >>Richard (VPC, Edwin. Being about to run Windows on a Mac is nothing new.
> >>6100/630 DOS systems...)
> >
> >
> > Why bring up running Windows poorly under emulation? Apple will be
> > glad to sell you a PC to run Windows on. Too bad they're giving up
> > building Macs, eh?
>
> Apple will be happy to sell me a Personal Computer, called a Mac, to run
> OS X /and/ Windows on.
It'll say "Mac" on the outside, but it will be a PC on the inside.
> I'll take Apple's word over yours when it comes
> to what constitutes a Mac;
You'll continue to let Apple Marketing do your thinking for you.
> I've been using them long enough to have
> already seen one architecture transition.
Now you've seen Apple "transition" from Mac architecture to Wintel
architecture.
> BTW, 6100/630 DOS and relatives aren't emulators.
Yes, that's right, they were PCs on a card, so the Mac really wasn't
running Windows or DOS, it was being run on a PC inside the Mac's case.
> You're an idiot.
Not when I'm compared to you. Then I look like another Einstein.
RichardK
>>>>I'm buying an Intel iMac.
>>>
>>>
>>>With whose money?
>>
>>What? Yours, of course. Well, I would, if you had enough to steal. Fuck
>>off, Edwin ;)
>
> So you're not spending your own money... I suspected as much...
Suspect all you like, all my Macs have been bought with my own money
(regardless of how cheap I got them, in some cases). I get a lot of free
stuff in my work, or heavily discounted, but I'm not a member of the NUJ
so Apple doesn't even give me a journalist discount, let alone free
hardware.
I'm afraid I don't see the relevancy of your comment, tbh ;)
>>>>I can use all my Mac stuff in a machine that
>>>>is clearly a Mac,
>>>
>>>
>>>You must mean a pre-Intel Mac.
>>
>>Well, let's put an iMac G5 and an Intel Mac together, and get someone to
>>tell which is which without opening it or using system profilers.
>
>
> Sure, we'll just get them to install BootCamp and use it to run
> Windows...
Good test. Shall we set a similar test for a Windows system and let them
install OS X?
>>>>but I can finally replace VPC and an old Dell when I
>>>>need to review PC applications.
>>>
>>>
>>>Right, you can run Windows on a PC, which just happens to have an Apple
>>>logo on it, so you can pretend it's a Mac.
>>
>>*yawn*
>
>
> Thinking makes you sleepy.
No, idiots bore me.
>>>>Still...
>>>>
>>>>Didn't you say you were leaving?
>>>
>>>
>>>My post must have hurt you badly, for you to snip most of it, and then
>>>ask me that.
>>
>>No, amazingly posts don't hurt me. I just wondered why you'd decided to
>>come back, once again showing yourself up in a lie. Want to put a 6500
>>motherboard into a 6400?
>
>
> You wasted a lot of words where a simple "yes" would have sufficed.
It wouldn't - it would have had exactly the opposite meaning.
>>Apple will be happy to sell me a Personal Computer, called a Mac, to run
>>OS X /and/ Windows on.
>
> It'll say "Mac" on the outside, but it will be a PC on the inside.
Yes, it will be a Personal Computer. You do know that Apple coined the
term "personal computer", right? They were the first to use it in
marketing when other people were still selling "microcomputers".
You don't actually understand what Apple's computers are about. I think,
perhaps, it's time you stopped trying ;)
>>I'll take Apple's word over yours when it comes
>>to what constitutes a Mac;
>
> You'll continue to let Apple Marketing do your thinking for you.
I'll let me do my thinking, but given the choice between you and Apple
marketing, I'll take Apple every time. I wouldn't want to distract your
neuron from remind you to breathe.
>>I've been using them long enough to have
>>already seen one architecture transition.
>
>
> Now you've seen Apple "transition" from Mac architecture to Wintel
> architecture.
No, just Intel. Windows doesn't come with the computer.
>>BTW, 6100/630 DOS and relatives aren't emulators.
>
> Yes, that's right, they were PCs on a card, so the Mac really wasn't
> running Windows or DOS, it was being run on a PC inside the Mac's case.
Apple actually included a Microsoft OS with those machines in addition
to Mac OS. They provided the ability to run contemporary Apple and
Microsoft operating systems to the end user from the very late 80s via
third-party solutions (hell, MacCharlie is arguably a solution, but
wasn't really), and then their own packaging.
>>You're an idiot.
>
> Not when I'm compared to you. Then I look like another Einstein.
Yes. Dead, and with a knowledge of computers that just about managed to
take in thermionic valves.
Sandman
<C0A5CFFF.505B7%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>:
> [3548] Check your CSS files - they change in inexplicable ways.
Hehe, the Snit Circus in full effect. With each post I make, Michael
is thinking "How can I work this into my antagonizing of Sandman?"
> [3551] maybe they will have definitions in them next.
Yeah, maybe they will, Michael. Maybe they will :)
> [3552] You never did figure out why your CSS changed, did you.
You probably lied about them not validating. Why?
> [3555] well, no way that you are willing to admit to.
That's an odd sentence structure.
> [3556] The fact is you changed it and you lied.
I never lie, Michael. You know this, of course.
> [3557] Sad that you are so insecure with your web authoring skills
> [3557] that you feel the need to do that.
Haha!
> [3558] Me: I asked you for constructive criticism, but you could
> [3558] not even point to the site that you think is done poorly.
All of them, Michael. All of them. Of course, every time I answer your
questions, you run away from them, :)
Snit summary of meaningless phrases (since 2006-05-12):
+------------------------------+------------------------------+
| troll 0 3294 | lying 0 2551 |
| incest 0 1962 | sex 0 2472 |
| guilty 1 1512 | honorable 0 2407 |
| obfuscate 0 2402 | run 0 2535 |
| dishonest 0 2456 | snip 0 2491 |
| lol 0 1286 | contrived 0 13 |
Sandman
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > Why bring up running Windows poorly under emulation? Apple will be
> > > glad to sell you a PC to run Windows on. Too bad they're giving up
> > > building Macs, eh?
> >
> > Apple will be happy to sell me a Personal Computer, called a Mac, to run
> > OS X /and/ Windows on.
>
> It'll say "Mac" on the outside, but it will be a PC on the inside.
Why is this a problem for you, Edwin?
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote in
> <C0A5CFFF.505B7%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>:
>
>> [3548] Check your CSS files - they change in inexplicable ways.
>
> Hehe, the Snit Circus in full effect. With each post I make, Michael
> is thinking "How can I work this into my antagonizing of Sandman?"
If you find my pointing out your lies "antagonizing" then please stop lying.
In this case you altered code and then dishonestly denied it. You were
caught lying. It amuses me to see you run from this simple fact.
>
>> [3551] maybe they will have definitions in them next.
>
> Yeah, maybe they will, Michael. Maybe they will :)
>
>> [3552] You never did figure out why your CSS changed, did you.
>
> You probably lied about them not validating. Why?
Hint: I am not in control of the Google cache. Why is it you and the other
trolls insist I have super powers. I assure you I do not, unless you
consider honesty and honor to be super powers.
>> [3555] well, no way that you are willing to admit to.
>
> That's an odd sentence structure.
>
>> [3556] The fact is you changed it and you lied.
>
> I never lie, Michael. You know this, of course.
>
>> [3557] Sad that you are so insecure with your web authoring skills
>> [3557] that you feel the need to do that.
>
> Haha!
>
>> [3558] Me: I asked you for constructive criticism, but you could
>> [3558] not even point to the site that you think is done poorly.
>
> All of them, Michael. All of them. Of course, every time I answer your
> questions, you run away from them, :)
Note: you still cannot point to a single flaw on a single site I have ever
done for any customer. The rock you threw bounced back and broke your glass
house. Oh well.
Sandman
<C0A5D791.505CC%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>:
> [3602] If you find my pointing out your lies "antagonizing" then
> [3602] please stop lying (2552).
I find your trolling antagonizing. Your obfuscation above is part of
that.
> [3603] In this case you altered code and then dishonestly (2457)
> [3603] denied it.
In this case you lied like you always do.
> [3604] You were caught lying (2553).
I.e. not at all.
> [3605] It amuses me to see you run (2536) from this simple fact.
I.e. not at all.
> [3606] Hint: I am not in control of the Google cache.
Yet you claim you are :)
> [3607] Why is it you and the other trolls (3297) insist I have
> [3607] super powers.
Because you'd have to have super powers to become the most hated and
most killfiled person in the history of csma.
> [3608] I assure you I do not, unless you consider honesty and honor
> [3608] to be super powers.
They would be for you. Or at least some kind of mutation away from the
state you're currently in.
> [3609] Note: you still cannot point to a single flaw on a single
> [3609] site I have ever done for any customer.
Been there, done that.
> [3610] The rock you threw bounced back and broke your glass house.
While you complain about your glass houses being broken - my point is
as valid today as it was then - you utterly suck at web design. Or ANY
design.
Snit summary of meaningless phrases (since 2006-05-12):
+------------------------------+------------------------------+
| troll 1 3298 | lying 2 2555 |
| incest 0 1968 | sex 0 2478 |
| guilty 1 1514 | honorable 0 2407 |
| obfuscate 0 2402 | run 1 2537 |
| dishonest 1 2458 | snip 0 2491 |
Snit
Your post still has arbitrary numbers spewed throughout it. You should get
that fixed.
In any case, your attempt to obfuscate your clear lie about your changing
CSS is not working.
Funny how much you whine about my talking about your lie and even more funny
how much you try to obfuscate your lies.
Your CSS changed. You lied about it. Deal with it, Sandman.
Sandman
<C0A5D963.505DA%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>:
This was a perfect example of you running away from the facts, as
usual.
> [3636] Your post still has arbitrary numbers spewed throughout it.
Where?
> [3637] You should get that fixed.
How? What's wrong? You keep running away from these questions over and
over again like the troll you are.
> [3638] In any case, your attempt to obfuscate (2403) your clear lie
> [3638] about your changing CSS is not working.
Phew - since I'm not doing that, I'd be surprised if it was.
> [3639] Funny how much you whine about my talking about your lie and
> [3639] even more funny how much you try to obfuscate (2404) your
> [3639] lies.
I.e. not at all.
> [3640] Your CSS changed.
Of course, it's dynamically created. It changes on a regular basis.
> [3641] You lied about it.
I never lie, as always.
> [3642] Deal with it, Sandman.
I am - but you're not understanding much of it.
Snit summary of meaningless phrases (since 2006-05-12):
+------------------------------+------------------------------+
| troll 0 3302 | lying 0 2557 |
| incest 1 1972 | sex 1 2482 |
| guilty 0 1516 | honorable 0 2407 |
| obfuscate 2 2406 | run 0 2539 |
| dishonest 0 2458 | snip 0 2491 |
Edwin
It's not a problem for me, it's a problem for all you Maccies who can't
admit it's true.
Snit
My honor and honesty continue to trump your lying and trolling. And your
bizarre arbitrary numbers. You will do anything to try to show you "count".
Pathetic.
You *still* have not explained why your CSS magically started to validate
only after I commented on it not. You lied. Deal with it.
GreyCloud
You seem obsessed with dogshit, snit. DO you eat that stuff?
Funny how you trip off topic to post your glue induced drivel.
--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
Sandman
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
That what isn't true?
Macs use intel chips - what about it? Did you somehow think that PPC
was the definition of "Mac"? Or did you think that "As long as it's
not using a chip that can natively run Windows" was the definition?
I don't see the problem - so maybe I'm not a "Maccie".
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
<C0A5E023.505E3%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>:
Another example of you running away from the facts, just like I said
you would.
> [3645] My honor and honesty continue to trump your lying (2558)
> [3645] and trolling (3303).
I.e. you keep getting pounded into the concrete by facts and reality.
> [3646] And your bizarre arbitrary numbers.
What bizarre arbitrary numbers? Wait, scratch that - it's clear that
you can't answer that question.
> [3647] You will do anything to try to show you "count".
Count what?
> [3648] Pathetic.
There's that word again - right on cue. :)
> [3649] You *still* have not explained why your CSS magically
> [3649] started to validate only after I commented on it not.
Do you mean that I've still not explained it in a way you haven't
managed to ignore?
> [3650] You lied.
I never lie, as usual
> [3651] Deal with it.
I am - but you're not understanding much of it. :)
I'm having fun, though. :)
Snit summary of meaningless phrases (since 2006-05-12):
+------------------------------+------------------------------+
| troll 1 3304 | lying 1 2559 |
| incest 0 1972 | sex 0 2482 |
| guilty 0 1516 | honorable 0 2407 |
| obfuscate 0 2406 | run 0 2539 |
Snit
F7mdncFDfLzbBR3Z...@bresnan.com on 6/2/06 12:57 PM:
>> Date: 28 Jul 2005 13:26:35 -0700
>> Post: <1122582395.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>> Link: <http://snipurl.com/r4wv>
>>
>> Edwin stated:
>>
>> "I eat dog shit to get attention."
>>
>> I just like quoting you on that because it clearly pisses you off so badly
>> *and* you repeatedly try to falsely attribute your quote to me.
>>
>
> You seem obsessed with dogshit, snit. DO you eat that stuff?
> Funny how you trip off topic to post your glue induced drivel.
>
I am obsessed with the truth. I am commenting on a true event that Edwin is
denying.
Do you agree that I and the Google record are presenting the truth or do you
agree with Edwin that he and his delusions are?
Sandman
<C0A5F0A1.505F9%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>:
> [3656] I am obsessed with the truth.
Because everyone keeps exposing your lies?
> [3657] I am commenting on a true event that Edwin is denying.
Which one is that?
> [3658] Do you agree that I and the Google record are presenting the
> [3658] truth or do you agree with Edwin that he and his delusions
> [3658] are?
I agree that the Google record proves you wrong. It has always done
and probably always will.
Snit summary of meaningless phrases (since 2006-05-12):
+------------------------------+------------------------------+
| troll 0 3304 | lying 0 2559 |
| incest 0 1972 | sex 0 2482 |
| guilty 1 1520 | honorable 0 2407 |
Edwin
Sandman wrote:
> In article <1149275312.5...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Why bring up running Windows poorly under emulation? Apple will be
> > > > > > glad to sell you a PC to run Windows on. Too bad they're giving up
> > > > > > building Macs, eh?
> > > > >
> > > > > Apple will be happy to sell me a Personal Computer, called a Mac, to run
> > > > > OS X /and/ Windows on.
> > > >
> > > > It'll say "Mac" on the outside, but it will be a PC on the inside.
> > >
> > > Why is this a problem for you, Edwin?
> >
> > It's not a problem for me, it's a problem for all you Maccies who can't
> > admit it's true.
>
> That what isn't true?
How is it you forgot what you asked me, even though your question, and
my answer to it, still appear above?
> Macs use intel chips - what about it?
Macs don't use Intel chips. Macs once were entirely Apple
technologies. Then little by little PC technologies replaced Apple
technologies until the only difference between a PC and a Mac was the
processor. Now there is no more difference. Apple is switching to
building PCs, not Macs.
> Did you somehow think that PPC
> was the definition of "Mac"? Or did you think that "As long as it's
> not using a chip that can natively run Windows" was the definition?
You ought to know what the definition of a Mac was. I shouldn't have
to tell you.
> I don't see the problem - so maybe I'm not a "Maccie".
You're just willfully stupid. You're a duller, less articulate
version of Snit. Maybe someday you, Rick, and C. Lund will learn that
willful stupidity doesn't win an argument.
Edwin
Sandman wrote:
> In article <1149275312.5...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Why bring up running Windows poorly under emulation? Apple will be
> > > > > > glad to sell you a PC to run Windows on. Too bad they're giving up
> > > > > > building Macs, eh?
> > > > >
> > > > > Apple will be happy to sell me a Personal Computer, called a Mac, to run
> > > > > OS X /and/ Windows on.
> > > >
> > > > It'll say "Mac" on the outside, but it will be a PC on the inside.
> > >
> > > Why is this a problem for you, Edwin?
> >
> > It's not a problem for me, it's a problem for all you Maccies who can't
> > admit it's true.
>
> That what isn't true?
How is it you forgot what you asked me, even though your question, and
my answer to it, still appear above?
> Macs use intel chips - what about it?
Macs don't use Intel chips. Macs once were entirely Apple
technologies. Then little by little PC technologies replaced Apple
technologies until the only difference between a PC and a Mac was the
processor. Now there is no more difference. Apple is switching to
building PCs, not Macs.
> Did you somehow think that PPC
> was the definition of "Mac"? Or did you think that "As long as it's
> not using a chip that can natively run Windows" was the definition?
You ought to know what the definition of a Mac was. I shouldn't have
to tell you.
> I don't see the problem - so maybe I'm not a "Maccie".
You're just willfully stupid. You're a duller, less articulate
RichardK
> Macs don't use Intel chips. Macs once were entirely Apple
> technologies.
As far as I know, Apple didn't invent the Motorola 68000 CPU, and it was
used in rather a lot of other machines. Commodore Amiga, Atari ST, Sharp
X6800, Tandy Model 16(IIRC), Sega Megadrive, Sinclair QL (68008)? You
might have heard of them.
Snit
>> I don't see the problem - so maybe I'm not a "Maccie".
>
> You're just willfully stupid. You're a duller, less articulate
> version of Snit. Maybe someday you, Rick, and C. Lund will learn that
> willful stupidity doesn't win an argument.
Sandman, if like me at all, is like me without honesty, honor, web authoring
skills, the ability to respond to posts without running, duller, and less
articulate.
Wait: how is he like me again?
Lars Träger
--
Lars T.
GreyCloud
> "GreyCloud" <mi...@cumulus.com> stated in post
> F7mdncFDfLzbBR3Z...@bresnan.com on 6/2/06 12:57 PM:
>
>
>>> Date: 28 Jul 2005 13:26:35 -0700
>>> Post: <1122582395.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>>> Link: <http://snipurl.com/r4wv>
>>>
>>>Edwin stated:
>>>
>>> "I eat dog shit to get attention."
>>>
>>>I just like quoting you on that because it clearly pisses you off so badly
>>>*and* you repeatedly try to falsely attribute your quote to me.
>>>
>>
>>You seem obsessed with dogshit, snit. DO you eat that stuff?
>>Funny how you trip off topic to post your glue induced drivel.
>>
>
> I am obsessed with the truth. I am commenting on a true event that Edwin is
> denying.
>
> Do you agree that I and the Google record are presenting the truth or do you
> agree with Edwin that he and his delusions are?
>
I googled for it, and all I found was you or Edwin attributing it to
each other. But the post you followed up on never said anything about
eating dogshit till you brought it up.
GreyCloud
Whatever that is. (Maccie?)
GreyCloud
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> stated in post
> 1149283302.1...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com on 6/2/06 2:21 PM:
>
>
>>>I don't see the problem - so maybe I'm not a "Maccie".
>>
>>You're just willfully stupid. You're a duller, less articulate
>>version of Snit. Maybe someday you, Rick, and C. Lund will learn that
>>willful stupidity doesn't win an argument.
>
>
> Sandman, if like me at all, is like me without honesty, honor, web authoring
> skills, the ability to respond to posts without running, duller, and less
> articulate.
Web authoring skills? Now that I'll need proof of.
Snit
The post I link above is the first use of the quote. It is from Edwin - he
dishonestly was trying to attribute his quote to me even then... much as
Carroll has falsely attributed quotes to me hundreds of times. Do you
support people falsely attributing quotes like that?
Snit
Ask Sandman to point you to the site he was talking about... being that he
refuses to tell me which one it was I cannot point you to it. Hint: he has
no site in mind, he was merely lying.
Steve Hix
RichardK <at...@NOSPAMbtconnect.com> wrote:
> Edwin wrote:
>
> > Macs don't use Intel chips. Macs once were entirely Apple
> > technologies.
>
> As far as I know, Apple didn't invent the Motorola 68000 CPU, and it was
> used in rather a lot of other machines. Commodore Amiga, Atari ST, Sharp
> X6800, Tandy Model 16(IIRC), Sega Megadrive, Sinclair QL (68008)? You
> might have heard of them.
Apparently, EdThing is doing well to remember what he had for lunch
yesterday. Even then, he'll likely get the main ingredients wrong.
What "Apple technologies" is he thinking about? Other than ADB,
FireWire, custom drive controllers and some motherboard ASICs that tied
major motherboard subsystems together, pretty much everything else on
the hardware side were off the shelf, commercially-available goods.
Just because *PCs* mostly didn't use NuBus and SCSI, etc. doesn't mean
that they were "Apple technologies"...
On the software side, it's still as much "Apple technologies" now as in
the past.