Snowball effect??? a new shift?
HUGO DRAX
this Appliance will spur somekind of snowball effect and increase the
Apple marketshare.
Think about it, someone visits a persons home and notices this small
appliance like device and the owner shows off iphoto and all the
different ilife programs, iwork etc.. the different but exotic GUI that
looks more fresher and modern vs Windows XP. This person now visits a
bestbuy and sees the little boxes stacked up on a display like
Whitecastle burgers and decides to bite taking one home for the kids.
and the loop continues.
This could bring about an interesting Paradigm shift for the world of
personal computing, Most folks do not like to tinker around the innards
of a computer or install drivers or play games (XBOX/Gamecube/PS2 sales
attest to this) and to play games at a decent speed = 300-400 dollar
video card (I know my 9800xt cost almost as much as the mini)
So if most regular folk like consoles for games and you do not need a
supercomputer to wordprocess (my cpu on my P4 2.4 always shows 0-1
percent cpu heh) I could see a small console sized product such as the
mini (especially if it is in the shelves of places like bestbuy etc..)
increasing the Applemarket share tremendously.
I think this mini probably represents the next phase of personal
computing.
imout...@mac.com
computing.
I have a friend who's been at Apple since the late 80s, has a massive
amount of options to cash in still, yet *bought* 1000 shares @ $60 just
because he shares this belief with you.
It is odd, since the VIA and Shuttle have been dicking with SFF
computers for a while.
Apple's genius tho is putting in a very capable mid-range* machine in
an *incredibly* small package.
* the 1.4GHz G4 stacks up well against eg. pre-Sonoma Centrino
portables, and its 9200 video card is certainly mid-range too, compared
to the integrated graphics that is standard in SFF.
George Graves
"HUGO DRAX" <hugo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am still waiting for my new Mini as I reported in part I. I wonder if
> this Appliance will spur somekind of snowball effect and increase the
> Apple marketshare.
Not really.
BTW, how's the Moonraker rocket coming? There's some guy from MI5
investigating you, you know.
--
George Graves
------------------
"Windows sucks. There's no doubt about it."
Bill Gates - CES-2005, Las Vegas, Nevada
Snit
1106956318.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com on 1/28/05 4:51 PM:
Apple is generally, though not always, ahead of the curve when it comes to
computers... part of this is that they are small enough to be flexible, but
big enough to make a difference - more of a difference than one would expect
any company with under 5% market share to have.
Some folks, such as Slade, think the Mini will come and go quickly. I am
betting you are more right than he is.
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
Elizabot v2.0.2
Please provide an example of when Apple is not "ahead of the curve."
> part of this is that they are small enough to be flexible, but
> big enough to make a difference - more of a difference than one would expect
> any company with under 5% market share to have.
Please provide an example of this difference wrt 5% market share as
well. I leave it to your discretion. Please make an attempt to be honest.
> Some folks, such as Slade, think the Mini will come and go quickly. I am
> betting you are more right than he is.
>
Please be more specific and clarify to your bet.
TIA.
--
"And if I get a hemorrhoid shaped like your face my proctologist will
contact you (not that I care what you even look like or what gender you
really are)." - Snit 10/11/04
By responding to Elizabot v2.0.2 you implicitly agree to the TOS at:
http://elizabot.spymac.net/
John Slade
"HUGO DRAX" <hugo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106956318.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I am still waiting for my new Mini as I reported in part I. I wonder if
> this Appliance will spur somekind of snowball effect and increase the
> Apple marketshare.
The Mini Mac is no more an appliance than a PC of any size. They all
can plug into the home stereo, TV and radio. They can be used as appliances.
I can watch TV, listen to the radio and record shows on my PC. Can the Mini
Mac do these things? Probably but not well given it's low end and has only
USB and Firewire as expansion.
I just wish these computer "experts" would just drop this myth about
the iMinime being the first "appliance" computer. That ship sailed long ago
on the PC.
John
Nashty
Ignored again, poor Ebot
Nicolas
Snit
kzXKd.17948$wZ2....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com on 1/29/05 7:24 PM:
>
> "HUGO DRAX" <hugo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1106956318.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> I am still waiting for my new Mini as I reported in part I. I wonder if
>> this Appliance will spur somekind of snowball effect and increase the
>> Apple marketshare.
>
> The Mini Mac is no more an appliance than a PC of any size. They all
> can plug into the home stereo, TV and radio. They can be used as appliances.
> I can watch TV, listen to the radio and record shows on my PC. Can the Mini
> Mac do these things? Probably but not well given it's low end and has only
> USB and Firewire as expansion.
What makes the Mini more of an "appliance" is the fact that it can be more
easily moved around and set up... sort of like a VCR.
Appliance can also mean a tool designed to do one thing - and in this case
the Mini is no more of an appliance than the PC, maybe even less so... being
that the Mini runs OS X.
>
> I just wish these computer "experts" would just drop this myth about
> the iMinime being the first "appliance" computer. That ship sailed long ago
> on the PC.
The fact that you do not understand the point these experts makes does not
invalidate the point they make.
--
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/bid1
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
HUGO DRAX
underlying mechanism involved when producing content VS a PC, my
initial experiences with OSX gave me the impression that the whole
package was designed in mind with the human user interface and
abstracting the hardware/software as much as possible VS the PC. This
brings it closer to the Appliance level in any microcomputer that I
have experienced.
C Lund
"John Slade" <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> I just wish these computer "experts" would just drop this myth about
> the iMinime being the first "appliance" computer. That ship sailed long ago
> on the PC.
No, it did not.
> John
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Elizabot v2.0.2
Snit has a nashty habit of ignoring the truth, Nicolai.
--
"It's just Snit. Ignore him." - Travelinman 01/28/2005
Elizabot v2.0.2
> "John Slade" <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote in post
> kzXKd.17948$wZ2....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com on 1/29/05 7:24 PM:
>> I just wish these computer "experts" would just drop this myth about
>>the iMinime being the first "appliance" computer. That ship sailed long ago
>>on the PC.
>
>
> The fact that you do not understand the point these experts makes does not
> invalidate the point they make.
So how many experts does it take to invalidate a point??
300+ law professors??? lol
news
> Snit has a nashty habit of ignoring the truth, Nicolai.
>
At least Snit contributes mac and advocacy and comparison relevant posts
as well as the arguments. Only seem to see lizbot in anti-snit posts.
or have I got long-forgotten filters that are now wearing out and need
renewing?
Andy
Nashty
She's part and parcel of the Snit Circus.
She's a shifty one that Ebot, don't get tangled in her web of BS.
Nicolas
Snit
VC4Ld.221684$Np3.9...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca on 1/30/05 5:42 AM:
Of all the silliness that goes on in CSMA, she is the only person I see to
offer a reasonable assumption of true danger.
At one point she tracked me down to my home city and threatened to contact
my local police with false allegations. In case she actually was going to
carry out her threat, I actually did contact the police.
When this is brought up, she makes a big deal over the fact that I am the
one who actually contacted the police, while she did not. She does not seem
to understand what position her making such a threat placed me in... and she
takes no responsibility for her actions.
Since that time she has tracked me down to my place of employment and made
thinly veiled threats to send lists of lies to my employer. Her ISP
connected me to her local police, and I have reported her actions. I hope
she never actually carries out any of her threats... but I am prepared in
case she does.
Elizabot acts like a rejected pre-teen - now she does almost nothing other
in CSMA than follow me around tossing insults my way, or, sometimes, trying
to pull me into some "trap" by asking some loaded question.
Scary thing is, there are people in CSMA, such as Steve Carroll, who support
her and do not seem to recognize her signs of illness. Even Steve, though,
has never pushed things as far as Elizabot does.
Elizabot v2.0.2
> "Nashty" <n...@nogroupthinkmackook.nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in post
> VC4Ld.221684$Np3.9...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca on 1/30/05 5:42 AM:
>
>
>>news wrote:
>>
>>>Elizabot v2.0.2 said the following on 30/01/2005 06:55 am:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Snit has a nashty habit of ignoring the truth, Nicolai.
>>>>
>>>
>>>At least Snit contributes mac and advocacy and comparison relevant posts
>>>as well as the arguments. Only seem to see lizbot in anti-snit posts.
>>>
>>>or have I got long-forgotten filters that are now wearing out and need
>>>renewing?
>>>
>>>Andy
>>
>>She's part and parcel of the Snit Circus.
>>She's a shifty one that Ebot, don't get tangled in her web of BS.
>
>
> Of all the silliness that goes on in CSMA, she is the only person I see to
> offer a reasonable assumption of true danger.
>
> At one point she tracked me down to my home city
You get this wound up because I did an IP address check on you?? Wow!
> and threatened to contact
> my local police with false allegations.
Liar. I wrote:
"You are very near to crossing the line. I will not hesitate to contact
the Prescott Police Department if you do.
And that's a promise."
and you totally freaked out.
> In case she actually was going to
> carry out her threat, I actually did contact the police.
I see you have no evidence for this claim of yours.
> When this is brought up, she makes a big deal over the fact that I am the
> one who actually contacted the police, while she did not. She does not seem
> to understand what position her making such a threat placed me in... and she
> takes no responsibility for her actions.
You clearly overreacted.
> Since that time she has tracked me down to my place of employment
You had your place of employment on your webpage and I made references
to it. You have also posted web pages from another place that you have
worked at in this newsgroup.
Hardly any detective work.
> and made
> thinly veiled threats to send lists of lies to my employer.
Another lie.
I wrote:
"I would not be upset if someone anonymously sent the following truths
to your place(s) of work:"
And listed your filthy sigmond stuff.
> Her ISP
> connected me to her local police, and I have reported her actions.
I see you have no evidence for this claim of yours.
> I hope
> she never actually carries out any of her threats... but I am prepared in
> case she does.
Whatever.
> Elizabot acts like a rejected pre-teen - now she does almost nothing other
> in CSMA than follow me around tossing insults my way, or, sometimes, trying
> to pull me into some "trap" by asking some loaded question.
There you go again. You are simply upset because I show so many of your
lies. Including the ones above.
> Scary thing is, there are people in CSMA, such as Steve Carroll, who support
> her and do not seem to recognize her signs of illness. Even Steve, though,
> has never pushed things as far as Elizabot does.
Blah blah blah. You are simply lying and making empty claims.
I must have really gotten under your skin.
Remember this one, Snit?
"... I am going to stick
to my decision that she is not someone I should be talking to..."
You just can't control yourself, can you.
Steve Carroll
"Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote:
> Snit wrote:
> > "Nashty" <n...@nogroupthinkmackook.nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in post
> > VC4Ld.221684$Np3.9...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca on 1/30/05 5:42 AM:
> >
> >
> >>news wrote:
> >>
> >>>Elizabot v2.0.2 said the following on 30/01/2005 06:55 am:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Snit has a nashty habit of ignoring the truth, Nicolai.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>At least Snit contributes mac and advocacy and comparison relevant posts
> >>>as well as the arguments. Only seem to see lizbot in anti-snit posts.
> >>>
> >>>or have I got long-forgotten filters that are now wearing out and need
> >>>renewing?
> >>>
> >>>Andy
> >>
> >>She's part and parcel of the Snit Circus.
> >>She's a shifty one that Ebot, don't get tangled in her web of BS.
> >
> >
> > Of all the silliness that goes on in CSMA, she is the only person I see to
> > offer a reasonable assumption of true danger.
> >
> > At one point she tracked me down to my home city
>
> You get this wound up because I did an IP address check on you?? Wow!
I think it's time for Snit to switch back to Testors... that cheap glue
just ain't cuttin' it.
> > and threatened to contact
> > my local police with false allegations.
>
> Liar.
Of course he's lying... this IS snit, after all.
> I wrote:
>
> "You are very near to crossing the line. I will not hesitate to contact
> the Prescott Police Department if you do.
> And that's a promise."
>
> and you totally freaked out.
And reality shows that's not even a threat... it's a statement of what
you will do if you feel he crosses the line. If he doesn't actually
cross any lines, he has nothing to fear, does he? Simple concept, really.
>
> > In case she actually was going to
> > carry out her threat, I actually did contact the police.
>
> I see you have no evidence for this claim of yours.
Nope, this doesn't differ from anything else he claims in that respect.
> > When this is brought up, she makes a big deal over the fact that I am the
> > one who actually contacted the police, while she did not. She does not seem
> > to understand what position her making such a threat placed me in... and she
> > takes no responsibility for her actions.
>
> You clearly overreacted.
In an attempt to turn the tables... didn't work, though:)
> > Since that time she has tracked me down to my place of employment
>
> You had your place of employment on your webpage and I made references
> to it. You have also posted web pages from another place that you have
> worked at in this newsgroup.
>
> Hardly any detective work.
>
> > and made
> > thinly veiled threats to send lists of lies to my employer.
>
> Another lie.
>
> I wrote:
>
> "I would not be upset if someone anonymously sent the following truths
> to your place(s) of work:"
>
> And listed your filthy sigmond stuff.
Well, if Snit hadn't crossed that line he'd have no problem. He clearly
tried to turn the tables on you. Pretty typical of people that do the
shit he does. I told him he should get his money back on his psychology
degree...
> > Her ISP
> > connected me to her local police, and I have reported her actions.
>
> I see you have no evidence for this claim of yours.
>
> > I hope
> > she never actually carries out any of her threats... but I am prepared in
> > case she does.
>
> Whatever.
>
> > Elizabot acts like a rejected pre-teen - now she does almost nothing other
> > in CSMA than follow me around tossing insults my way, or, sometimes, trying
> > to pull me into some "trap" by asking some loaded question.
>
> There you go again. You are simply upset because I show so many of your
> lies. Including the ones above.
>
> > Scary thing is, there are people in CSMA, such as Steve Carroll,
(This part to Snit)
... who warned you to not cross the line that you crossed:
"FWIW, I think your cop is wrong here. You might want to talk to a
lawyer... and no matter WHAT happens.. tell your wife BEFORE it gets
out of hand. I've seen this stuff escalate on basically the same type of
text and it ruined a marriage. In any event, good idea to cool it:)"
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/a942bf06035
57622
Reality shows that I gave you a friendly warning to cool it because I
believed, as did others who warned you at the time, that you were very
likely crossing a line with your harassment of Elizabot based on her
gender. Some call this activity sexual harassment and it appears to me
that you're still doing it.
Snit
Scary thing is, there are people in CSMA, such as Steve Carroll, who
support her and do not seem to recognize her signs of illness. Even
Steve, though, has never pushed things as far as Elizabot does.
Elizabot is likely a very sick woman with the emotional maturity of a
pre-teen. She does not have the capacity to understand what danger her
threats make her. Her even suggesting one would call the police and make up
false stories of sexual harassment is a sign that she is not emotionally
mature - esp. being that she has never accepted responsibility for doing so.
To make matters worse, she threatened to send her lies to my place of
employment. Again, she does not understand what this says about her.
Then again, you do not understand what it says about her, either. You may
hold whatever opinion you like, but keep in mind that I am the one who has
shown the conversations in question to legal authorities. They do not side
with you. Now will they. My pointing out that, in my view, Elizabot acts
like a pre-teen with an immature crush is in no way sexual harassment. And
her actions of late only support my claim.
I am not sure you have the ability to understand what I just wrote, Steve,
but I wish you the best in your attempt. I find it more likely that you
will just use it as another one of your excuses to troll.
"Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in post
noone-066228....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 1/30/05 12:33 PM:
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> For some reason
... this thread is starting to smell like stale popcorn and elephant
dung. Is that a clown dipping his head into a paper bag over there?
Elizabot v2.0.2
> For some reason Steve snipped this part:
>
> Scary thing is, there are people in CSMA, such as Steve Carroll, who
> support her and do not seem to recognize her signs of illness. Even
> Steve, though, has never pushed things as far as Elizabot does.
>
> Elizabot is likely a very sick woman with the emotional maturity of a
> pre-teen.
There you go again with your fantasies about me being a preteen and your
smear campaign of lies. You are a sick person, Snit.
> She does not have the capacity to understand what danger her
> threats make her. Her even suggesting one would call the police and make up
> false stories of sexual harassment is a sign that she is not emotionally
> mature - esp. being that she has never accepted responsibility for doing so.
Another lie.
Where did I *ever* say that I was going to press sexual harrassment
charges? Answer: I didn't.
> To make matters worse, she threatened to send her lies to my place of
> employment. Again, she does not understand what this says about her.
I already countered this lie of your, but that does not stop you from
repeating it. Don't you ever get tired of telling your lies? Apparently
not. You are an angry bitter little troll, Snit.
I wrote:
"I would not be upset if someone anonymously sent the following truths
to your place(s) of work:"
And listed your filthy sigmond stuff.
> Then again, you do not understand what it says about her, either. You may
> hold whatever opinion you like, but keep in mind that I am the one who has
> shown the conversations in question to legal authorities.
You mean you showed them your lies about me.
You are a sick wacko.
> They do not side
> with you. Now will they.
And what did they suggest you do, Snit??
> My pointing out that, in my view, Elizabot acts
> like a pre-teen with an immature crush is in no way sexual harassment.
Again with your fantasies about me being a pre-teen with a crush on you.
Seek help, Snit.
> And
> her actions of late only support my claim.
Poor little troll Snit. All wound up again.
> I am not sure you have the ability to understand what I just wrote, Steve,
> but I wish you the best in your attempt. I find it more likely that you
> will just use it as another one of your excuses to troll.
You are the one trolling here with your lies, Snit.
--
"And if I get a hemorrhoid shaped like your face my proctologist will
contact you (not that I care what you even look like or what gender you
really are)." - Snit 10/11/04
By responding to Elizabot v2.0.2 you implicitly agree to the TOS at:
http://elizabot.spymac.net/
Snit
dishonest snipping. Since you continue your dishonest snipping in the post,
below, I have chosen to do no more than top post this information.
Hopefully you will eventually learn to be honest, and we can have an actual
conversation.
Here is what you, Steve, dishonestly snipped:
----------
For some reason Steve snipped this part:
Scary thing is, there are people in CSMA, such as Steve Carroll, who
support her and do not seem to recognize her signs of illness. Even
Steve, though, has never pushed things as far as Elizabot does.
Elizabot is likely a very sick woman with the emotional maturity of a
pre-teen. She does not have the capacity to understand what danger her
threats make her. Her even suggesting one would call the police and make up
false stories of sexual harassment is a sign that she is not emotionally
mature - esp. being that she has never accepted responsibility for doing so.
To make matters worse, she threatened to send her lies to my place of
employment. Again, she does not understand what this says about her.
Then again, you do not understand what it says about her, either. You may
hold whatever opinion you like, but keep in mind that I am the one who has
shown the conversations in question to legal authorities. They do not side
with you. Now will they. My pointing out that, in my view, Elizabot acts
like a pre-teen with an immature crush is in no way sexual harassment. And
her actions of late only support my claim.
I am not sure you have the ability to understand what I just wrote, Steve,
but I wish you the best in your attempt. I find it more likely that you
will just use it as another one of your excuses to troll.
----------
And, as predicted, you are using the above as a reason to troll... there is
no reason to think you have the capacity to understand what I wrote.
"Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in post
noone-1FFEA4....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 1/30/05 12:51 PM:
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
Elizabot v2.0.2
> If you want me to respond to the content of your posts, you will stop your
> dishonest snipping. Since you continue your dishonest snipping in the post,
> below, I have chosen to do no more than top post this information.
>
> Hopefully you will eventually learn to be honest, and we can have an actual
> conversation.
>
> Here is what you, Steve, dishonestly snipped:
He snipped your lies, Snit. Repeating them will not make them true.
<reinsert my reply>
Snit wrote:
> For some reason Steve snipped this part:
>
> Scary thing is, there are people in CSMA, such as Steve Carroll, who
> support her and do not seem to recognize her signs of illness. Even
> Steve, though, has never pushed things as far as Elizabot does.
>
> Elizabot is likely a very sick woman with the emotional maturity of a
> pre-teen.
There you go again with your fantasies about me being a preteen and your
smear campaign of lies. You are a sick person, Snit.
> She does not have the capacity to understand what danger her
> threats make her. Her even suggesting one would call the police and
make up
> false stories of sexual harassment is a sign that she is not emotionally
> mature - esp. being that she has never accepted responsibility for
doing so.
Another lie.
Where did I *ever* say that I was going to press sexual harrassment
charges? Answer: I didn't.
> To make matters worse, she threatened to send her lies to my place of
> employment. Again, she does not understand what this says about her.
I already countered this lie of your, but that does not stop you from
repeating it. Don't you ever get tired of telling your lies? Apparently
not. You are an angry bitter little troll, Snit.
I wrote:
"I would not be upset if someone anonymously sent the following truths
to your place(s) of work:"
And listed your filthy sigmond stuff.
> Then again, you do not understand what it says about her, either.
You may
> hold whatever opinion you like, but keep in mind that I am the one
who has
> shown the conversations in question to legal authorities.
You mean you showed them your lies about me.
You are a sick wacko.
> They do not side
> with you. Now will they.
And what did they suggest you do, Snit??
> My pointing out that, in my view, Elizabot acts
> like a pre-teen with an immature crush is in no way sexual harassment.
Again with your fantasies about me being a pre-teen with a crush on you.
Seek help, Snit.
> And
> her actions of late only support my claim.
Poor little troll Snit. All wound up again.
> I am not sure you have the ability to understand what I just wrote,
Steve,
> but I wish you the best in your attempt. I find it more likely that you
> will just use it as another one of your excuses to troll.
You are the one trolling here with your lies, Snit.
--
"And if I get a hemorrhoid shaped like your face my proctologist will
contact you (not that I care what you even look like or what gender you
really are)." - Snit 10/11/04
By responding to Elizabot v2.0.2 you implicitly agree to the TOS at:
http://elizabot.spymac.net/
--
"And if I get a hemorrhoid shaped like your face my proctologist will
contact you (not that I care what you even look like or what gender you
really are)." - Snit 10/11/04
By responding to Elizabot v2.0.2 you implicitly agree to the TOS at:
http://elizabot.spymac.net/
Elizabot v2.0.2
> In article <BE228718.1E1B1%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>
>>For some reason
>
>
> ... this thread is starting to smell like stale popcorn and elephant
> dung. Is that a clown dipping his head into a paper bag over there?
Seriously.
It never ceases to amaze me how easily Snit falls into playing the
victim role, and how easily he repeats the same old tired lies about me.
This entire "police" business began after *Snit* started a thread which
had the sole intent to belittle me, paint me up as a little girl with a
crush on her teacher, and to bully me.
I will continue to point out his lies and vicious personal attacks for
what they really are. The abusive bully Snit can not silence me.
--
"And if I get a hemorrhoid shaped like your face my proctologist will
contact you (not that I care what you even look like or what gender you
really are)." - Snit 10/11/04
By responding to Elizabot v2.0.2 you implicitly agree to the TOS at:
http://elizabot.spymac.net/
John Slade
"C Lund" <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote in message
news:clund-5B798F....@amstwist00.chello.com...
> In article <kzXKd.17948$wZ2....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
> "John Slade" <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > I just wish these computer "experts" would just drop this myth about
> > the iMinime being the first "appliance" computer. That ship sailed long
ago
> > on the PC.
>
> No, it did not.
The PC became an appliance when people felt they NEEDED it rather than
WANTED it. When the computer became a neccesity for a family rather than a
luxury, it became an appliance. I don't know many people who don't have
computers now. When I started, a home computer was rare. However I don't
expect you to see the logic in this. You're just bitter for some reason.
John
John Slade
The PC became an appliance when everyone decided they needed a home
computer rather than wanting one as a luxury. When I started on computers it
was rare for a person to have one at home. Now just about everyone has a
computer at home. Everyone I know has an email address. The Mini Mac doesn't
do anything special. You cite Mac OS X as the reason to call it an
appliance. Well OS X has been out for quite a while. Hardware/software
integration was done well on a number of machines including the Mac long
before the Mini Mac was even thought of. The ONLY two things that are
different about the Mini Mac is it's size and price. Though the Mini Mac has
less power, it does not function differently than a G5 tower.
I remember when the iMac came out. Some said that was the first
"appliance computer" too. They were both wrong.
John
Elizabot v2.0.2
> In article <41fd1d36$0$203$7586...@news.frii.net>,
> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote:
>
>
>>You get this wound up because I did an IP address check on you?? Wow!
>
>
> I think it's time for Snit to switch back to Testors... that cheap glue
> just ain't cuttin' it.
I understand that Snit would be embarrassed about not knowing how to do
a simple IP check with arin.net, but the way he handled his
embarrassment is not acceptable. It would be nice if he would be honest
and simply admit that he didn't know about arin. But then that's not the
way Snit works. He has to blow everything out of proportion and pretend
that I "tracked him down" or whatever.
>
>
>>>and threatened to contact
>>>my local police with false allegations.
>>
>>Liar.
>
>
> Of course he's lying... this IS snit, after all.
Yep.
>
>>I wrote:
>>
>>"You are very near to crossing the line. I will not hesitate to contact
>>the Prescott Police Department if you do.
>>And that's a promise."
>>
>>and you totally freaked out.
>
>
>
> And reality shows that's not even a threat... it's a statement of what
> you will do if you feel he crosses the line. If he doesn't actually
> cross any lines, he has nothing to fear, does he? Simple concept, really.
Very simply. But since Snit gets so easily excited.
>
>>>In case she actually was going to
>>>carry out her threat, I actually did contact the police.
>>
>>I see you have no evidence for this claim of yours.
>
>
> Nope, this doesn't differ from anything else he claims in that respect.
>
>
>>>When this is brought up, she makes a big deal over the fact that I am the
>>>one who actually contacted the police, while she did not. She does not seem
>>>to understand what position her making such a threat placed me in... and she
>>>takes no responsibility for her actions.
>>
>>You clearly overreacted.
>
>
> In an attempt to turn the tables... didn't work, though:)
I don't think realizes how easy it is to point out his lies.
>>>Since that time she has tracked me down to my place of employment
>>
>>You had your place of employment on your webpage and I made references
>>to it. You have also posted web pages from another place that you have
>>worked at in this newsgroup.
>>
>>Hardly any detective work.
>>
>>
>>>and made
>>>thinly veiled threats to send lists of lies to my employer.
>>
>>Another lie.
>>
>>I wrote:
>>
>>"I would not be upset if someone anonymously sent the following truths
>>to your place(s) of work:"
>>
>>And listed your filthy sigmond stuff.
>
>
> Well, if Snit hadn't crossed that line he'd have no problem. He clearly
> tried to turn the tables on you. Pretty typical of people that do the
> shit he does. I told him he should get his money back on his psychology
> degree...
True. I've heard that many people who have mental problems take
psychology in order to try and understand themselves better. Either that
or so they can rationalize their own actions better - i.e. not take
responsibility for them. It is clear to me that Snit falls into the
latter category.
<snip>
--
"And if I get a hemorrhoid shaped like your face my proctologist will
contact you (not that I care what you even look like or what gender you
really are)." - Snit 10/11/04
By responding to Elizabot v2.0.2 you implicitly agree to the TOS at:
http://elizabot.spymac.net/
C Lund
"John Slade" <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> The PC became an appliance when people felt they NEEDED it rather than
> WANTED it. When the computer became a neccesity for a family rather than a
> luxury, it became an appliance.
The PC will become an appliance when it "just works". The minimac is
already there. Maybe Windows PCs will catch up in some future day.
> I don't know many people who don't have
> computers now. When I started, a home computer was rare.
That makes two of us. BFD.
> However I don't
> expect you to see the logic in this. You're just bitter for some reason.
I'm not the one reaching for sour grapes, slade.
Snit
clund-9D424B....@amstwist00.chello.com on 1/30/05 2:44 PM:
> In article <5zbLd.18127$wZ2....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
> "John Slade" <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> The PC became an appliance when people felt they NEEDED it rather than
>> WANTED it. When the computer became a neccesity for a family rather than a
>> luxury, it became an appliance.
>
> The PC will become an appliance when it "just works". The minimac is
> already there. Maybe Windows PCs will catch up in some future day.
I have been hearing that for many years... first with Win 95... or even Win
3.1.
Now we are hearing that Windows will catch up to Mac when Longhorn comes
out.
Maybe, but I am not holding my breath.
As long as Windows still has a registry anything like what it now has, I
simply can not take the OS seriously.
Tim Adams
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> In article <BE228718.1E1B1%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
> > For some reason
>
> ... this thread is starting to smell like stale popcorn and elephant
> dung. Is that a clown dipping his head into a paper bag over there?
>
All of snit's posts smell like stale popcorn and elephant dung.
~snip
--
Tim
Snit
teadams$2$0$0$3-40DC4A.17...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 1/30/05
3:55 PM:
How many people assign smells to different things on their computers?
There is a name for that form of schizophrenia...
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> If you want me to respond to the content of your posts, you will stop your
> dishonest snipping. Since you continue your dishonest snipping in the post,
> below, I have chosen to do no more than top post this information.
>
> Hopefully you will eventually learn to be honest, and we can have an actual
> conversation.
>
> Here is what you, Steve, dishonestly snipped:
Snipping away your delusions because there is no point in getting
tangled up in them with you is a good thing.
> ----------
>
> For some reason Steve snipped this part:
>
> Scary thing is, there are people in CSMA, such as Steve Carroll, who
> support her and do not seem to recognize her signs of illness. Even
> Steve, though, has never pushed things as far as Elizabot does.
>
> Elizabot is likely a very sick woman with the emotional maturity of a
> pre-teen. She does not have the capacity to understand what danger her
> threats make her. Her even suggesting one would call the police and make up
> false stories of sexual harassment is a sign that she is not emotionally
> mature - esp. being that she has never accepted responsibility for doing so.
Being that she never did so (and I happen to know you are lying about
this), why would she? Or did it just 'seem' to YOU that she did? Is this
another of your bullshit scenarios where you create a delusion and try
to shove responsibility onto someone for your delusional creation? The
reality is that YOU are the offending party here. Whatever your
reasons, you made a pretty crass webpage and all sorts of harassing
remarks to Elizabot when confronted over it, you must deal with the
reality of having done that. Trying to turn the tables and pretend that
she is the one with the problem isn't fooling anyone. You said the cops
told you not to bother with her, didn't you? You have stated you would
no longer converse with her, didn't you? You are still doing so, aren't
you? Several people in this NG, myself included, gave you some advice
you won't heed, didn't they? You obviously cannot stop yourself from
continuing along a path that you yourself have called dangerous. See how
ridiculous your position sounds when shown in the light of reality?
> To make matters worse, she threatened to send her lies to my place of
> employment. Again, she does not understand what this says about her.
>
> Then again, you do not understand what it says about her, either.
One little problem... you are the one who went to the cops... (or claims
he did). Do you have any idea what that says about you?
> You may
> hold whatever opinion you like, but keep in mind that I am the one who has
> shown the conversations in question to legal authorities. They do not side
> with you.
Providing you did go and speak with them, we have no idea what sort of
lies you may have told them or what portions you simply left out. Why
not tell me the name of the officer you spoke to and give me his contact
info? I'll contact him to see if you are telling the truth. You should
have no problem with that, right? You're publicly telling the NG you've
already done it, so it shouldn't be a big deal. Of course, if you went
in and told a pack of lies I could see why you wouldn't want anyone
talking to them. My money says you didn't ever go and you're playing a
REALLY weak game of bluff... a game where only you stand to lose
anything.
> Now will they. My pointing out that, in my view, Elizabot acts
> like a pre-teen with an immature crush is in no way sexual harassment. And
> her actions of late only support my claim.
>
> I am not sure you have the ability to understand what I just wrote, Steve,
> but I wish you the best in your attempt. I find it more likely that you
> will just use it as another one of your excuses to troll.
>
> ----------
>
> And, as predicted, you are using the above as a reason to troll... there is
> no reason to think you have the capacity to understand what I wrote.
I understand exactly what you wrote... I just don't believe any of it...
nor do I have any reason to. Maybe you should take a poll and see if
others believe you.
Snit
> In article <BE228ADD.1E1BB%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> If you want me to respond to the content of your posts, you will stop your
>> dishonest snipping. Since you continue your dishonest snipping in the post,
>> below, I have chosen to do no more than top post this information.
>>
>> Hopefully you will eventually learn to be honest, and we can have an actual
>> conversation.
>>
>> Here is what you, Steve, dishonestly snipped:
>
>
> Snipping away your delusions because there is no point in getting
> tangled up in them with you is a good thing.
You start with insults... and no support. This is about the best you ever
do.
Here are your trolling techniques:
You dishonestly snip
You use "translation" trolling where you pretend someone said something
they did not
You lie... and pile lies on top of each other to try to hide your first
lie
You refuse to answer questions that would make you look bad
You play semantic games
You make accusations of drug use when you are backed into a corner
You play the "I don't believe you game" when the facts are not in your
favor
Here are some example of you doing just that:
You have argued that logical proofs do not make sense to you because
there is no mathematical representation of the burden of proof.
You have repeated run to accusations of drug use when your are
humiliated
You have shown bigotry toward gays (calling those with kids "parasites")
and have shown bigotry against those who talk about health problems
You have claimed that only people who are actually guilty are ever found
guilty in courts.
You have insisted that you were able to correctly define words *even if*
every dictionary we could find disagreed with you.
Somehow your view of reality and your pretending that you do not believe me
holds no water.
Hey, I do not like it when people make accusations against me without
support... do you need me to support *any* of those accusations? All easy
to do, Steve... though you will deny the evidence (in the form of direct
quotes from you!) and create a circus.
For the record, as you have been told before - I was not, and did not, talk
to her until I was assured that if she did make the false allegation she
threatened to that it would not have any legal affect on me.
You can try to twist things all you want, but the fact is you are defending
Elizabot - someone who is posting solely about, and mostly to, me... someone
who seems to have the emotional capacity of a pre-teen... and she does seem
very much to have a crush on me... or did, and now wants revenge for the way
I did not return her feelings.
You are not helping her to support he with that. You are not helping
yourself, either.
>
>
>> To make matters worse, she threatened to send her lies to my place of
>> employment. Again, she does not understand what this says about her.
>>
>> Then again, you do not understand what it says about her, either.
>
>
> One little problem... you are the one who went to the cops... (or claims
> he did). Do you have any idea what that says about you?
Yes. It says if someone threatens me to go to the police and report false
allegations I will not wait for them to do so before I act. It refutes your
claim that I sit around like a victim, just whining. When someone does do
something as outrageous as she did, I act.
>
>> You may hold whatever opinion you like, but keep in mind that I am the one
>> who has shown the conversations in question to legal authorities. They do
>> not side with you.
>>
>
> Providing you did go and speak with them, we have no idea what sort of
> lies you may have told them or what portions you simply left out. Why
> not tell me the name of the officer you spoke to and give me his contact
> info? I'll contact him to see if you are telling the truth. You should
> have no problem with that, right? You're publicly telling the NG you've
> already done it, so it shouldn't be a big deal. Of course, if you went
> in and told a pack of lies I could see why you wouldn't want anyone
> talking to them. My money says you didn't ever go and you're playing a
> REALLY weak game of bluff... a game where only you stand to lose
> anything.
Ahhh, the ol' "I don't believe you so there" defense. Clever, Steve... real
freakin' clever.
Bury your head in the sand... it is the only way you can continue to support
someone as immature and potentially dangerous as Elizabot.
>
>> Now will they. My pointing out that, in my view, Elizabot acts
>> like a pre-teen with an immature crush is in no way sexual harassment. And
>> her actions of late only support my claim.
>>
>> I am not sure you have the ability to understand what I just wrote, Steve,
>> but I wish you the best in your attempt. I find it more likely that you
>> will just use it as another one of your excuses to troll.
>>
>> ----------
>>
>> And, as predicted, you are using the above as a reason to troll... there is
>> no reason to think you have the capacity to understand what I wrote.
>
>
> I understand exactly what you wrote... I just don't believe any of it...
> nor do I have any reason to. Maybe you should take a poll and see if
> others believe you.
More of your ostrich defense. Clever, Steve... about as clever as you ever
get.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in post
> noone-39DC71....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 1/30/05 4:21 PM:
>
> > In article <BE228ADD.1E1BB%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> If you want me to respond to the content of your posts, you will stop your
> >> dishonest snipping. Since you continue your dishonest snipping in the
> >> post,
> >> below, I have chosen to do no more than top post this information.
> >>
> >> Hopefully you will eventually learn to be honest, and we can have an
> >> actual
> >> conversation.
> >>
> >> Here is what you, Steve, dishonestly snipped:
> >
> >
> > Snipping away your delusions because there is no point in getting
> > tangled up in them with you is a good thing.
>
> You start with insults... and no support.
Who is asking for support that just posted another of your delusions,
you? Why would you expect yourself to be unbiased while looking at such
support against the delusional cretin that is you? This makes sense to
you? Geez... no wonder you often post such silly shit.
(elephant dung snipped)
> Somehow your view of reality and your pretending that you do not believe me
> holds no water.
When the container for that water belongs to you I'm not too terribly
bothered.
(stale popcorn snipped)
> > Being that she never did so (and I happen to know you are lying about
> > this), why would she? Or did it just 'seem' to YOU that she did? Is this
> > another of your bullshit scenarios where you create a delusion and try
> > to shove responsibility onto someone for your delusional creation? The
> > reality is that YOU are the offending party here. Whatever your
> > reasons, you made a pretty crass webpage and all sorts of harassing
> > remarks to Elizabot when confronted over it, you must deal with the
> > reality of having done that. Trying to turn the tables and pretend that
> > she is the one with the problem isn't fooling anyone. You said the cops
> > told you not to bother with her, didn't you? You have stated you would
> > no longer converse with her, didn't you? You are still doing so, aren't
> > you? Several people in this NG, myself included, gave you some advice
> > you won't heed, didn't they? You obviously cannot stop yourself from
> > continuing along a path that you yourself have called dangerous. See how
> > ridiculous your position sounds when shown in the light of reality?
>
> For the record, as you have been told before - I was not, and did not, talk
> to her until I was assured that if she did make the false allegation she
> threatened to that it would not have any legal affect on me.
Sorry, anyone who saw any of the crap between you two knows this is an
outright lie.
> You can try to twist things all you want, but the fact is you are defending
> Elizabot - someone who is posting solely about, and mostly to, me... someone
> who seems to have the emotional capacity of a pre-teen... and she does seem
> very much to have a crush on me... or did, and now wants revenge for the way
> I did not return her feelings.
>
> You are not helping her to support he with that. You are not helping
> yourself, either.
To the contrary, you're not helping yourself. You're doing what you
claim to abhor... you're making claims and offering no support. You're
making the same tired claims that you know are false, therefore... you
are lying... again.
> >
> >> To make matters worse, she threatened to send her lies to my place of
> >> employment. Again, she does not understand what this says about her.
> >>
> >> Then again, you do not understand what it says about her, either.
> >
> >
> > One little problem... you are the one who went to the cops... (or claims
> > he did). Do you have any idea what that says about you?
>
> Yes. It says if someone threatens me to go to the police and report false
> allegations I will not wait for them to do so before I act. It refutes your
> claim that I sit around like a victim, just whining. When someone does do
> something as outrageous as she did, I act.
Pull your head out of the bag for a minute... perhaps you're not yet too
far gone to realize you have never shown any of this happened.
> >> You may hold whatever opinion you like, but keep in mind that I am the one
> >> who has shown the conversations in question to legal authorities. They do
> >> not side with you.
> >>
> >
> > Providing you did go and speak with them, we have no idea what sort of
> > lies you may have told them or what portions you simply left out. Why
> > not tell me the name of the officer you spoke to and give me his contact
> > info? I'll contact him to see if you are telling the truth. You should
> > have no problem with that, right? You're publicly telling the NG you've
> > already done it, so it shouldn't be a big deal. Of course, if you went
> > in and told a pack of lies I could see why you wouldn't want anyone
> > talking to them. My money says you didn't ever go and you're playing a
> > REALLY weak game of bluff... a game where only you stand to lose
> > anything.
>
> Ahhh, the ol' "I don't believe you so there" defense.
No... it works like this...
1 - you make a claim
2 - you support that claim.
You've completed step 1... numerous times... you've failed step 2.
> Clever, Steve... real
> freakin' clever.
>
> Bury your head in the sand... it is the only way you can continue to support
> someone as immature and potentially dangerous as Elizabot.
I still see no support, Snit. If you have something that is real, you
should provide it now... but we both know you can't because there isn't
anything to provide.
> >> Now will they. My pointing out that, in my view, Elizabot acts
> >> like a pre-teen with an immature crush is in no way sexual harassment.
> >> And
> >> her actions of late only support my claim.
> >>
> >> I am not sure you have the ability to understand what I just wrote, Steve,
> >> but I wish you the best in your attempt. I find it more likely that you
> >> will just use it as another one of your excuses to troll.
> >>
> >> ----------
> >>
> >> And, as predicted, you are using the above as a reason to troll... there
> >> is
> >> no reason to think you have the capacity to understand what I wrote.
> >
> >
> > I understand exactly what you wrote... I just don't believe any of it...
> > nor do I have any reason to. Maybe you should take a poll and see if
> > others believe you.
>
> More of your ostrich defense. Clever, Steve... about as clever as you ever
> get.
Do you think all this blathering obscures the fact that you still
haven't offered support for your claim?
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-40DC4A.17...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 1/30/05
> 3:55 PM:
>
> > In article <noone-1FFEA4....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> > Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <BE228718.1E1B1%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> >> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>
> >>> For some reason
> >>
> >> ... this thread is starting to smell like stale popcorn and elephant
> >> dung. Is that a clown dipping his head into a paper bag over there?
> >>
> >
> > All of snit's posts smell like stale popcorn and elephant dung.
>
~snipped snits elephant dung
--
Tim
John Slade
"C Lund" <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote in message
> In article <5zbLd.18127$wZ2....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
> "John Slade" <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > The PC became an appliance when people felt they NEEDED it rather
than
> > WANTED it. When the computer became a neccesity for a family rather than
a
> > luxury, it became an appliance.
>
> The PC will become an appliance when it "just works". The minimac is
> already there. Maybe Windows PCs will catch up in some future day.
But many PCs have "just worked" right out of the box for decades. By
your criteria, the Amiga was the first appliance computer. The Amiga 600 was
cheap, came with a graphical user interface and plgged right into the TV. It
was not that big either. It even had a keyboard. It came out in 1992. You
see when you say "just works" it doesn't just apply to the Mac. Many
computers "just work". The only thing you're saying is that because you like
OS X, that's the only criteria needed for it to be an appliance. That might
work for some folk who are brainwashed to think the Mac is superior. However
it doesn't fly to people who look at it objectively. I suggest you look up
the word appliance. It means something that is used in the home. That
definition can apply to any computer meant to be used at home.
>
> > However I don't
> > expect you to see the logic in this. You're just bitter for some reason.
>
> I'm not the one reaching for sour grapes, slade.
I was just making a point and correcting the author of the thread. You
came in with a simplistic argument and lost.
John
Snit
>
> "C Lund" <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote in message
> news:clund-9D424B....@amstwist00.chello.com...
>> In article <5zbLd.18127$wZ2....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
>> "John Slade" <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> The PC became an appliance when people felt they NEEDED it rather
> than
>>> WANTED it. When the computer became a neccesity for a family rather than
> a
>>> luxury, it became an appliance.
>>
>> The PC will become an appliance when it "just works". The minimac is
>> already there. Maybe Windows PCs will catch up in some future day.
>
> But many PCs have "just worked" right out of the box for decades.
Yeah, it takes a week... maybe a month for the Windows registry to corrupt
itself and make the machine useless. :)
> By your criteria, the Amiga was the first appliance computer. The Amiga 600
> was cheap, came with a graphical user interface and plgged right into the TV.
> It was not that big either. It even had a keyboard. It came out in 1992. You
> see when you say "just works" it doesn't just apply to the Mac. Many computers
> "just work". The only thing you're saying is that because you like OS X,
> that's the only criteria needed for it to be an appliance. That might work for
> some folk who are brainwashed to think the Mac is superior. However it doesn't
> fly to people who look at it objectively. I suggest you look up the word
> appliance. It means something that is used in the home. That definition can
> apply to any computer meant to be used at home.
>
It also implies single purpose... which neither XP or OS X is.
So with that definition of appliance, no computer is one.
Of course, this is just feeding into your silly semantic game. When people
call the Mac Mini an appliance, they mean it can easily be dedicated to
single tasks or set of tasks and be moved around and easily set up quickly.
Too bad you missed that.
C Lund
"John Slade" <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> "C Lund" <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote in message
> news:clund-9D424B....@amstwist00.chello.com...
> than
> > > WANTED it. When the computer became a neccesity for a family rather than
> a
> > > luxury, it became an appliance.
> > The PC will become an appliance when it "just works". The minimac is
> > already there. Maybe Windows PCs will catch up in some future day.
> But many PCs have "just worked" right out of the box for decades.
And yet people need to futz around with them in order for them to
work. Constant care will have to be taken to avoid getting infected by
worms and whatnot - and that's more than the average user will be
willing to do.
> By
> your criteria, the Amiga was the first appliance computer. The Amiga 600 was
> cheap, came with a graphical user interface and plgged right into the TV. It
> was not that big either. It even had a keyboard. It came out in 1992. You
> see when you say "just works" it doesn't just apply to the Mac. Many
> computers "just work". The only thing you're saying is that because you like
> OS X, that's the only criteria needed for it to be an appliance.
Strawman.
> That might
> work for some folk who are brainwashed to think the Mac is superior. However
> it doesn't fly to people who look at it objectively. I suggest you look up
> the word appliance. It means something that is used in the home. That
> definition can apply to any computer meant to be used at home.
Appliance:
" A device or instrument designed to perform a specific function,
especially an electrical device, such as a toaster, for household use.
See Synonyms at tool."
Windows is simply too kludgy to apply. It's like a toaster that has to
be reassembled for each use.
> > > However I don't
> > > expect you to see the logic in this. You're just bitter for some reason.
> > I'm not the one reaching for sour grapes, slade.
> I was just making a point and correcting the author of the thread. You
> came in with a simplistic argument and lost.
Victory by declaration. That's very popular with you wintrolls.
Juan Hobenaro
<SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "HUGO DRAX" <hugo...@gmail.com> wrote in post
> 1106956318.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com on 1/28/05 4:51 PM:
>
> > I am still waiting for my new Mini as I reported in part I. I wonder if
> > this Appliance will spur somekind of snowball effect and increase the
> > Apple marketshare.
> >
> > Think about it, someone visits a persons home and notices this small
> > appliance like device and the owner shows off iphoto and all the
> > different ilife programs, iwork etc.. the different but exotic GUI that
> > looks more fresher and modern vs Windows XP. This person now visits a
> > bestbuy and sees the little boxes stacked up on a display like
> > Whitecastle burgers and decides to bite taking one home for the kids.
> > and the loop continues.
> >
> > This could bring about an interesting Paradigm shift for the world of
> > personal computing, Most folks do not like to tinker around the innards
> > of a computer or install drivers or play games (XBOX/Gamecube/PS2 sales
> > attest to this) and to play games at a decent speed = 300-400 dollar
> > video card (I know my 9800xt cost almost as much as the mini)
> >
> > So if most regular folk like consoles for games and you do not need a
> > supercomputer to wordprocess (my cpu on my P4 2.4 always shows 0-1
> > percent cpu heh) I could see a small console sized product such as the
> > mini (especially if it is in the shelves of places like bestbuy etc..)
> > increasing the Applemarket share tremendously.
> >
> > I think this mini probably represents the next phase of personal
> > computing.
> >
> Apple is generally, though not always, ahead of the curve when it comes to
> computers... part of this is that they are small enough to be flexible, but
> big enough to make a difference - more of a difference than one would expect
> any company with under 5% market share to have.
>
> Some folks, such as Slade, think the Mini will come and go quickly. I am
> betting you are more right than he is.
It amazes me that Apple makes headlines worldwide when they release a
new computer, sometimes ending up on the cover of Time magazine. How
many times has another computer company created such a stir releasing a
new model of computer? It is, though, all design-based attention, not
from the specs.
Hobenaro
Snit
010220050308352061%hobe...@columbus.rr.com on 2/1/05 1:04 AM:
They sometimes talk about the ease of use or lack of malware, but, yeah, it
is mostly focusing on design.
What people may start to realize is the same company that designs the
outside also designs the OS and many of the applications. The same
principles apply:
They are generally considered to be stunningly attractive (though that
is a matter of taste)
They focus on a minimalist design - all that is needed, little else
(adds to the beauty and simplicity)
Designed to be functional above all else... the beauty comes from the
excellent connection to the function
Even for PC makers, such as alienware, who make good looking boxes, they do
not design the OS or software... there is no connect there like there is
with the Mac.
--
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson