PPC Macs were outdated in one day.
JohnQ
since they coulden't run the same software as the Intel Macs. I question
why Apple with all it's resources couldn't make the PPC foward
compatable with the Intel Macs or the Intel Macs backward compatable
with the PPC. Missed the boat here and all us PPC users suffer.
-hh
> Right one day after the Intel Macs came out the PPC Macs were outdated...
Then why did you stupid enough to allegedly buy a PPC after the Intel
Macs started to ship (and a *year* after the Intel transition
announcement)?
> I question why Apple with all it's resources couldn't make the PPC foward
> compatable with the Intel Macs or the Intel Macs backward compatable
> with the PPC.
Actually, with Rosetta, Apple did do what you're asking for them to
have done.
I question what your lame excuse for not knowing this after three+
years of public knowledge ? Do you want to claim igorance,
stupidity, and/or malicous Sockpuppet WinTrollery?
-hh
Steve Carroll
Apple's choices:
1 - Forge ahead like they have always done and possibly piss off a
relative few people, one of them a newsgroup troll calling itself
JohnQ, apparently the only people to buy PPC machines without having
looked at the Apple site's announcement of going to Intel and
comprehending what it all meant.
2 - Follow in the footsteps of MS, a company that chose to hinder
their OS with ancient code... thereby bloating their OS into a
laughing stock of mainstream OSes.
Gee, it's a real tough one here. LOL!
JohnQ
> On Aug 20, 8:47 am, JohnQ <Johnquincyg...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Right one day after the Intel Macs came out the PPC Macs were outdated...
>
> Then why did you stupid enough to allegedly buy a PPC after the Intel
> Macs started to ship (and a *year* after the Intel transition
> announcement)?
the Apple salesman as the latest technology and would be for many years
to come. The word many is subjective but to me many is not three years
but much longer. I notice your use of the word allegedly band am not
pleased that you have now expanded your insults to call me a liar stupid
and malicious.
>
>> I question why Apple with all it's resources couldn't make the PPC foward
>> compatable with the Intel Macs or the Intel Macs backward compatable
>> with the PPC.
>
> Actually, with Rosetta, Apple did do what you're asking for them to
> have done.
>
> I question what your lame excuse for not knowing this after three+
> years of public knowledge ? Do you want to claim igorance,
> stupidity, and/or malicous Sockpuppet WinTrollery?
kindly supplied me with the dictionary qualification.
>
> -hh
Try taking a couple of deep breaths think of a tranquil spot like a
grassy field or a deserted beach. Your hysteria is not healthy it might
lead to a stroke. I picture you now in my minds eye drooling all over
yourself and crapping your pants and it's a pleasing thought. Why do my
comments introduce you into irrational hysterical anger and personal
insults. Something seems to be drastically wrong with you. You should
see a mental health expert I'm sure they will find something very wrong
with you maybe even a brain tumor as your actions are a manifestation of
such.
David Empson
> Right one day after the Intel Macs came out the PPC Macs were outdated
> since they coulden't run the same software as the Intel Macs.
Not really. There wasn't much in the way of signficant software which
ran only on Intel Macs for three years after their introduction.
It is just now (three to three and half years later) that we are
starting to get updates of major high-performance applications which are
dropping PowerPC support. Final Cut Studio is the first example which
occurs to me. Adobe CS won't be joining that camp for at least another
year.
Mac OS X applications can be PowerPC-only, Intel-only or "Universal"
(including both PowerPC and Intel code).
Intel Macs can run all three types. (They run PowerPC applications via a
code translation subsystem known as "Rosetta".)
PowerPC Macs can run all but the Intel-only applications.
When Intel Macs first came out, most applications were PowerPC only, so
they ran relatively slowly on Intel Macs (due to the overhead of code
translation), but were still quite usable because the Intel Macs were so
much faster than the PowerPC models they replaced.
Over time, developers converted their existing PowerPC-only applications
to Universal (by recompiling and minor redevelopment), so they were able
to run at full speed on both PowerPC and Intel (much faster on Intel,
because the computers are faster).
Updated high-performance applications have gradually been dropping
support for PowerPC, mainly for performance reasons, also the size of
the likely market vs the amount of effort required to maintain the
PowerPC code.
PowerPC is now well under half the total Mac market, a rapidly shrinking
share as more new Intel Macs get sold. PowerMac G5s are a small fraction
of the PowerPC market, making PowerPC porting/maintenance just for the
PowerMac G5 an even less worthwhile investment. People who haven't
replaced a computer in four years tend not to buy much new software for
it, especially anything requiring high performance.
Some newly introduced applications have been Intel only. This is partly
because the application was ported from a Windows version which used the
same processor, and doing an additional port to PowerPC code was too
much work (especially given the likely number of PowerPC users who might
buy the software). It is often for performance reasons - most PowerPC
Macs are simply too slow, and it would require just as much effort to
target the significantly smaller number of PowerMac G5 users who have
computers which might be fast enough.
The vast majority of new or updated mainstream Mac applications (with no
significant performance requirements) still run on both PowerPC and
Intel, and I expect they will continue to do so for several years (at
least until Mac OS X 10.5 is regarded as no longer worth supporting,
which will be somewhere after the release of 10.7).
Even after new software for PowerPC Macs starts to decline, they will
still work fine with existing software. You just won't be able to run
the latest and greatest without replacing the computer, and if you do
that, it should still run your existing software (as long as you don't
leave it much too late).
> I question why Apple with all it's resources couldn't make the PPC foward
> compatable with the Intel Macs or the Intel Macs backward compatable with
> the PPC. Missed the boat here and all us PPC users suffer.
They did, at least for Intel Macs being able to run most PPC-only
applications (via Rosetta).
They didn't support extremely old PowerPC or 68K Mac applications on
Intel (which require "Classic" on a PowerPC Mac - that support also went
for PowerPC Macs with 10.5).
PowerPC Macs can't run new Intel-only applications, because emulation of
the Intel processor on PPC (or code translation) is too slow, and the
end result would be an application intended to run on a relatively fast
computer being horribly slow.
The other way around (converting PowerPC code to run on Intel) makes
more sense because the Intel processors are much faster than the
equivalent PowerPC models, and they generally have more memory available
which they can throw at the problem. Rosetta does a very good job.
Some kind of hardware solution involving an add-on PCI Extreme card with
an Intel processor might have been an option, but Apple hasn't done that
sort of thing for many years, it would cost a significant fraction of
buying a new computer anyway, and it wouldn't perform as well as a real
Intel model (especially not one in the same class, such as a Mac Pro).
Swapping the logic board for a new one with an Intel processor would be
too hard due to the mechanics of the cooling system in the PowerMac G5.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
Steve Carroll
> -hh wrote:
> > On Aug 20, 8:47 am, JohnQ <Johnquincyg...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> Right one day after the Intel Macs came out the PPC Macs were outdated...
>
> > Then why did you stupid enough to allegedly buy a PPC after the Intel
> > Macs started to ship (and a *year* after the Intel transition
> > announcement)?
>
> As I said it was a matter of what I could afford.
Gee, I thought you were buying stuff that you "need"... you know, like
for a business or something. So, in other words, you didn't buy this
computer for anything but a hobby? You're obviously a pretty poor
hobbyist in this field if you couldn't figure out what Apple's
announcement of moving to Intel architecture meant.
> The PPC was touted by
> the Apple salesman as the latest technology and would be for many years
> to come.
I call total bullsh*t here. I've never seen an Apple salesmen, or any
computer salesmen, make a claim that something would "be" "the latest
technology" "for many years to come" when it comes to hardware. I've
also never seen a 'customer' as clueless as you are... to the point
where you would do one of two things:
1 - Believe the Apple salesmen you are *alleging* said "be" "the
latest technology" "for many years to come" (I don't buy this one for
a minute).
2 - Believe that you could get others to believe your BS here. (you
appear to be pretty f*cking stupid... this one makes far more sense).
Like I've told another well know troll on this newsgroup: People are
just not as stupid as you need them to be.
> The word many is subjective but to me many is not three years
> but much longer.
I guess you should have asked him exactly what it meant, huh? Ever
the savvy consumer, I guess it somehow slipped your mind that day
<eyeroll>.
(cue up the part about how you 'trusted' the salesmen to be honest...
excuse me while I go puke;)
> I notice your use of the word allegedly band am not
> pleased that you have now expanded your insults to call me a liar stupid
> and malicious.
Of course what you say is merely what you are alleging. The problem
here is *what* you are alleging... it doesn't pass the laugh test.
(snip feeble attempt at 'psychology')
ZnU
JohnQ <Johnqui...@aol.com> wrote:
Intel Macs *are* backward compatible with PPC.
Apple shipped its last PPC Mac almost exactly three years ago, which is
about how long Apple tends to support old hardware during major
transitional periods. For instance, the first version of OS X supported
machines going back about three years.
--
"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
-hh
> >> Right one day after the Intel Macs came out the PPC Macs were outdated...
>
> > Then why did you stupid enough to allegedly buy a PPC after the Intel
> > Macs started to ship (and a *year* after the Intel transition
> > announcement)?
>
> As I said it was a matter of what I could afford.
Since it was for work, it was a tax-deductible business expense.
IIRC, Section 179 would have allowed you a 100% write-off back in
2006.
If you were real, of course.
> The PPC was touted by
> the Apple salesman as the latest technology and would be for many years
> to come. The word many is subjective but to me many is not three years
> but much longer.
Within the context of the computer technology industry, 3 years
exceeds Moore's Law by 50% and is thus considered to easily be a
"lifetime" for business applications. Thus the salesman told you the
truth.
> I notice your use of the word allegedly band am not pleased that you
> have now expanded your insults to call me a liar stupid and malicious.
There's a lot of liars and trolls on USENET. You've not done anything
to provide any substantiation of who you are, what business this was
for, or anything else...its all very conveniently very vague: its far
more likely that you're a troll and not at all legitimate. But do
please feel free to prove that you're a statistical exception.
> >> I question why Apple with all it's resources couldn't make the PPC foward
> >> compatable with the Intel Macs or the Intel Macs backward compatable
> >> with the PPC.
>
> > Actually, with Rosetta, Apple did do what you're asking for them to
> > have done.
>
> Will it run Snow Leopard or Adobe I think not.
Irrelevant and dishonest ... the SOP of a malicious troll ... since
that question is moving the goalposts.
In any event, Rosetta isn't being discontinued, which means that PPC
software will continue to run on Intel Macs running Snow Leopard, just
like they currently do under Leopard.
> > I question what your lame excuse for not knowing this after three+
> > years of public knowledge ? Do you want to claim igorance,
> > stupidity, and/or malicous Sockpuppet WinTrollery?
>
> It was never explained that my PPC was not froward compatible which you
> kindly supplied me with the dictionary qualification.
But gosh, that was supplied to a different poster, not "you". And
FYI, running multiple accounts (sockpuppets) ...is again the SOP of a
malicious troll.
Gosh it doesn't sound at all promising for you to be able to convince
us that you're an innocent, real businessman.
> Try taking a couple of deep breaths think of a tranquil spot like a
> grassy field or a deserted beach...
...walking through a grassy field ...wheat swaying ... with my trusty
hound.
The hound flushes a TROLL!
I bring my Remington 870 up to bear...
...he's flustered and dead in my sights.
*** Bang ***
Another lame-brained troll scragged, bagged & tagged.
Yup, that felt good. :-)
Of course, it still sucks to be you. How's the A/C in mommy's
basement?
-hh
JohnQ
Death threats now how sad. Take your Remington 850 put it in your mouth
and pull. You are a evil old man.
-hh
Its only a "death threat" if you're admitting to being a troll.
Thank-you for playing. Time for you to abandon this sockpuppet and go
start a new one.
-hh
JohnQ
I for one don't like the fact that my Power PC is outdated after only
the three years that I have owned it new. Total BS. Sorry the statement
seems to get you tied in knots.
JohnQ
JohnQ
> In article <kBbjm.149902$FP2.1...@newsfe05.iad>,
> JohnQ <Johnqui...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Right one day after the Intel Macs came out the PPC Macs were outdated
>> since they coulden't run the same software as the Intel Macs. I question
>> why Apple with all it's resources couldn't make the PPC foward
>> compatable with the Intel Macs or the Intel Macs backward compatable
>> with the PPC. Missed the boat here and all us PPC users suffer.
>
> Intel Macs *are* backward compatible with PPC.
>
> Apple shipped its last PPC Mac almost exactly three years ago, which is
> about how long Apple tends to support old hardware during major
> transitional periods. For instance, the first version of OS X supported
> machines going back about three years.
>
I for one don't like the fact that my Power PC is outdated after only
Tim Murray
> As I said it was a matter of what I could afford. The PPC was touted by
> the Apple salesman as the latest technology and would be for many years
> to come. The word many is subjective but to me many is not three years
> but much longer.
On the one hand in these threads put put forth an air of knowledge, and yet
you allowed a salesperson to talk you into a Ford Pinto that was already on
fire. You had about a year after the announcement ... did your computer
industry knowledge suddenly improve after you brought your Mac home? I smell
bullshit.
And if it were a matter of what you could afford, then you're either lying or
were patently stupid. Being in a budget and buying an end-of-architecture
machine, unless it's in the bargain bin, does not compute.
JohnQ
start a new one since you seem to be making a bigger fool of yourself
with your every statement..
JohnQ
Snit
bb0befdc-1869-4a6f...@u38g2000pro.googlegroups.com on 8/20/09
7:54 AM:
>> The PPC was touted by the Apple salesman as the latest technology and would
>> be for many years to come.
>>
> I call total bullsh*t here. I've never seen an Apple salesmen, or any computer
> salesmen, make a claim that something would "be" "the latest technology" "for
> many years to come" when it comes to hardware.
Nowhere did *anyone* claim that *anyone* had said *any* computer would be,
as you dishonestly claim:
"the latest technology" "for many years to come"
Seriously, Steve, who do you think is stupid enough to fall for your
twisting of others' words.
Oh, yes: Tim Adams, Sandman, ... your "crew". They will back you up. You
and your pathetic little trolling "crew" are unable to be honest.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
If you even own a PPC... I see no reason to believe you are telling
the truth about it. I have pointed to a solid reason to believe you
made all this up. Notably, you don't want to talk about that. Nuf'
said.
Snit
Keep in mind, at this point it is clear that not even -hh believes his
claims. If he did, he would not be lying and twisting and turning... and he
would not be embracing folks such as Steve Carroll who are even bigger
liars. Here are some examples:
-hh
-----
� � As such, any purchase at that time would have clearly been
� � with a short term perspective ... and significantly, done
� � as an informed decision.
-----
He knows his claim is wrong. He knows that Apple never informed anyone that
the PPC computers they sold would not be supported by an OS to come out
about 3 years later.
Steve Carroll
-----
> The PPC was touted by the Apple salesman as the latest
> technology and would be for many years to come.
I call total bullsh*t here. I've never seen an Apple
salesmen, or any computer salesmen, make a claim that
something would "be" "the latest technology" "for many years
to come" when it comes to hardware.
-----
And note how Steve Carroll tries to twist words... nobody said a current
newest technology purchase would still be the newest years later. Nobody
but Steve. He made it up.
And, predictably, he will never admit to his "mistake".
This whole debate is absurd. Apple is not supporting PPC with Snow Leopard.
Adobe is not supporting PPC with CS5. While I, and I think everyone
involved in this "debate", understand why, it is, clearly, something that
can be an annoyance to people who purchased the later-sold PPCs. Having a
computer that was still being sold 3 years ago not be supported by the
latest OS is an annoyance.
Nobody claimed this is a unique event in computer history.
Nobody claimed a 3 year old computer is "the latest technology".
Nobody claimed that support should be free and forever.
But watch how often those straw men and others are used in the inane debate
by -hh and Carroll to try to run from the actual topic.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
Why do such innocuous statements lead to such BS in CSMA? Look at the off
topic drivel this has lead to... and the bizarre accusations. To be clear:
- Nobody claimed this is a unique event in computer history.
- Nobody claimed a 3 year old computer is "the latest technology".
- Nobody claimed that support should be free and forever.
But if you read the comments from -hh and Carroll, those are just some of
the straw men they have accused you and others of making.
> Total BS. Sorry the statement seems to get you tied in knots.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
-hh
-----
� � As such, any purchase at that time would have clearly been
� � with a short term perspective ... and significantly, done
� � as an informed decision.
-----
Maybe he is just waiting for the right time to show where Apple informed
customers that the PPC computers they sold would not be supported by an OS
that would come out only about 3 years later.
Well, maybe if he believed his own drivel.
He does not.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
on 8/20/09 9:06 AM:
Maybe he got the computer he thought would serve his needs best. There is a
reason Apple was still selling the G5s, even after the Intel machines were
available.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
Just curious... did you ever claim this is a unique event in computer
history? Did you ever say three year old computer is "the latest
technology"? How about ever saying support should be free and forever?
Of course not.
Yet -hh and Carroll make such inane claims.
CSMA would be a better place if more people would call those who spew such
lies on their lies.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
ec3efe6d-80e8-4fdc...@d21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com on 8/20/09
8:21 AM:
>> �The PPC was touted by
>> the Apple salesman as the latest technology and would be for many years
>> to come. The word many is subjective but to me many is not three years
>> but much longer. �
>
> Within the context of the computer technology industry, 3 years
> exceeds Moore's Law by 50% and is thus considered to easily be a
> "lifetime" for business applications. Thus the salesman told you the
> truth.
>
>> I notice your use of the word allegedly band am not pleased that you
>> have now expanded your insults to call me a liar stupid and malicious.
>
> There's a lot of liars and trolls on USENET. You've not done anything
> to provide any substantiation of who you are, what business this was
> for, or anything else...its all very conveniently very vague: its far
> more likely that you're a troll and not at all legitimate. But do
Why lash out like this? He is annoyed that a computer Apple sold as
recently as three years ago will not be supported by Snow Leopard.
So?
Why lash out and insist he must defend his use of his computer? Why ask him
about his personal and professional life? None of this is relevant... it
just shows you know you cannot support the claims you and your "helper"
Carroll make:
- Nobody claimed this is a unique event in computer history.
- Nobody claimed a 3 year old computer is "the latest technology".
- Nobody claimed that support should be free and forever.
Can you please try to deal with this better?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/20/09 7:51 AM:
> JohnQ <Johnqui...@aol.com> wrote:
Well stated.
...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> 7:54 AM:
>
> >> The PPC was touted by the Apple salesman as the latest technology and would
> >> be for many years to come.
>
> > I call total bullsh*t here. I've never seen an Apple salesmen, or any computer
> > salesmen, make a claim that something would "be" "the latest technology" "for
> > many years to come" when it comes to hardware.
>
> Nowhere did *anyone* claim that *anyone* had said *any* computer would be,
> as you dishonestly claim:
>
> "the latest technology" "for many years to come"
>
> Seriously, Steve, who do you think is stupid enough to fall for your
> twisting of others' words.
So much for your tired, ol' lie that you don't read my posts. Now to
quash your new lie:
"The PPC was touted by the Apple salesman as the latest technology and
would be for many years
to come." - JohnQ
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/d9d2e90bd9918963?dmode=source
Lemme guess... you're now going to argue that it wasn't a "computer"
the Apple salesmen was referring to when he talked about the PPC? LOL!
Poor Snit... reality is just *never* on his side;)
> Oh, yes: Tim Adams, Sandman, ... your "crew". They will back you up.
Google (and reality) backed me up just fine, thanks.
JohnQ
> On Aug 20, 8:27 am, JohnQ <Johnquincyg...@aol.com> wrote:
>> -hh wrote:
>>> On Aug 20, 8:47 am, JohnQ <Johnquincyg...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> Right one day after the Intel Macs came out the PPC Macs were outdated...
>>> Then why did you stupid enough to allegedly buy a PPC after the Intel
>>> Macs started to ship (and a *year* after the Intel transition
>>> announcement)?
>> As I said it was a matter of what I could afford.
>
>
> Gee, I thought you were buying stuff that you "need"... you know, like
> for a business or something. So, in other words, you didn't buy this
> computer for anything but a hobby? You're obviously a pretty poor
> hobbyist in this field if you couldn't figure out what Apple's
> announcement of moving to Intel architecture meant.
claimed to have a business.
>
>> The PPC was touted by
>> the Apple salesman as the latest technology and would be for many years
>> to come.
>
> I call total bullsh*t here. I've never seen an Apple salesmen, or any
> computer salesmen, make a claim that something would "be" "the latest
> technology" "for many years to come" when it comes to hardware. I've
> also never seen a 'customer' as clueless as you are... to the point
> where you would do one of two things:
>
> 1 - Believe the Apple salesmen you are *alleging* said "be" "the
> latest technology" "for many years to come" (I don't buy this one for
> a minute).
>
> 2 - Believe that you could get others to believe your BS here. (you
> appear to be pretty f*cking stupid... this one makes far more sense).
>
> Like I've told another well know troll on this newsgroup: People are
> just not as stupid as you need them to be.
>
>> The word many is subjective but to me many is not three years
>> but much longer.
>
> I guess you should have asked him exactly what it meant, huh? Ever
> the savvy consumer, I guess it somehow slipped your mind that day
> <eyeroll>.
>
> (cue up the part about how you 'trusted' the salesmen to be honest...
> excuse me while I go puke;)
>
>
>> I notice your use of the word allegedly band am not
>> pleased that you have now expanded your insults to call me a liar stupid
>> and malicious.
>
> Of course what you say is merely what you are alleging. The problem
> here is *what* you are alleging... it doesn't pass the laugh test.
not me.
>
>
> (snip feeble attempt at 'psychology')
the three years that I have owned it new. Total BS. Sorry the statement
Steve Carroll
> JohnQ stated in post 4A8D763D.3060...@aol.com on 8/20/09 9:13 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Tim Murray wrote:
> >> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:27:13 -0400, JohnQ wrote:
> >>> As I said it was a matter of what I could afford. The PPC was touted by
> >>> the Apple salesman as the latest technology and would be for many years
> >>> to come. The word many is subjective but to me many is not three years
> >>> but much longer.
>
> >> On the one hand in these threads put put forth an air of knowledge, and yet
> >> you allowed a salesperson to talk you into a Ford Pinto that was already on
> >> fire. You had about a year after the announcement ... did your computer
> >> industry knowledge suddenly improve after you brought your Mac home? I smell
> >> bullshit.
>
> >> And if it were a matter of what you could afford, then you're either lying or
> >> were patently stupid. Being in a budget and buying an end-of-architecture
> >> machine, unless it's in the bargain bin, does not compute.
>
> > I for one don't like the fact that my Power PC is outdated after only
> > the three years that I have owned it new.
>
> Why do such innocuous statements lead to such BS in CSMA?
Wre that all he had written it wouldn't have. Google shows you are
ignoring what led to his being challenged as a troll. Which is what a
troll does... ignores evidence.
> Look at the off topic drivel this has lead to... and the bizarre accusations. To be clear:
>
> - Nobody claimed this is a unique event in computer history.
Not specifically, no... but basic reading comprehension (which counts
you out) shows strawmen being built in that direction.
> - Nobody claimed a 3 year old computer is "the latest technology".
This one doesn't even make any sense... which is why we find you as
the author of it as you pretend someone else said it.
What was written by JohnQ is shown here:
"The PPC was touted by the Apple salesman as the latest technology and
would be for many years to come."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/d9d2e90bd9918963?dmode=source
This farce is, "very, very clearly", what I took issue with. And... as
I said, it doesn't pass the laugh test.
> - Nobody claimed that support should be free and forever.
So why are you talking about it? Oh yeah... you're a disingenuous
troll who builds strawmen.
Steve Carroll
(snip Snit's lies that have been challenged elsewhere to make room for
challenging his new lies)
> And note how Steve Carroll tries to twist words... nobody said a current
> newest technology purchase would still be the newest years later.
I didn't say "newest", anyone can see that you just tossed that word
in there, Mr. Liar. The quote of me you have just shown above "very,
very clearly" shows I said "latest"... you know, just like JohnQ did
in his quote I show below.
"The PPC was touted by the Apple salesman as the latest technology and
would be for many years to come." - JohnQ
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/d9d2e90bd9918963?dmode=source
Ready for me to challenge your next lie with reality, Snit?
> And, predictably, he will never admit to his "mistake".
Predictably, you will ignore the evidence that shows you are... well,
what you obviously are.
(snip Snit's feeble use of his "psych degree")
JohnQ
hysteria and personal insults and death threats when I never personally
insulted anybody.. I wondered why they as fellow consumers take the
part of a major corporation rather than another fellow consumer. If I
complained about my car on a car group I don't think I would have been
insulted like this but rather supported. I notice the same troll
sockpuppets who persecute you are persecuting me.
Snit
10:17 AM:
>> Look at the off topic drivel this has lead to... and the bizarre
>> accusations. �To be clear:
>>
>> - Nobody claimed this is a unique event in computer history.
>
> Not specifically, no...
But yet that was the claim. Repeatedly. And it was a lie.
> but basic reading comprehension (which counts
> you out) shows strawmen being built in that direction.
See how you just make things up.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
...
>> - Nobody claimed that support should be free and forever.
>
> So why are you talking about it?
I am noting the lies of you and -hh.
> Oh yeah... you're a disingenuous
> troll who builds strawmen.
Do you deny -hh made such statements? Repeatedly he did:
-----
IMNSHO, the only people for whom it is a "big" deal at all
are those who want everything to be supported forever,
preferably for free.
-----
Except that the past gives us perspective, remember?
Naturally, we want support forever and for free, but that's a
fantasy.
-----
Snit agrees that all technology gets superceded and the above
says that PPCs are going away, but Michael can't make the
logical connection that this means that its the PPCs are
getting superceded (gosh!). There will invariably be a
timeline sometime short of infinity ("forever") in which this
will happen is just another manifestation of denial.
-----
There goes your claim that I built a strawman. I noted, correctly, that -hh
was spewing lies.
And, notably, you denied those lies. And then, in your hate-filled rage,
blamed me for merely noting them.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
Carroll has deemed you my sockpuppet or "shill" because I have stated I
disagree with people lying about you and your views. This does not mean I
even agree with your every word in this "debate", nor does it mean you and I
have not disagreed before. I merely disagree with people lying about you
and your views.
That is enough to have Steve show he hates you. Is willing to lie about
you. Is willing to jump in to support anyone who lies about you (namely
-hh). If this continues long enough, and if you point out enough lies by
Carroll, you can bet Carroll will get his "crew" to jump in to try to rescue
him: namely Wally and Tim Adams, and, more and more, Sandman (though Sandman
does also sometimes show signs of actual thought).
These things are completely, 100%, predictable. Look at how the "crew"
support each other no matter how insane or inane their claims are. And most
people in CSMA just let it go... let them publicly and repeatedly lie about
people. And then they wonder why the lies and the BS does not stop.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
AM:
> Steve Carroll wrote:
>> On Aug 20, 8:27 am, JohnQ <Johnquincyg...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> -hh wrote:
>>>> On Aug 20, 8:47 am, JohnQ <Johnquincyg...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> Right one day after the Intel Macs came out the PPC Macs were outdated...
>>>> Then why did you stupid enough to allegedly buy a PPC after the Intel
>>>> Macs started to ship (and a *year* after the Intel transition
>>>> announcement)?
>>> As I said it was a matter of what I could afford.
>>
>>
>> Gee, I thought you were buying stuff that you "need"... you know, like
>> for a business or something. So, in other words, you didn't buy this
>> computer for anything but a hobby? You're obviously a pretty poor
>> hobbyist in this field if you couldn't figure out what Apple's
>> announcement of moving to Intel architecture meant.
> Was it hard for you to understand that I said for my work. I never
> claimed to have a business.
This is a tired old game of Steve's. Knowing he has no point to make, he
will focus on your personal and professional life. And then, when he can
gather enough info to target your business, he will. He will spew lies and
accusations and tie them to your real name or to your business name. The
only thing that got him to back off from that tactic with me was contacting
his ISP. For a while he lost his Usenet service... and then, later, his ISP
ended Usenet service completely - *their* claim being that they did so
partly because of Steve and a few others who abused the system (Steve has
repeatedly denied this... even though I and others noted that their
complaints to his ISP had been responded to with his ISP saying this).
>>> The PPC was touted by
>>> the Apple salesman as the latest technology and would be for many years
>>> to come.
>>
>> I call total bullsh*t here. I've never seen an Apple salesmen, or any
>> computer salesmen, make a claim that something would "be" "the latest
>> technology" "for many years to come" when it comes to hardware. I've
>> also never seen a 'customer' as clueless as you are... to the point
>> where you would do one of two things:
>>
>> 1 - Believe the Apple salesmen you are *alleging* said "be" "the
>> latest technology" "for many years to come" (I don't buy this one for
>> a minute).
>>
>> 2 - Believe that you could get others to believe your BS here. (you
>> appear to be pretty f*cking stupid... this one makes far more sense).
> What you believe is meaningless.
What he believes is not tied to what he says. Steve Carroll openly lies.
>> Like I've told another well know troll on this newsgroup: People are
>> just not as stupid as you need them to be.
> Yes you are a prime example of stupid.
This is a common Carroll game: insist that you are wrong because he says so
and then insist only stupid people would believe the truth.
>>> The word many is subjective but to me many is not three years
>>> but much longer.
>>
>> I guess you should have asked him exactly what it meant, huh? Ever
>> the savvy consumer, I guess it somehow slipped your mind that day
>> <eyeroll>.
> I didn't expect to be misled by the salesman of a major corporation.
>> (cue up the part about how you 'trusted' the salesmen to be honest...
>> excuse me while I go puke;)
> Go puke and lap it back up you can save a meal.
LOL!
>>> I notice your use of the word allegedly band am not
>>> pleased that you have now expanded your insults to call me a liar stupid
>>> and malicious.
>>
>> Of course what you say is merely what you are alleging. The problem
>> here is *what* you are alleging... it doesn't pass the laugh test.
> Who cares what you think only you and your sock puppets hh and Adams
> not me.
Steve thinks people are stupid enough to believe his garbage... and since
few people in CSMA are willing to stand up to he and his "crew", he gets
confirmation of this. People should call him on his lies more often.
>> (snip feeble attempt at 'psychology')
> I for one don't like the fact that my Power PC is outdated after only
> the three years that I have owned it new. Total BS. Sorry the statement
> seems to get you tied in knots you dumb jerk.
Exactly...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
JohnQ
Snit
AM:
Exactly.
I am a strong Mac advocate but do not lie for the company to "advocate" - I
think dishonesty is poor advocacy.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> 10:17 AM:
>
> >> Look at the off topic drivel this has lead to... and the bizarre
> >> accusations. To be clear:
>
> >> - Nobody claimed this is a unique event in computer history.
>
> > Not specifically, no...
>
> But yet that was the claim.
So show "the claim" you're alleging someone made.
> Repeatedly. And it was a lie.
This is your opportunity to show this alleged "lie".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"the claim" or "lie" Snit is alleging goes here:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fa-groon
(in article <kBbjm.149902$FP2.1...@newsfe05.iad>):
> Right one day after the Intel Macs came out the PPC Macs were outdated
> since they coulden't run the same software as the Intel Macs. I question
> why Apple with all it's resources couldn't make the PPC foward
> compatable with the Intel Macs or the Intel Macs backward compatable
> with the PPC. Missed the boat here and all us PPC users suffer.
This should show you how out-of-touch with the Mac world you are. On the day
that the Intel Macs were launched, there was essentially no Intel software
available for it (Apple might have had iLife ready by that date, I don't
recall). Knowing this, Apple included in the Intel version of OSX, a run-time
module that allows PPC compiled code to run on the Intel Macs. This works
very well and the performance hit that came from running PPC apps on an Intel
computer was so small that most people never noticed it. As I recall, the
Adobe Creative Suite available at that time was CS2, the Intel version, CS3,
which was Intel native, did not ship until pretty close to a year later.
Since then, virtually all Mac applications have been shipped as "dual
binaries" these are installers that contain both versions of the code, one
for Intel, one for PPC. The installer software "looks" at the computer to see
which processor is present and installs the appropriate version of the
software. Most downloadable software (such as NeoOffice) requires that the
downloader choose his processor and download the proper version. This is only
fair because it avoids the internet overhead of a dual-binary.
So, you see you are wrong. Mac PPC software is made forward compatible with
the Intel Macs through the use of a PPC runtime module as part of the OS
(which, BTW, will continue to exist in Snow Leopard), and the new Intel Mac
software is made backwards compatible with PPC Macs by being either
dual-binary or by giving the downloader the choice of either PPC or Intel
version downloads. At some point, I have no doubt, both of these
compatibility schemes will be dropped. This is inevitable as most computer
and software makers know that people who do not upgrade their computers to
the latest technology also don't upgrade or buy new software either so at
some point, they are providing compatibility with their new versions for a
smaller and smaller buyer-base until, at last, they are selling so few copies
to owners of the older computers that it's not worth the effort to compile
the code for them. I know a number of Mac users, for instance, still using
OS9. They are satisfied with it even though there has been no new software
available for those machines for close to a decade. In fact, I have one
friend who is still using an old 68K Performa running System 7. People don't
necessarily need the latest and greatest to have a useful computer.
Fa-groon
(in article <4A8D73C9...@aol.com>):
> Steve Carroll wrote:
>> On Aug 20, 6:47 am, JohnQ <Johnquincyg...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> Right one day after the Intel Macs came out the PPC Macs were outdated
>>> since they coulden't run the same software as the Intel Macs. I question
>>> why Apple with all it's resources couldn't make the PPC foward
>>> compatable with the Intel Macs or the Intel Macs backward compatable
>>> with the PPC. Missed the boat here and all us PPC users suffer.
>>
>> Apple's choices:
>>
>> 1 - Forge ahead like they have always done and possibly piss off a
>> relative few people, one of them a newsgroup troll calling itself
>> JohnQ, apparently the only people to buy PPC machines without having
>> looked at the Apple site's announcement of going to Intel and
>> comprehending what it all meant.
>>
>> 2 - Follow in the footsteps of MS, a company that chose to hinder
>> their OS with ancient code... thereby bloating their OS into a
>> laughing stock of mainstream OSes.
>>
>>
>> Gee, it's a real tough one here. LOL!
>>
> I for one don't like the fact that my Power PC is outdated after only
> the three years that I have owned it new. Total BS. Sorry the statement
> seems to get you tied in knots.
Nobody is tied in knots. You bought an obsolete computer and are complaining
that the company who made it is, THREE YEARS LATER, stopping support for it.
This is YOUR FAULT, not Apple's. You bought obsolete goods ON PRICE, knowing
full well that at some point, support for the obsolete computer model is
going to go away. That was certain from DAY ONE. You seem to be tied in knots
because you can't get any sympathy here. Well, you won't.
There's a lesson here - don't buy obsolete equipment because it's cheaper
than the current stuff, but you won't learn THAT lesson. What you will do is
decide never to buy another Mac because Apple left you in the lurch. Well,
they didn't leave you in the lurch, YOU put yourself in that position and
have no one to blame but yourself.
Fa-groon
(in article
<98134698-e32f-41ee...@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>):
> On Aug 20, 8:47ï¿œam, JohnQ <Johnquincyg...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Right one day after the Intel Macs came out the PPC Macs were outdated...
>
> Then why did you stupid enough to allegedly buy a PPC after the Intel
> Macs started to ship (and a *year* after the Intel transition
> announcement)?
>
>> I question why Apple with all it's resources couldn't make the PPC foward
>> compatable with the Intel Macs or the Intel Macs backward compatable
>> with the PPC.
>
> Actually, with Rosetta, Apple did do what you're asking for them to
> have done.
>
> I question what your lame excuse for not knowing this after three+
> years of public knowledge ? Do you want to claim igorance,
> stupidity, and/or malicous Sockpuppet WinTrollery?
>
>
> -hh
I vote for the latter.
Sermo Malifer
What was supposed to be the difference between you and Snit?
Steve Carroll
It's exemplified by how different I am from you and the lack of a
difference between you and Snit;)
Fa-groon
(in article <4A8D5D41...@aol.com>):
> -hh wrote:
>> On Aug 20, 8:47 am, JohnQ <Johnquincyg...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> Right one day after the Intel Macs came out the PPC Macs were outdated...
>>
>> Then why did you stupid enough to allegedly buy a PPC after the Intel
>> Macs started to ship (and a *year* after the Intel transition
>> announcement)?
> As I said it was a matter of what I could afford. The PPC was touted by
> the Apple salesman as the latest technology and would be for many years
> to come. The word many is subjective but to me many is not three years
> but much longer. I notice your use of the word allegedly band am not
> pleased that you have now expanded your insults to call me a liar stupid
> and malicious.
If you believed the "salesman" then you didn't do your "due diligence" and
research what you were buying before-hand. This is not Apple's fault, it's
not the salesman's fault, It's your fault. On top of that you seem to think
(from your angst-ridden posts) that somehow, when Snow Leopard ships, your
three-year-old PPC machine will stop working. Well, It won't stop working. It
will continue to work, and you will probably be able to buy new dual-binary
software for it for at least two, possibly three more years, so you really
have nothing to complain about. Nothing at all.
>>> I question why Apple with all it's resources couldn't make the PPC foward
>>> compatable with the Intel Macs or the Intel Macs backward compatable
>>> with the PPC.
>>
>> Actually, with Rosetta, Apple did do what you're asking for them to
>> have done.
> Will it run Snow Leopard or Adobe I think not.
Snow Leopard is an OS, not software. Besides which, Rosetta is a PART of Snow
Leopard and is designed to run older PPC software, not to allow a PPC Mac to
run Intel-based software And yes, Rosetta will run older PPC versions of
"Adobe". But since "Adobe" software is dual-binary, you can go out and buy
CS3 today, next week, six months from now, and it will still install and run
on your PPC Mac. We don't even know that CS4 won't be dual-binary too. It's
just a rumor that it won't be. Even if it does leave PPC machines behind, if
Adobe keeps to it's usual release schedule, CS4 is over a year away.
>> I question what your lame excuse for not knowing this after three+
>> years of public knowledge ? Do you want to claim igorance,
>> stupidity, and/or malicous Sockpuppet WinTrollery?
> It was never explained that my PPC was not froward compatible which you
> kindly supplied me with the dictionary qualification.
IOW, you din't look before you leaped. And this is Apple's fault how?
Remember that old Latin saying: " Caveat Emptor"? "Let the buyer beware". It
applies here.
>
>>
>> -hh
> Try taking a couple of deep breaths think of a tranquil spot like a
> grassy field or a deserted beach. Your hysteria is not healthy it might
> lead to a stroke. I picture you now in my minds eye drooling all over
> yourself and crapping your pants and it's a pleasing thought. Why do my
> comments introduce you into irrational hysterical anger and personal
> insults. Something seems to be drastically wrong with you. You should
> see a mental health expert I'm sure they will find something very wrong
> with you maybe even a brain tumor as your actions are a manifestation of
> such.
Projection. You are the one having a hissy fit because you bought an obsolete
computer and expect the company who made it to continue to support it
forever.
Steve Carroll
> Steve Carroll wrote:
> > On Aug 20, 8:27 am, JohnQ <Johnquincyg...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> -hh wrote:
> >>> On Aug 20, 8:47 am, JohnQ <Johnquincyg...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>> Right one day after the Intel Macs came out the PPC Macs were outdated...
> >>> Then why did you stupid enough to allegedly buy a PPC after the Intel
> >>> Macs started to ship (and a *year* after the Intel transition
> >>> announcement)?
> >> As I said it was a matter of what I could afford.
>
> > Gee, I thought you were buying stuff that you "need"... you know, like
> > for a business or something. So, in other words, you didn't buy this
> > computer for anything but a hobby? You're obviously a pretty poor
> > hobbyist in this field if you couldn't figure out what Apple's
> > announcement of moving to Intel architecture meant.
>
> Was it hard for you to understand that I said for my work. I never
> claimed to have a business.
What work are you doing that requires you to have a Mac that runs SL,
an OS that has yet to be shipped (and when it does it will undoubtedly
go through the usual updates until the most common bugs are worked out
of it)?
Don't worry... I don't *really* expect you to answer a logical
followup to your claim of a "need" you have for your "work". LOL!
> >> The PPC was touted by
> >> the Apple salesman as the latest technology and would be for many years
> >> to come.
>
> > I call total bullsh*t here. I've never seen an Apple salesmen, or any
> > computer salesmen, make a claim that something would "be" "the latest
> > technology" "for many years to come" when it comes to hardware. I've
> > also never seen a 'customer' as clueless as you are... to the point
> > where you would do one of two things:
>
> > 1 - Believe the Apple salesmen you are *alleging* said "be" "the
> > latest technology" "for many years to come" (I don't buy this one for
> > a minute).
>
> > 2 - Believe that you could get others to believe your BS here. (you
> > appear to be pretty f*cking stupid... this one makes far more sense).
>
> What you believe is meaningless.
What you wrote was meaningless... and laughable.
> > Like I've told another well know troll on this newsgroup: People are
> > just not as stupid as you need them to be.
>
> Yes you are a prime example of stupid.
Gee, you suffer from the same level of reading comprehension that your
pal Snit does. Did you two go to the same school?
> >> The word many is subjective but to me many is not three years
> >> but much longer.
>
> > I guess you should have asked him exactly what it meant, huh? Ever
> > the savvy consumer, I guess it somehow slipped your mind that day
> > <eyeroll>.
>
> I didn't expect to be misled by the salesman of a major corporation.
I'm a psychic... who knew;)
Trust me, only idiots like Snit will believe your hogwash here...
which is why he and maybe another troll or two are seen bending over
backwards to try and support your nonsense.
> > (cue up the part about how you 'trusted' the salesmen to be honest...
> > excuse me while I go puke;)
>
> Go puke and lap it back up you can save a meal.
>
> >> I notice your use of the word allegedly band am not
> >> pleased that you have now expanded your insults to call me a liar stupid
> >> and malicious.
>
> > Of course what you say is merely what you are alleging. The problem
> > here is *what* you are alleging... it doesn't pass the laugh test.
>
> Who cares what you think only you and your sock puppets hh and Adams
> not me.
>
> > (snip feeble attempt at 'psychology')
>
> I for one don't like the fact that my Power PC is outdated after only
> the three years that I have owned it new. Total BS. Sorry the statement
> seems to get you tied in knots you dumb jerk.
Is this "the show" you didn't want to miss... me slamming you over the
head with realities you can't face?
Fa-groon
(in article <4A8D7409...@aol.com>):
> ZnU wrote:
>> In article <kBbjm.149902$FP2.1...@newsfe05.iad>,
>> JohnQ <Johnqui...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Right one day after the Intel Macs came out the PPC Macs were outdated
>>> since they coulden't run the same software as the Intel Macs. I question
>>> why Apple with all it's resources couldn't make the PPC foward
>>> compatable with the Intel Macs or the Intel Macs backward compatable
>>> with the PPC. Missed the boat here and all us PPC users suffer.
>>
>> Intel Macs *are* backward compatible with PPC.
>>
>> Apple shipped its last PPC Mac almost exactly three years ago, which is
>> about how long Apple tends to support old hardware during major
>> transitional periods. For instance, the first version of OS X supported
>> machines going back about three years.
>>
>
> I for one don't like the fact that my Power PC is outdated after only
> the three years that I have owned it new. Total BS.
Then you shouldn't have bought it. You have no one to blame but yourself. End
of story.
Snit
12:00 PM:
> On Aug 20, 11:12�am, JohnQ <Johnquincyg...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On Aug 20, 8:27 am, JohnQ <Johnquincyg...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> -hh wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 20, 8:47 am, JohnQ <Johnquincyg...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Right one day after the Intel Macs came out the PPC Macs were outdated...
>>>>> Then why did you stupid enough to allegedly buy a PPC after the Intel
>>>>> Macs started to ship (and a *year* after the Intel transition
>>>>> announcement)?
>>>> As I said it was a matter of what I could afford. �
>>
>>> Gee, I thought you were buying stuff that you "need"... you know, like
>>> for a business or something. So, in other words, you didn't buy this
>>> computer for anything but a hobby? You're obviously a pretty poor
>>> hobbyist in this field if you couldn't figure out what Apple's
>>> announcement of moving to Intel architecture meant.
>>
>> Was it hard for you to understand that I said for my work. I never
>> claimed to have a business.
>
> What work are you doing that requires you to have a Mac that runs SL,
> an OS that has yet to be shipped (and when it does it will undoubtedly
> go through the usual updates until the most common bugs are worked out
> of it)?
>
> Don't worry... I don't *really* expect you to answer a logical
> followup to your claim of a "need" you have for your "work". LOL!
Again: Steve Carroll changes the topic to someone's personal and
professional life. Why: so he can target their personal and professional
life.
Look at how he targets the facts he knows about me:
* I am a teacher - he claims teaching is not "real work". He also
denied he thinks I am a teacher, then points to the college website
where I work and directs people on how to find my classes.
* He found out I have posted to a health support forum... he not
only pulls up ancient quotes from that forum, he started
posting to the forum and spewing hate filled lies. He was
of course, quickly called out on his BS... and left that forum.
* He knows the name of my business and was spewing lies and tying
them to my business name in an effort to seed the Google record.
He only stopped when his ISP told him he would lose his account.
They *did* stop his Usenet access for a while ... and later
stopped Usenet support completely. I and others noted that
his ISP claimed this was done, *in part*, because of Steve's
actions and the actions of some other "abusers", and Steve
demands I take up his battle with his ISP and speak for them.
Do not give Steve information about your personal or professional life... I
made the mistake to do so, and he and his "crew" have used it against me
repeatedly since then.
...
>>> Like I've told another well know troll on this newsgroup: People are
>>> just not as stupid as you need them to be.
>>
>> Yes you are a prime example of stupid.
>
> Gee, you suffer from the same level of reading comprehension that your
> pal Snit does. Did you two go to the same school?
See how you lash out when your BS is called out.
Snit
8/20/09 12:00 PM:
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 09:04:25 -0700, JohnQ wrote
Ah, great Mac advocacy: do not buy Macs. Thanks Fa-groon!
Sigh.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/20/09 11:53 AM:
> On top of that you seem to think
> (from your angst-ridden posts) that somehow, when Snow Leopard ships, your
> three-year-old PPC machine will stop working.
How did you jump to this bizarre and erroneous conclusion?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/20/09 11:53 AM:
> Snow Leopard is an OS, not software.
OSs are software.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/20/09 11:53 AM:
> We don't even know that CS4 won't be dual-binary too.
We know that it is. Now.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/20/09 11:53 AM:
> We don't even know that CS4 won't be dual-binary too. It's
> just a rumor that it won't be.
Assuming you mean CS5, it is more than a rumor - it has been announced by
Adobe.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/20/09 11:53 AM:
>> It was never explained that my PPC was not froward compatible which you
>> kindly supplied me with the dictionary qualification.
>
> IOW, you din't look before you leaped. And this is Apple's fault how?
> Remember that old Latin saying: " Caveat Emptor"? "Let the buyer beware". It
> applies here.
And, of course, based on that the buyer should never state any sense of
disappointment, right?
Absurd.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/20/09 11:36 AM:
> You bought an obsolete computer and are complaining
> that the company who made it is, THREE YEARS LATER, stopping support for it.
One: the computer was new when he bought it. Not obsolete.
Two: Apple has not announced dropping support for PPC... but they are not
supporting PPC *with Snow Leopard*.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/20/09 11:36 AM:
> There's a lesson here - don't buy obsolete equipment because it's cheaper
> than the current stuff, but you won't learn THAT lesson. What you will do is
> decide never to buy another Mac because Apple left you in the lurch. Well,
> they didn't leave you in the lurch, YOU put yourself in that position and
> have no one to blame but yourself.
Funny, Steve Carroll, who is co-trolling with you, whined I should not buy a
new model because it was not well tested. Now he is agreeing with you that
you should buy the new models because the old ones will get outdated faster.
Got to love the troll flip flops.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
JohnQ
Your convoluted logic is noted but impossible to make sense of. To term
my statement, I for one don't like the fact that my Power PC is outdated
after only the three years that I have owned it new. Total BS., as a
hissy fit seems an over exaggeration. Maybe you could explain to me
your hysteria over my statement and the hysteria of others. I have asked
for an explanation many times but the question seems to be swept under
the carpet. Maybe the explanation would be embarrassing
JohnQ
anyway. Since you have no constructive answers dry up and blow away.
Sermo Malifer
I'll take your answer to mean there's no difference between Snit and you.
Snit
AM:
>>> What was supposed to be the difference between you and Snit?
>>
>> It's exemplified by how different I am from you and the lack of a
>> difference between you and Snit;)
>
> I'll take your answer to mean there's no difference between Snit and you.
None he can think of.
I can.
Steve Carroll is not honest and honorable. I am. This does not mean I do
not make mistakes - I do, but my general focus is not, as it is with Steve,
to lie and spew insults and to focus on his loss of his girlfriend in 2004.
Steve is now *married*, or so he claims... yet he obsesses over his lost ex
from 2004. That is *completely* unlike me.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
JohnQ
rantings and ravings and exaggerations and verbal diarrhea above. I
never asked for anyones sympathy that is another add on you and your
sock puppets seem so adept at doing. Why all the lies anyway. Why are
you so twisted in knots. Why are you so hysterical Did I personally
insult you in some way. I am wondering why fat head jerks like you take
the part of a major corporation rather than a fellow consumer. What is
your problem anyway. Did I do something to you. Do you eat the garbage
that major corporations dish out without complaint. Did you ever
complain about any product I think not.
JohnQ
JohnQ
switch. Are you now claiming that one year old Macs are considered
obsolete. If that were the case I would never buy another Mac. Apple
doesn't need fat head jerks like you to promote their products. Your
hysteria is incomprehensible.
Fa-groon
(in article <cUhjm.178912$vp.1...@newsfe12.iad>):
Maybe if I keep it short and simple, you'll understand plain English. Your
PPC machine IS NOT obsolete. There, Understand now?
Total BS., as a
> hissy fit seems an over exaggeration. Maybe you could explain to me
> your hysteria over my statement and the hysteria of others. I have asked
> for an explanation many times but the question seems to be swept under
> the carpet. Maybe the explanation would be embarrassing
I've given you the explanation. Your PPC machine is NOT obsolete. Simple.
C Lund
JohnQ <Johnqui...@aol.com> wrote:
> Then maybe you should mind your own business. I never addressed you
> anyway. Since you have no constructive answers dry up and blow away.
You posted on a public forum, so don't whine when you get answers you
don't like.
--
C Lund
Snit
christopher.lund-08...@adsl-065-015-208-084.sip.ilm.bellsout
h.net on 8/20/09 1:34 PM:
Answers to what question?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> Fa-groon stated in post 0001HW.C6B2E5C7000897B1F0184...@news.giganews.com on
> 8/20/09 11:36 AM:
>
> > You bought an obsolete computer and are complaining
> > that the company who made it is, THREE YEARS LATER, stopping support for it.
>
> One: the computer was new when he bought it. Not obsolete.
But he still had information at his disposal, had he bothered to look,
that would have caused him to come to the conclusion that the machine
was, at that he allegedly purchased it, "a product that is fine but
about to be outdated". LOL!
"My dilemma is if I should get what is available now - a product that
is fine
but about to be outdated or if I should wait and get v1 of the next-
big-thing". - Snit
> Two: Apple has not announced dropping support for PPC... but they are not
> supporting PPC *with Snow Leopard*.
Why should they follow in MS's footsteps of selling OSes bloated with
legacy code for years on end?
Chance Furlong
JohnQ <Johnqui...@aol.com> wrote:
> Right one day after the Intel Macs came out the PPC Macs were outdated
> since they coulden't run the same software as the Intel Macs. I question
> why Apple with all its resources couldn't make the PPC foward
> compatable with the Intel Macs or the Intel Macs backward compatable
> with the PPC. Missed the boat here and all us PPC users suffer.
My Quicksilver works fine for me.
JohnQ
computer and expect the company who made it to continue to support it
want to stay with since you can not reconcile both at the same time.
Make it short and simple. If you wrote your thoughts in a clear and
concise manner maybe you would be understood better. I never claimed my
machine was obsolete you did. Maybe if you weren't so hysterical you
wouldn't waffle every post. The only thing I am certain of is that my
to take issue with the word new since others have said it was not a new
machine. Maybe the correct word would be unused. My Power PC is
outdated after only the three years that I have owned it unused. Is
that better fat head.
Snit
2:08 PM:
> On Aug 20, 1:35�pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> Fa-groon stated in post 0001HW.C6B2E5C7000897B1F0184...@news.giganews.com on
>> 8/20/09 11:36 AM:
>>
>>> You bought an obsolete computer and are complaining
>>> that the company who made it is, THREE YEARS LATER, stopping support for it.
>>
>> One: the computer was new when he bought it. �Not obsolete.
>
> But he still had information at his disposal, had he bothered to look,
> that would have caused him to come to the conclusion that the machine
> was, at that he allegedly purchased it, "a product that is fine but
> about to be outdated". LOL!
Then why did you tell me to buy the old model iMac and not the new?
LOL!
Your trolling always comes back to bite you. You simply cannot be
consistent with your goal of just arguing for the sake of arguing.
> "My dilemma is if I should get what is available now - a product that is fine
> but about to be outdated or if I should wait and get v1 of the next-
> big-thing". - Snit
In that context, "outdated" had nothing to do with not having OS support...
I knew a new Mac was coming that would be more capable. And it was. And I
bought it.
And you suggested *against* it.
LOL!
>> Two: Apple has not announced dropping support for PPC... but they are not
>> supporting PPC *with Snow Leopard*.
>
> Why should they follow in MS's footsteps of selling OSes bloated with
> legacy code for years on end?
Who said they should? Not I!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
>>> Total BS., as a hissy fit seems an over exaggeration. Maybe you could
>>> explain to me your hysteria over my statement and the hysteria of others. I
>>> have asked for an explanation many times but the question seems to be swept
>>> under the carpet. Maybe the explanation would be embarrassing
>>>
>> I've given you the explanation. Your PPC machine is NOT obsolete. Simple.
>>
> A couple of posts ago you said, you bought an obsolete computer and expect
> the company who made it to continue to support it forever. Now you are saying
> something different. Which statement do you want to stay with since you can
> not reconcile both at the same time. Make it short and simple. If you wrote
> your thoughts in a clear and concise manner maybe you would be understood
> better. I never claimed my machine was obsolete you did. Maybe if you
> weren't so hysterical you wouldn't waffle every post. The only thing I am
> certain of is that my Power PC is outdated after only the three years that I
> have owned it new. Sorry it drives you to hysterics and bad actions. Do you
> now want to take issue with the word new since others have said it was not a
> new machine. Maybe the correct word would be unused. My Power PC is outdated
> after only the three years that I have owned it unused. Is that better fat
> head.
Just amazing.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Fa-groon
(in article <Tpjjm.178917$vp.1...@newsfe12.iad>):
The part about buying an obsolete computer is YOUR take on the machine. I was
responding to the fact that YOU think that your machine is obsolete (and said
so), not that I think it is.
That it's NOT obsolete is my take on your PPC Mac
JohnQ
insults and statements attributed to me that I never made. The only
question I asked many times now, why would fellow consumers take the
part of a major corporation against a fellow consumer has gone
unanswered. If you paid attention to the thread you would know that I
did not get an answer and am not whining about an answer that I didn't
receive. You have started out on an abrasive tack by stating with
exaggeration I was whining for no reason that I can think of. Have I
insulted you in some way also. If so maybe you can explain your anger to
me. Maybe you can answer the question, why would fellow consumers get
hysterical and take the part of a major corporation against a fellow
consumer. That question has been swept under the rug.
Fa-groon
(in article <mnijm.134869$qx1....@newsfe04.iad>):
Playing with words. Yes, you used the term "outdated" not obsolete. But you
clearly believe that the PPC Mac is obsolete.
> I bought it a year after the Intel switch.
If you did, indeed buy a PPC Mac a YEAR after the switch to Intel, did you
know that the switch had been made? If so why would you buy such a thing? I
bought My G5 Tower almost two years before the Intel switch. If I had bought
it later and knew that Apple was going to change processors, I probably
wouldn't have bought it but would have waited until the Intel Macs came out.
That's only logical.
Are you now claiming that one year old Macs are considered
> obsolete.
From the standpoint of the processor no longer being used in Macs, yes, you
can make a case for that obsoleting the machine. From a standpoint of
usefulness and productivity, no, it's not obsolete. Like I said, it depends
on your definition of obsolete. IOW, while I wouldn't have bought a PPC Mac
after Apple announced that it was changing processor families, I am perfectly
OK, for the time being, with the fact that both my Macs, bought before that
announcement, are PPC Macs.
> If that were the case I would never buy another Mac.
I strongly suggest that you don't.
> Apple
> doesn't need fat head jerks like you to promote their products. Your
> hysteria is incomprehensible.
Well, I'm not hysterical. Just frustrated at trying to explain the
unexplainable to a brick wall who is looking more and more like a troll who:
1- doesn't really own a Mac but who saw the discussions here about Snow
Leopard not supporting PPC machines and the discussion about Adobe dropping
PPC support in CS5 and decided to assume a new sock-puppet and nyme-shift in
order to use this information to denigrate Macs by making up this scenario.
2- #1 is reinforced by your clear lie that you "Need the latest Adobe" for
your work when it's obvious that you don't even know the names of the Adobe
applications that you use and therefore "need" for your work. Not only don't
you know what the Adobe applications are, but you say you need the features
in the upcoming CS5 suite that is rumored to not support PPC Macs, when there
is no way that you could even know what new features these apps will contain
when they are shipped because Adobe hasn't released this information.
3- Several people have asked you to provide the new feature list for the CS5
applications so that we can see what they will have in their suite that they
don't have now, and which you might, ostensibly need in your work. You have
failed to provide this (because, of course, you can't). Which shows that you
are lying.
This leads to the inescapable conclusion that odds are very high that you are
lying about this entire thread.
Fa-groon
(in article <dhijm.106852$8B7....@newsfe20.iad>):
I'd like to know what your definition of hysterics is. Looks to me that any
attempt to set you straight about this subject is viewed by you as hysteria.
Why don't you confront the issues rather than just endlessly repeating your
bullshit claim? I'll tell you why, because you are a troll and you're lying
about this whole thing.
Fa-groon
(in article <T-Bone-DCC1EA....@unlimited.newshosting.com>):
He's lying. He's a troll and he made up this whole thing after reading about
Snow Leopard not supporting PPC Macs and the rumor that Adobe's CS5 won't
support PPC Macs either. His entire story is fishy and lacks enough specifics
to confirm it. He doesn't even know what this next version of "Adobe"
software that he says he needs for "his work" actually is or does!
JohnQ
I never once used the word obsolete. You are the one who introduced that
word to this subject and now you bald face lie about it. You are stupid
and very sad.
Snit
8/20/09 4:02 PM:
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:35:06 -0700, Chance Furlong wrote
> (in article <T-Bone-DCC1EA....@unlimited.newshosting.com>):
>
>> In article <kBbjm.149902$FP2.1...@newsfe05.iad>,
>> JohnQ <Johnqui...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Right one day after the Intel Macs came out the PPC Macs were outdated
>>> since they coulden't run the same software as the Intel Macs. I question
>>> why Apple with all its resources couldn't make the PPC foward
>>> compatable with the Intel Macs or the Intel Macs backward compatable
>>> with the PPC. Missed the boat here and all us PPC users suffer.
>>
>> My Quicksilver works fine for me.
>
> He's lying. He's a troll and he made up this whole thing after reading about
> Snow Leopard not supporting PPC Macs and the rumor that Adobe's CS5 won't
> support PPC Macs either.
Adobe press releases are more than rumor.
> His entire story is fishy and lacks enough specifics
> to confirm it. He doesn't even know what this next version of "Adobe"
> software that he says he needs for "his work" actually is or does!
>
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
JohnQ
fantasy's and lies and scenarios to a very simple statement. Your
strident hysteria is climbing to ever higher levels. You seem to be
getting more and more desperate resorting to ever more lies and fantasy.
Why do you take the part of a major corporation over that of a fellow
computer user. Now you have the nerve to insinuate that I am a liar
when it's clear to everyone reading this thread that it is you who is
the liar not me. You are a stupid lying fat head.
Snit
>> The part about buying an obsolete computer is YOUR take on the machine. I was
>> responding to the fact that YOU think that your machine is obsolete (and said
>> so), not that I think it is.
>> That it's NOT obsolete is my take on your PPC Mac
>>
>
> I never once used the word obsolete. You are the one who introduced that
> word to this subject and now you bald face lie about it. You are stupid
> and very sad.
First use of the word "obsolete" in this thread:
Fa-groon:
-----
> I for one don't like the fact that my Power PC is outdated
> after only the three years that I have owned it new. Total
> BS. Sorry the statement seems to get you tied in knots.
Nobody is tied in knots. You bought an obsolete computer and
are complaining that the company who made it is, THREE YEARS
LATER, stopping support for it. This is YOUR FAULT, not
Apple's. You bought obsolete goods ON PRICE, knowing full
well that at some point, support for the obsolete computer
model is going to go away. That was certain from DAY ONE. You
seem to be tied in knots because you can't get any sympathy
here. Well, you won't.
There's a lesson here - don't buy obsolete equipment because
it's cheaper than the current stuff, but you won't learn THAT
lesson. What you will do is decide never to buy another Mac
because Apple left you in the lurch. Well, they didn't leave
you in the lurch, YOU put yourself in that position and have
no one to blame but yourself.
-----
And then later:
Fa-groon:
-----
You are the one having a hissy fit because you bought an
obsolete computer and expect the company who made it to
continue to support it forever.
-----
I was the next one to use the word:
Snit:
-----
One: the computer was new when he bought it. Not obsolete.
Two: Apple has not announced dropping support for PPC... but
they are not supporting PPC *with Snow Leopard*.
-----
And then you:
JohnQ:
-----
I never said my PPC was obsolete.
-----
In other words, Fa-groon was corrected on his misuse of the word by at least
two people.
But then Fa-goon comes back to:
Fa-groon:
-----
I was responding to the fact that YOU think that your machine
is obsolete (and said so), not that I think it is.
-----
Before we can conclude he is openly lying, let us give him a chance to offer
a correction for his comments.
Fa-groon... will you admit you were wrong?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
JohnQ
Why don't you calm yourself and answer the question, why would a fellow
consumer take the part of a major corporation against a fellow consumer.
You are stupid hysterical like a woman a liar and desperate.
What issues is it you want me to confront, that you are a stupid
desperate hysterical liar. I have no issues but you sure do.
JohnQ
Snit
>>> More hysterics. I for one don't like the fact that my Power PC is
>>> outdated after only the three years that I have owned it new. Total BS.
>>> Sorry the statement seems to get a fat head jerk like you tied in knots.
>>
>> I'd like to know what your definition of hysterics is. Looks to me that any
>> attempt to set you straight about this subject is viewed by you as hysteria.
>> Why don't you confront the issues rather than just endlessly repeating your
>> bullshit claim? I'll tell you why, because you are a troll and you're lying
>> about this whole thing.
>>
>
> Why don't you calm yourself and answer the question, why would a fellow
> consumer take the part of a major corporation against a fellow consumer.
Hey, wait: I can answer that. If I think someone is being unfair or
unreasonable, even if they are a fellow consumer, I will state so. As an
example, there was someone in CSMA a while back making outrageous claims
about OS X and Macs (I shall not say who - they still post). They claimed,
however, the most bizarre and ignorant (and dishonest) of things:
* Problems with his keyboard (somehow OS related?)
* Problems with weird symbols showing up in login fields
(turned out to be the caps lock symbol... the user did
not know what it was!)
* Problems with CD burning
* Problems with Time Machine
* Problems with Batteries
* Problems where he was forced to nym-shift (yes, really,
he was busted nym-shifting and said it was the fault of
his OS and Usenet reader - not his own fault).
I sided, mostly, on Apple with these... the user was an outright moron and
liar.
> You are stupid hysterical like a woman a liar and desperate.
> What issues is it you want me to confront, that you are a stupid
> desperate hysterical liar. I have no issues but you sure do.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
JohnQ
how hysterical and desperate you are. My story is simple once you strip
away the add ons you and your sock puppets have introduced. I said, I
the three years that I have owned it new. Total BS.
over that of a fellow consumer. Why you and your sock puppets refuse to
give an answer does not make sense. Why you and your sock puppets are
in hysteria and tied into knots and desperate to the point of lying and
personal attacks and death threats does not make sense also. By you
repeating your lies insults and cockeyed theories will not alter the
fact you are stupid a liar desperate and hysterical. If you have
nothing else to add dry up and blow away stupid.
John
"JohnQ" <Johnqui...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:kBbjm.149902$FP2.1...@newsfe05.iad...
> Right one day after the Intel Macs came out the PPC Macs were outdated
> since they coulden't run the same software as the Intel Macs. I question
> Missed the boat here and all us PPC users suffer.
What a technically incompetent stupid fuck. Apple did.
Steve Carroll
> 2:08 PM:
>
> > On Aug 20, 1:35 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> Fa-groon stated in post 0001HW.C6B2E5C7000897B1F0184...@news.giganews.com on
> >> 8/20/09 11:36 AM:
>
> >>> You bought an obsolete computer and are complaining
> >>> that the company who made it is, THREE YEARS LATER, stopping support for it.
>
> >> One: the computer was new when he bought it. Not obsolete.
>
> > But he still had information at his disposal, had he bothered to look,
> > that would have caused him to come to the conclusion that the machine
> > was, at that he allegedly purchased it, "a product that is fine but
> > about to be outdated". LOL!
>
> Then why did you tell me to buy the old model iMac and not the new?
I didn't "tell you to buy" anything... I pointed out the reality that
it served your "needs"... something you even agreed with. I
*suggested* the older iMac along with several other suggestions you
have conveniently forgotten (laptop, tower, Winmachines etc.).
> >> Two: Apple has not announced dropping support for PPC... but they are not
> >> supporting PPC *with Snow Leopard*.
>
> > Why should they follow in MS's footsteps of selling OSes bloated with
> > legacy code for years on end?
>
> Who said they should?
That's the gist of what JohnQ has been arguing. He's ticked off that
he can't run an OS that isn't even out yet and won't be considered
stable by serious users for at least one update release after that.
People who *really* do "work" on their computers don't generally
update the OS on the x.0 version.
JohnQ
Stupid liars like him never do they keep on lying and expand their lies
in the attempt to turn lies into truths. He is so tied up in knots he
can't think straight. He is now also a mind reader. He thinks he knows
what I think.
Steve Carroll
Why would he need to admit to being wrong or correct the usage of a
word that means the same thing? What are you sniffing today, Snit;)
out·date (out-dāt')
tr.v. out·dat·ed, out·dat·ing, out·dates
To replace or make obsolete or old-fashioned.
and
out⋅date [out-deyt] Show IPA
–verb (used with object), -dat⋅ed, -dat⋅ing.
to put out of date; make antiquated or obsolete: The advent of the
steamship outdated sailing ships as commercial carriers.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/outdated
The first line of this thread reads:
"Right one day after the Intel Macs came out the PPC Macs were
outdated..."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/6f5c315fe3ae0740?hl=en&dmode=source
Author of that first statement in this thread? JohnQ.
> Stupid liars like him
Said the liar JohnQ.
LOL!
Snit
And, predictably, Steve Carroll will jump in to try to rescue him.
100% predictable.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
5:07 PM:
...
>>>>> You bought an obsolete computer and are complaining
>>>>> that the company who made it is, THREE YEARS LATER, stopping support for
>>>>> it.
>>
>>>> One: the computer was new when he bought it. �Not obsolete.
>>
>>> But he still had information at his disposal, had he bothered to look,
>>> that would have caused him to come to the conclusion that the machine
>>> was, at that he allegedly purchased it, �"a product that is fine but
>>> about to be outdated". LOL!
>>
>> Then why did you tell me to buy the old model iMac and not the new?
>
> I didn't "tell you to buy" anything... I pointed out the reality that
> it served your "needs"... something you even agreed with. I
> *suggested* the older iMac along with several other suggestions you
> have conveniently forgotten (laptop, tower, Winmachines etc.).
In response to my saying I wanted a Mac faster than my G4.
Steve Carroll:
you shouldn't be buying an iMac at all.
But you did not really mean to suggest what I should or should not buy,
right?
Steve Carroll:
You "need" for a Mac doesn't look like a "need" at all.
Steve Carroll:
Teaching, web design and tech work are performed on non-Mac
PCs all the time.
Steve Carroll:
What things are you "teaching" or do you plan to "teach" on
OSX that can *not* be taught on a PC?
But you were not trying to talk me out of meeting my needs with an iMac...
right? And that was with very little time looking for your quotes. Would
have to look for for your BS about how I should not get a 1.0 version of
hardware. Seriously, Steve, must you turn every discussion into a focus on
your past BS?
>>>> Two: Apple has not announced dropping support for PPC... but they are not
>>>> supporting PPC *with Snow Leopard*.
>>
>>> Why should they follow in MS's footsteps of selling OSes bloated with
>>> legacy code for years on end?
>>
>> Who said they should?
>
> That's the gist of what JohnQ has been arguing.
Quote him saying he wants OS X to be bloated. Come on... find the quote!
But you will not.
> He's ticked off that he can't run an OS that isn't even out yet and won't be
> considered stable by serious users for at least one update release after that.
> People who *really* do "work" on their computers don't generally update the OS
> on the x.0 version.
Yet you say he should have used the original Intel *hardware* options.
Do you not realize how much you contradict yourself? I (and anyone who
notes facts about you) should not get new stuff... nor old stuff. Steve
Carroll will not approve!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
(snip)
> In response to my saying I wanted a Mac faster than my G4.
>
> Steve Carroll:
> you shouldn't be buying an iMac at all.
To set your disingenuous attempt here straight, my full statement was:
"The current iMac crop has iSight and runs Windows. My point is... If
speed is
"central" to your "NEEDS" you shouldn't be buying an iMac at all. "
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/fea53d41da5cb151?hl=en&dmode=source
> But you did not really mean to suggest what I should or should not buy,
> right?
Incorrect, as I said earlier, I *did* "suggest" things to you... I
didn't "insist" or "tell" you what to buy... you know, like your two
other previous lies today claimed.
> >>>> Two: Apple has not announced dropping support for PPC... but they are not
> >>>> supporting PPC *with Snow Leopard*.
>
> >>> Why should they follow in MS's footsteps of selling OSes bloated with
> >>> legacy code for years on end?
>
> >> Who said they should?
>
> > That's the gist of what JohnQ has been arguing.
>
> Quote him saying he wants OS X to be bloated. Come on... find the quote!
Quote? LOL! Go borrow someone's thinking cap, Snit;)
If he wants his PPC to continue to be supported in SL, and that
unquestionably lies at the core of his beef, it'll be at the expense
of continuing to have OSX bloated the way it currently is.
> > He's ticked off that he can't run an OS that isn't even out yet and won't be
> > considered stable by serious users for at least one update release after that.
> > People who *really* do "work" on their computers don't generally update the OS
> > on the x.0 version.
>
> Yet you say he should have used the original Intel *hardware* options.
In your delusion.
Snit
6:36 PM:
> If he wants his PPC to continue to be supported in SL, and that
> unquestionably lies at the core of his beef, it'll be at the expense
> of continuing to have OSX bloated the way it currently is.
What features do you think OS X has which are not beneficial? What ones are
detriments?
Are are you just going to play semantic games with your calling OS X
"bloated"?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Fa-groon
(in article <NEkjm.178164$ZN.1...@newsfe23.iad>):
Stop playing with words, Obsolete, outdated, what's the Effen difference? At
least I'm not stupid enough to claim to have bought a PPC Mac A YEAR after
they stopped making them (and then complain about it on a Mac advocacy forum.
Jeez, talk about STUPID!
Fa-groon
(in article <Hlkjm.270691$Ta5.1...@newsfe15.iad>):
The question is stupid, but it WAS answered. Then you made a monumental
booboo and showed yourself to be a troll who has no PPC Mac, and has never
used any Adobe apps.
Fa-groon
(in article <MSkjm.32374$rD6....@newsfe01.iad>):
Yeah, we know. You're blown, troll, get over it.
Snit
8/20/09 7:09 PM:
>>> The part about buying an obsolete computer is YOUR take on the machine. I
>>> was responding to the fact that YOU think that your machine is obsolete (and
>>> said so), not that I think it is. That it's NOT obsolete is my take on your
>>> PPC Mac
>>
>> I never once used the word obsolete. You are the one who introduced that word
>> to this subject and now you bald face lie about it. You are stupid and very
>> sad.
>>
> Stop playing with words, Obsolete, outdated, what's the Effen difference? At
> least I'm not stupid enough to claim to have bought a PPC Mac A YEAR after
> they stopped making them (and then complain about it on a Mac advocacy forum.
> Jeez, talk about STUPID!
If you buy the old computer type you are wrong - it will be
outdated too soon.
If you buy the new computer type you are wrong - it is
untested.
Those who just want to whine about others purchases can use either
argument... and some use both. Utter absurdity. Glad when I purchased my
Mac I did not listen to the CSMA trolls and just bought what would best
serve my needs (as if I would have done anything different!)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Fa-groon
(in article <M_kjm.106871$8B7....@newsfe20.iad>):
Blah-blah-blah. I don't take "the part of a fellow consumer" because you
aren't a fellow consumer. You're an idiot at best and a dishonest liar at
best. Either way, you're wrong.
Fa-groon
(in article <Hdljm.125594$8l4.1...@newsfe10.iad>):
You said that you needed the new "Adobe" for your work. That makes you a
liar. You have been asked to provide a list of the new features that will be
coming out in this "Adobe" that you need so desperately for your work, and
you won't provide it. That confirms that you are are a liar. We already knew
that because NOBODY knows what Adobe is going to include in their next
generation software.
Fa-groon
(in article <Y7idnRZ7GqcZfhDX...@giganews.com>):
He's just another idiot Windows troll making up crap in a failed effort to
discredit the Mac platform. Pay him no mind.
Snit
6:36 PM:
>> In response to my saying I wanted a Mac faster than my G4.
>>
>> � Steve Carroll:
>> � � you shouldn't be buying an iMac at all.
>
> To set your disingenuous attempt here straight, my full statement was: "The
> current iMac crop has iSight and runs Windows. My point is... If speed is
> "central" to your "NEEDS" you shouldn't be buying an iMac at all. "
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/fea53d41da5cb151?hl=e
> n&dmode=source
As I said: you told me that I should not get an iMac at all.
And you were wrong. The machine has served me very well... and it is *much*
faster than my old G4. Not only was speed a big part of my need for a new
machine (though not my only need), the iMac has served that need well. In
fact, it has served my needs better than any other computer I could have
purchased for a similar price. I am very happy with the purchase.
You, not I, get to decide what serves my needs well. The iMac I purchased
then has served my needs well. You were wrong to say I should not buy it.
But you are Steve Carroll... and you will never admit that you were wrong.
Heck, it is questionable if you will even admit you said what you quote
yourself saying - your claim that I should not buy an iMac at all.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Tim Murray
> Tim Murray stated in post 0001HW.C6B2ECD8...@nntp.charter.net
> on 8/20/09 9:06 AM:
>> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:27:13 -0400, JohnQ wrote:
>>> As I said it was a matter of what I could afford. The PPC was touted by
>>> the Apple salesman as the latest technology and would be for many years
>>> to come. The word many is subjective but to me many is not three years
>>> but much longer.
>>
>> yet you allowed a salesperson to talk you into a Ford Pinto that was
>> already on fire. You had about a year after the announcement ... did your
>> computer industry knowledge suddenly improve after you brought your Mac
>> home? I smell bullshit.
>>
>> And if it were a matter of what you could afford, then you're either
>> lying or were patently stupid. Being in a budget and buying an
>> end-of-architecture machine, unless it's in the bargain bin, does not
>> compute.
>>
> Maybe he got the computer he thought would serve his needs best. There is
> a reason Apple was still selling the G5s, even after the Intel machines
> were available.
>
Fine. I got one too, a G4.B But to whine and moan about it? Hey, I was aware
of it. JohnQ was to. Be a man and deal with it.
Tim Murray
> My Power PC is outdated after only the three years that I
> have owned it unused.
Am I tripping? Did I really read that?