Re: [FYI] 1.68.0 deadline for new libraries approaching

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On 6/12/2018 1:01 PM, 😉 Good Guy 😉 wrote:
> With over 950 million devices now running Windows 10, customer satisfaction
> is higher than any previous version of windows.


I find that difficult to believe. Everyone I know has issue after
issue with Windows 10, mostly related to updates breaking things,
or changing behavior. One computer we have has to have the HP
printer driver re-installed after each update.

Windows 10 is the most unreliable operating system Microsoft has
released. It is consistently breaking functionality which previously
worked since Windows XP and even Windows 95/98 eras (which were
pre-Windows 2000 and the modern kernel design). Rock solid, stable
apps that have literally run for 20 years are now breaking and need
software modifications to workaround the issues.

I'm sorry, but I view Windows 10 as wholly unreliable and would
not recommend it for business or casual use. I have seen too many
users ready to leave for the day, or start their machine, only to
have it complete an installation that takes an hour or more.

The only reason people are buying Windows 10 is because they have
no choice if they want to run Windows software under a currently
supported OS.

I'm still hoping React OS makes it. Once it's up and running beyond
beta stage (or maybe even to beta stage), you'll see countless users
leaving Microsoft's horrid spyware operating system.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[SilverSlimer]

On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 13:53:26 -0400, "Rick C. Hodgin"
<rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't think that there is much for you to really hope for with
ReactOS. If anything, Wine within Linux is more likely to become a
decent, daily compatibility layer than ReactOS is to become a decent,
usable operating system.

It sucks that legacy software (and hardware) stops working with a new
edition of Windows but it was to be expected. Microsoft wants to sell
new versions of the same software and help out its third-parties by
making you upgrade your hardware. As such, decreasing support for
older software they can no longer making any money from makes a lot of
sense for them.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

React OS has active development and is fairly stable. I ran it in
VirtualBox a couple months back and it was impressive.

> It sucks that legacy software (and hardware) stops working with a new
> edition of Windows but it was to be expected. Microsoft wants to sell
> new versions of the same software and help out its third-parties by
> making you upgrade your hardware. As such, decreasing support for
> older software they can no longer making any money from makes a lot of
> sense for them.

Yes. And it doesn't have to be like that. In my view, it's a real
slap-in-the-face to all of the developers and users out there who paid
to have software written, and now it suddenly doesn't work simply be-
cause Microsoft chose to not support some feature that would not have
taken much effort to maintain for backward compatibility. Other OSes
do it, for example.

It's the danger with monopolies.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[nospam]

In article <pfpaq8$g5b$2...@dont-email.me>, Rick C. Hodgin

it's up to the developers update their own apps.

> It's the danger with monopolies.

microsoft no longer has a monopoly.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

I categorically disagree with you. It should be up to the OS vendor
to maintain backward compatibility.

Those features they expressed in a prior version of their OS, for
example, were relied upon by people who spent hours and months to
develop software which utilizes them.

For a company to then later break that functionality solely or the
purposes of wanting to sell new copies of their OS ... that's about
the worst kind of unethical behavior you can have toward your
customers. And I consider your attitude to be ill-informed.

People's labor matters. People's creativity, resourcefulness, the
effort they put into their product to get it working properly and
even distributed. To step forward and tell that person, and all
of the other people out there like they are, that their labor does
not matter and a decision is being made to ruin your product ...
I don't know how you can get much worse than that in the software
industry.

Things don't have to lose functionality to move forward. The same
software built on the 16-bit 8086 CPUs back in the late 70s will
run on today's hardware if they rely on BIOS, for example, and you
buy a BIOS-supporting motherboard.

New functionality can be added without breaking anything old.

>> It's the danger with monopolies.
>
> microsoft no longer has a monopoly.

Technically that's true, but in practice it's not.

There are no competitors to the Windows operating system that run
Windows software. You can use WINE and a few others that may or may
not work. But for the Windows ecosystem, you're stuck with what
Microsoft gives you.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Char Jackson]

On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 13:53:26 -0400, "Rick C. Hodgin"
<rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 6/12/2018 1:01 PM, ? Good Guy ? wrote:
>> With over 950 million devices now running Windows 10, customer satisfaction
>> is higher than any previous version of windows.
>
>
>I find that difficult to believe. Everyone I know has issue after
>issue with Windows 10, mostly related to updates breaking things,
>or changing behavior. One computer we have has to have the HP
>printer driver re-installed after each update.
>
>Windows 10 is the most unreliable operating system Microsoft has
>released. It is consistently breaking functionality which previously
>worked since Windows XP and even Windows 95/98 eras (which were
>pre-Windows 2000 and the modern kernel design). Rock solid, stable
>apps that have literally run for 20 years are now breaking and need
>software modifications to workaround the issues.
>
>I'm sorry, but I view Windows 10 as wholly unreliable and would
>not recommend it for business or casual use. I have seen too many
>users ready to leave for the day, or start their machine, only to
>have it complete an installation that takes an hour or more.

As part of my job, I interface with IT teams from many different
business organizations all over the US. In my experience, business
adoption of Windows 10 is very low, for all of the well-known reasons.
By a large margin, I see Windows 7 in the field, and to a lesser extent
Windows 8. Windows 10 is in a distant 3rd place, but probably growing.
Of the organizations that have taken the plunge to Windows 10, however,
something interesting keeps popping up. People whose leadership teams
have mandated the use of Windows 10 are using it to their advantage.

It's very well known that Win 10 requires frequent periods of downtime
while the PC tends to its own activities, so users are starting to
openly talk about using that as an excuse to take extended breaks. Not
extended breaks from doing their work, exactly, but extended breaks
where they ignore their IM and email systems. Extended breaks where they
can ignore people from their management chain. When asked why they
didn't reply to a time-sensitive email or why they ignored an IM, they
say, "Windows 10." Everyone who uses it knows how embarrassingly awful
it is, so no further questions are ever asked.

Personally, I used a Windows 10 laptop for work for about a year and it
would have been fine if everyone I met also used Windows 10. That way,
they'd know about its issues and they'd fully understand when I'm ready
to work but *it* is not. Other people running Windows 10 totally get
that, and they even seem to accept it, but to the people who have stayed
with the more reliable versions of Windows, the look on their faces
tells all you need to know. As a result, I got permission to upgrade
back to Windows 7 and all is once again well.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

We had similar discussions with Windows 8 in that managers wanted their
staff using applications, not being distracted by active blocks which
are shiny and animated.

In my profession we have users who buy Windows 10 machines, so we have
to have developmental platforms which are Win 10, Win 8, and Win 7. And
We supported Win XP until Microsoft stopped releasing updates for it.

I would prefer Windows 7. It's the most stable and robust OS Microsoft
produced in their traditional line.

> It's very well known that Win 10 requires frequent periods of downtime
> while the PC tends to its own activities, so users are starting to
> openly talk about using that as an excuse to take extended breaks. Not
> extended breaks from doing their work, exactly, but extended breaks
> where they ignore their IM and email systems. Extended breaks where they
> can ignore people from their management chain. When asked why they
> didn't reply to a time-sensitive email or why they ignored an IM, they
> say, "Windows 10." Everyone who uses it knows how embarrassingly awful
> it is, so no further questions are ever asked.
>
> Personally, I used a Windows 10 laptop for work for about a year and it
> would have been fine if everyone I met also used Windows 10. That way,
> they'd know about its issues and they'd fully understand when I'm ready
> to work but *it* is not. Other people running Windows 10 totally get
> that, and they even seem to accept it, but to the people who have stayed
> with the more reliable versions of Windows, the look on their faces
> tells all you need to know. As a result, I got permission to upgrade
> back to Windows 7 and all is once again well.

We have a couple developers who are still on Windows 7 and do not want
to upgrade. I would not have upgraded to Windows 7 except my machine
hardware failed. They wouldn't repair it, so I had to get a new one
and they didn't offer a Windows 7 down-grade. I tried to install one
manually, but the hardware was not supported in Windows 7, so I'm
stuck with Windows 10.

The kernel itself is not bad. No versions of Windows have had bad
kernels. It's all the layers they add on top, and specifically with
Windows 8 and 10 it's the fluff and spyware they add to the system,
which tracks your use and reports back to Redmond.

I really wish companies would stop doing that. It's enough to sell
your product and let people use it. You don't need to monitor and
own their pattern of use, data, and effective lifestyle choices on
the machine. That kind of intrusion is, in my honest opinion, vulgar.
It is like some peeping Tom pervert watching you as you go. Such a
thing should only be done under court order, and only when you are
under suspicion for some crime.

I truly hate Microsoft for what they do to people world-wide. And
I have tried with great passion to create an alternative to their
intrusion, as well as the one by Intel and their vPro out-of-band
hardware-derived back doors.

People don't want to rock the boat. They don't want to contribute
to a hardware and software effort that seeks to do it differently,
that has at its core a real purpose in focusing on end-users and
their needs, even empowering them by giving away the source code for
not only the kernel, drivers, and software, but also the hardware
it's running. Such things should be open so people everywhere can
see what they're using, and where they're able through technical
know-how and prowess, step up and contribute the better thing, or
the new extension.

It's how we're supposed to be: people helping people to be better
and do more. Business interests are completely backwards as they
focus on money first, and other things well after their money con-
siderations.

People first. All people. And then we watch how the people use
that free gift that was given to them by those who came before,
and thrive in so doing.

To be absolutely clear: This is a teaching effort I'm on about.
We have to teach people to be this way, and demonstrate by our
own efforts that we seek the same.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Char Jackson]

On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 18:22:05 -0400, "Rick C. Hodgin"
<rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:

>We have a couple developers who are still on Windows 7 and do not want
>to upgrade. I would not have upgraded to Windows 7 except my machine
>hardware failed. They wouldn't repair it, so I had to get a new one
>and they didn't offer a Windows 7 down-grade. I tried to install one
>manually, but the hardware was not supported in Windows 7, so I'm
>stuck with Windows 10.
>
>The kernel itself is not bad. No versions of Windows have had bad
>kernels. It's all the layers they add on top, and specifically with
>Windows 8 and 10 it's the fluff and spyware they add to the system,
>which tracks your use and reports back to Redmond.
>
>I really wish companies would stop doing that. It's enough to sell
>your product and let people use it. You don't need to monitor and
>own their pattern of use, data, and effective lifestyle choices on
>the machine. That kind of intrusion is, in my honest opinion, vulgar.
>It is like some peeping Tom pervert watching you as you go. Such a
>thing should only be done under court order, and only when you are
>under suspicion for some crime.

I think they believe that doing the right thing would leave money on the
table, and since the current laws seem to permit them to do as they
like, they do as they like. Ethics, fairness, a sense of right, whatever
you want to call it, I think it's out the window until the laws catch
up. Even when the laws catch up, however, they'll catch up to where we
are now. Tech companies will have moved far past this point by then, if
that's even possible. If there are dollars out there, they'll hunt them
down.

[bol...@cylonhq.com]

>I'm sorry, but I view Windows 10 as wholly unreliable and would
>not recommend it for business or casual use. I have seen too many
>users ready to leave for the day, or start their machine, only to
>have it complete an installation that takes an hour or more.
>
>The only reason people are buying Windows 10 is because they have
>no choice if they want to run Windows software under a currently
>supported OS.

I suspect if Apple reduced their absurd prices to a sensible level they'd
probably clean up in the desktop market and with a bit of effort they could
re-enter the server market with OS/X. Unfortunately they seem more interested
in short term profit flogging their iOS devices rather than making any long
term investment in the OS/X platform which using a fraction of their cash pile
could be turned into a decent server OS (along with dumping the hideous
objective-C which should have been strangled at birth).

[SilverSlimer]

On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 16:35:20 -0400, "Rick C. Hodgin"

Would you say that it can replace Windows on a day-to-day basis? Why
not?

>> It sucks that legacy software (and hardware) stops working with a new
>> edition of Windows but it was to be expected. Microsoft wants to sell
>> new versions of the same software and help out its third-parties by
>> making you upgrade your hardware. As such, decreasing support for
>> older software they can no longer making any money from makes a lot of
>> sense for them.
>
>Yes. And it doesn't have to be like that. In my view, it's a real
>slap-in-the-face to all of the developers and users out there who paid
>to have software written, and now it suddenly doesn't work simply be-
>cause Microsoft chose to not support some feature that would not have
>taken much effort to maintain for backward compatibility. Other OSes
>do it, for example.
>
>It's the danger with monopolies.

In the case of Linux, software stops working too though. On the other
hand, the source code is freely available for anyone to take that
project and recompile it to work with the newer editions of Linux.
It's not rare to find open-source projects which depend on package
versions from like 2003, but nobody paid money for those projects and
they therefore have no obligation to keep anything current like
Microsoft might.

[SilverSlimer]

On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 17:15:03 -0400, "Rick C. Hodgin"

Software made for Windows in 1992 should still work in some way in
2018 IMO. I doubt that too many people are looking to run software
made for 3.1, but if the Windows product is to have continuity, its
legacy apps should be just as functional twenty-six years later. It's
not best for business, but it's best for their reputation to say the
least. I can't imagine a good reason for dropping compatibility as
adding a layer to aid Windows 3.1 or even 9x compatibility is not
likely to take more than about 500MB which is trivial on an operating
system installation today.

>>> It's the danger with monopolies.
>>
>> microsoft no longer has a monopoly.
>
>Technically that's true, but in practice it's not.
>
>There are no competitors to the Windows operating system that run
>Windows software. You can use WINE and a few others that may or may
>not work. But for the Windows ecosystem, you're stuck with what
>Microsoft gives you.

The same way that you're stuck with what Apple gives you to run legacy
Mac OS Classic apps (all of which no longer function) or apps from
around 2002.

[SilverSlimer]

On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 16:43:13 -0500, Char Jackson <no...@none.invalid>
wrote:

Considering the excuse for downtime, you would think that companies
would want to move to Linux which offers a much more acceptable
updating system. It actually gives you a choice and does it in the
background. Not only that but it never requires you to restart
anything. At worst, it might ask you to log in again.

Instead, they stick to Windows which essentially takes over the
computer and renders it unusable while it updates...

[SilverSlimer]

Agreed. If they could get their worst machines at a $750 price point,
I'm sure that they would indeed have a higher market share.
Unfortunately, the company was never all too interested in appearing
to be anything but a high-end brand so I doubt they will ever allow
their machines to cost any less than $1,000 for even the worst
specified computer. The iPad seems to be the only affordable machine
and it's arguable as to whether it can really replace a desktop
machine.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On 6/13/2018 8:54 AM, SilverSlimer wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 16:35:20 -0400, "Rick C. Hodgin"

>> React OS has active development and is fairly stable. I ran it in
>> VirtualBox a couple months back and it was impressive.
>
> Would you say that it can replace Windows on a day-to-day basis? Why
> not?

For some apps probably. For others no. The API is not yet sufficiently
developed or debugged.

>>> It sucks that legacy software (and hardware) stops working with a new
>>> edition of Windows but it was to be expected. Microsoft wants to sell
>>> new versions of the same software and help out its third-parties by
>>> making you upgrade your hardware. As such, decreasing support for
>>> older software they can no longer making any money from makes a lot of
>>> sense for them.
>>
>> Yes. And it doesn't have to be like that. In my view, it's a real
>> slap-in-the-face to all of the developers and users out there who paid
>> to have software written, and now it suddenly doesn't work simply be-
>> cause Microsoft chose to not support some feature that would not have
>> taken much effort to maintain for backward compatibility. Other OSes
>> do it, for example.
>>
>> It's the danger with monopolies.
>
> In the case of Linux, software stops working too though. On the other
> hand, the source code is freely available for anyone to take that
> project and recompile it to work with the newer editions of Linux.
> It's not rare to find open-source projects which depend on package
> versions from like 2003, but nobody paid money for those projects and
> they therefore have no obligation to keep anything current like
> Microsoft might.

I'm not aware of functionality that has ceased working in Linux. But,
I don't use it too much for development.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On 6/13/2018 9:01 AM, SilverSlimer wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 17:15:03 -0400, "Rick C. Hodgin"
> <rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Things don't have to lose functionality to move forward. The same
>> software built on the 16-bit 8086 CPUs back in the late 70s will
>> run on today's hardware if they rely on BIOS, for example, and you
>> buy a BIOS-supporting motherboard.
>>
>> New functionality can be added without breaking anything old.
>
> Software made for Windows in 1992 should still work in some way in
> 2018 IMO. I doubt that too many people are looking to run software
> made for 3.1, but if the Windows product is to have continuity, its
> legacy apps should be just as functional twenty-six years later. It's
> not best for business, but it's best for their reputation to say the
> least. I can't imagine a good reason for dropping compatibility as
> adding a layer to aid Windows 3.1 or even 9x compatibility is not
> likely to take more than about 500MB which is trivial on an operating
> system installation today.

Windows in 1992 was 16-bit software. You can't run 16-bit software
on 64-bit Windows today. Some 32-bit versions of Windows may run
it. And, there's no reason you can't run 16-bit software on 64-bit
OS versions, by the way. It's not a limitation of the CPU, but only
that Microsoft chose not to support it.

There are several software apps written since Windows 95 that will
not work after Vista, or in some cases Windows 7, or in some cases
Windows 8 or 10.

Microsoft is removing a lot of legacy functionality that used to
be staples of our development platform, to replace with some newer
thing. They can say they're doing it for security reasons or what-
ever, but it still breaks the functionality.

>>>> It's the danger with monopolies.
>>>
>>> microsoft no longer has a monopoly.
>>
>> Technically that's true, but in practice it's not.
>>
>> There are no competitors to the Windows operating system that run
>> Windows software. You can use WINE and a few others that may or may
>> not work. But for the Windows ecosystem, you're stuck with what
>> Microsoft gives you.
>
> The same way that you're stuck with what Apple gives you to run legacy
> Mac OS Classic apps (all of which no longer function) or apps from
> around 2002.

I don't know. I do not use any Apple products. From what I've seen
though, since Apple only has to support a finite set of hardware,
their kernel and apps are far more stable and robust than anything
in Windows.

I also know many people who run Windows on Apple hardware and love
it.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[bol...@cylonhq.com]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 09:55:49 -0400
SilverSlimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>specified computer. The iPad seems to be the only affordable machine
>and it's arguable as to whether it can really replace a desktop
>machine.

Not until they remove the deliberate crippling of the GUI and allow multiple
concurrent windows. That simple model might be fine for a small screen phone
but not for a large screen tablet that might substitute for a desktop. Even
google realised that not all tablets are used simply for media consumption and
allowed split window mode and in android 7 & 8 (if the OEM has enabled it,
samsung has) you can have a proper floating windowing system called freeform
windows.

I used to have an iPad - it was an idiots computer. Replaced it with Android
which might not be quite so polished but its far superior in features and
usability.

[SilverSlimer]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:02:05 -0400, "Rick C. Hodgin"
<rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 6/13/2018 8:54 AM, SilverSlimer wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 16:35:20 -0400, "Rick C. Hodgin"
>>> React OS has active development and is fairly stable. I ran it in
>>> VirtualBox a couple months back and it was impressive.
>>
>> Would you say that it can replace Windows on a day-to-day basis? Why
>> not?
>
>For some apps probably. For others no. The API is not yet sufficiently
>developed or debugged.

Hopefully, it will get there one day but Microsoft will do everything
they can to put obstacles along the way. I imagine that ReactOS will
never support modern apps but that they will have no trouble running
Win32 ones. If that's the case and Microsoft moves toward a modern
app-only approach, people will likely adopt it in huge numbers.

>>>> It sucks that legacy software (and hardware) stops working with a new
>>>> edition of Windows but it was to be expected. Microsoft wants to sell
>>>> new versions of the same software and help out its third-parties by
>>>> making you upgrade your hardware. As such, decreasing support for
>>>> older software they can no longer making any money from makes a lot of
>>>> sense for them.
>>>
>>> Yes. And it doesn't have to be like that. In my view, it's a real
>>> slap-in-the-face to all of the developers and users out there who paid
>>> to have software written, and now it suddenly doesn't work simply be-
>>> cause Microsoft chose to not support some feature that would not have
>>> taken much effort to maintain for backward compatibility. Other OSes
>>> do it, for example.
>>>
>>> It's the danger with monopolies.
>>
>> In the case of Linux, software stops working too though. On the other
>> hand, the source code is freely available for anyone to take that
>> project and recompile it to work with the newer editions of Linux.
>> It's not rare to find open-source projects which depend on package
>> versions from like 2003, but nobody paid money for those projects and
>> they therefore have no obligation to keep anything current like
>> Microsoft might.
>
>
>I'm not aware of functionality that has ceased working in Linux. But,
>I don't use it too much for development.

It's not functionality as much as it is apps which served a particular
purpose at some point in time. That purpose might not be served by
newer applications and a user might want to use that archaic piece of
software instead. However, it is unavailable to him in the
repositories and even if a user can get a hold of the source code, it
won't compile in the new versions of Linux because the software
depends on libraries which are no longer compatible. It's a mess for
some people but it's so rare that mentioning it is basically
worthwhile.

[SilverSlimer]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:05:30 -0400, "Rick C. Hodgin"

<rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 6/13/2018 9:01 AM, SilverSlimer wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 17:15:03 -0400, "Rick C. Hodgin"
>> <rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Things don't have to lose functionality to move forward. The same
>>> software built on the 16-bit 8086 CPUs back in the late 70s will
>>> run on today's hardware if they rely on BIOS, for example, and you
>>> buy a BIOS-supporting motherboard.
>>>
>>> New functionality can be added without breaking anything old.
>>
>> Software made for Windows in 1992 should still work in some way in
>> 2018 IMO. I doubt that too many people are looking to run software
>> made for 3.1, but if the Windows product is to have continuity, its
>> legacy apps should be just as functional twenty-six years later. It's
>> not best for business, but it's best for their reputation to say the
>> least. I can't imagine a good reason for dropping compatibility as
>> adding a layer to aid Windows 3.1 or even 9x compatibility is not
>> likely to take more than about 500MB which is trivial on an operating
>> system installation today.
>
>Windows in 1992 was 16-bit software. You can't run 16-bit software
>on 64-bit Windows today. Some 32-bit versions of Windows may run
>it. And, there's no reason you can't run 16-bit software on 64-bit
>OS versions, by the way. It's not a limitation of the CPU, but only
>that Microsoft chose not to support it.

I'm sure that Microsoft could have provided some sort of compatibility
layer for that software if they had wanted to regardless of whether
the processor could handle it on its own or not. Apple did such a
thing with Mac OS Classic software when OS X first emerged and there
is definitely a way for them to have done it for old software too. Of
course, there would have been little reason for them to do so
considering how they were, again, trying to sell new versions.

>There are several software apps written since Windows 95 that will
>not work after Vista, or in some cases Windows 7, or in some cases
>Windows 8 or 10.
>
>Microsoft is removing a lot of legacy functionality that used to
>be staples of our development platform, to replace with some newer
>thing. They can say they're doing it for security reasons or what-
>ever, but it still breaks the functionality.

I don't entirely dismiss the security argument. Old software was not
written with much security in mind so it is quite possible that
allowing it to run can create some sort of a loophole that would allow
an attacker to take over a system. However, I doubt that was the
official reasoning.

>>>>> It's the danger with monopolies.
>>>>
>>>> microsoft no longer has a monopoly.
>>>
>>> Technically that's true, but in practice it's not.
>>>
>>> There are no competitors to the Windows operating system that run
>>> Windows software. You can use WINE and a few others that may or may
>>> not work. But for the Windows ecosystem, you're stuck with what
>>> Microsoft gives you.
>>
>> The same way that you're stuck with what Apple gives you to run legacy
>> Mac OS Classic apps (all of which no longer function) or apps from
>> around 2002.
>
>
>I don't know. I do not use any Apple products. From what I've seen
>though, since Apple only has to support a finite set of hardware,
>their kernel and apps are far more stable and robust than anything
>in Windows.
>
>I also know many people who run Windows on Apple hardware and love
>it.

I liked Mac OS at first. After two years of using it exclusively, I
grew to truly dislike it. Considering how many of their recent
decisions are very much against everything that I believe in, such as
giving $1 million to the horrible Southern Poverty Law Center, they
will never again get my money for hardware.

[SilverSlimer]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 14:13:06 +0000 (UTC), bol...@cylonHQ.com wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 09:55:49 -0400
>SilverSlimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>>specified computer. The iPad seems to be the only affordable machine
>>and it's arguable as to whether it can really replace a desktop
>>machine.
>
>Not until they remove the deliberate crippling of the GUI and allow multiple
>concurrent windows.

I don't use the iPad myself but work in a private school where every
student uses one. I know that they can multitask with it which seems
fine for most people but I doubt that it can do more than that. It's
too limited for me but it seems to be good enough for a good
proportion of the "e-mail and browsing" population.

> That simple model might be fine for a small screen phone
>but not for a large screen tablet that might substitute for a desktop. Even
>google realised that not all tablets are used simply for media consumption and
>allowed split window mode and in android 7 & 8 (if the OEM has enabled it,
>samsung has) you can have a proper floating windowing system called freeform
>windows.
>
>I used to have an iPad - it was an idiots computer. Replaced it with Android
>which might not be quite so polished but its far superior in features and
>usability.

I like Android myself. I financed the first fully open-source cell
phone from Puri.sm to replace my Android once it comes out but I doubt
that I will truly be able to stop using this operating system. For all
of its unethical decisions, Google is very good at creating decent
operating environments.

[nospam]

apple's prices are not absurd, the desktop market is shrinking and they
aren't interested in the server market, which is even smaller.

mobile is the future.

[nospam]

In article <pfr8ph$16st$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, <bol...@cylonHQ.com> wrote:

> >specified computer. The iPad seems to be the only affordable machine
> >and it's arguable as to whether it can really replace a desktop
> >machine.
>
> Not until they remove the deliberate crippling of the GUI and allow multiple
> concurrent windows. That simple model might be fine for a small screen phone
> but not for a large screen tablet that might substitute for a desktop. Even
> google realised that not all tablets are used simply for media consumption and
> allowed split window mode and in android 7 & 8 (if the OEM has enabled it,
> samsung has) you can have a proper floating windowing system called freeform
> windows.

split window was added to ios several years ago, however, it doesn't
make a lot of sense to have more than two windows on a tablet and
certainly not a phone.

nevertheless, *four* apps can currently be run at the same time on an
ipad, although it's not particularly useful:
<https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/21608-24920-IMG_0391-l.jpg>

the key is that a tablet is *not* a laptop. it's good for a *different*
set of tasks than a laptop, although there is some overlap.

> I used to have an iPad - it was an idiots computer. Replaced it with Android
> which might not be quite so polished but its far superior in features and
> usability.

false.

nothing on the android side comes anywhere close to an ipad pro with an
apple pencil.

[nospam]

In article <0g82id10dc31l03vf...@4ax.com>, SilverSlimer

<.m@nsn.s> wrote:

> >I suspect if Apple reduced their absurd prices to a sensible level they'd
> >probably clean up in the desktop market and with a bit of effort they could
> >re-enter the server market with OS/X. Unfortunately they seem more interested
> >in short term profit flogging their iOS devices rather than making any long
> >term investment in the OS/X platform which using a fraction of their cash
> >pile
> >could be turned into a decent server OS (along with dumping the hideous
> >objective-C which should have been strangled at birth).
>
> Agreed. If they could get their worst machines at a $750 price point,

you're assuming everyone wants a dirt cheap computer or phone. most do
not.

nevertheless, 15 years ago, they released a $499 mac mini.

the least expensive ipad is currently $329 and the least expensive
iphone is currently $349, or $139 locked to a carrier (no contract
either way).

<https://www.walmart.com/ip/Straight-Talk-Prepaid-Apple-iPhone-SE-32GB-S
pace-Gray/497984946>

> I'm sure that they would indeed have a higher market share.

chasing market share is foolish.

apple is selling everything they can make, often backordered, and
they're on the verge of being the first trillion dollar company.

they're doing quite well doing what they're doing.

> Unfortunately, the company was never all too interested in appearing
> to be anything but a high-end brand so I doubt they will ever allow
> their machines to cost any less than $1,000 for even the worst
> specified computer. The iPad seems to be the only affordable machine
> and it's arguable as to whether it can really replace a desktop
> machine.

it can for many people, and in many cases, an ipad or iphone is their
only computer.

mobile is the future.

[nospam]

In article <pfpd4p$2bt$1...@dont-email.me>, Rick C. Hodgin

<rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>> It sucks that legacy software (and hardware) stops working with a new
> >>> edition of Windows but it was to be expected. Microsoft wants to sell
> >>> new versions of the same software and help out its third-parties by
> >>> making you upgrade your hardware. As such, decreasing support for
> >>> older software they can no longer making any money from makes a lot of
> >>> sense for them.
> >>
> >> Yes. And it doesn't have to be like that. In my view, it's a real
> >> slap-in-the-face to all of the developers and users out there who paid
> >> to have software written, and now it suddenly doesn't work simply be-
> >> cause Microsoft chose to not support some feature that would not have
> >> taken much effort to maintain for backward compatibility. Other OSes
> >> do it, for example.
> >
> > it's up to the developers update their own apps.
>
> I categorically disagree with you. It should be up to the OS vendor
> to maintain backward compatibility.

nope. that is simply wrong.

developers need to update their apps to maintain compatibility and take
full advantage of new features in new versions of the operating system
and also new hardware.

if they don't, their competitors will. that's how the industry works,
and not just software either.

backward compatibility is not free.

like every company, microsoft's resources are limited.

their resources are better spent moving the platform forward than
trying to keep ancient and long obsolete apps running.

> Those features they expressed in a prior version of their OS, for
> example, were relied upon by people who spent hours and months to
> develop software which utilizes them.
>
> For a company to then later break that functionality solely or the
> purposes of wanting to sell new copies of their OS ... that's about
> the worst kind of unethical behavior you can have toward your
> customers. And I consider your attitude to be ill-informed.

you're obviously not a developer.

also, if you think microsoft is unethical, why do you continue to use
their products? there are many other choices, some quite good.

> People's labor matters. People's creativity, resourcefulness, the
> effort they put into their product to get it working properly and
> even distributed. To step forward and tell that person, and all
> of the other people out there like they are, that their labor does
> not matter and a decision is being made to ruin your product ...
> I don't know how you can get much worse than that in the software
> industry.

then you know absolutely nothing about the software industry.

> Things don't have to lose functionality to move forward.

at some point, they do.

nothing lasts forever.

> The same
> software built on the 16-bit 8086 CPUs back in the late 70s will
> run on today's hardware if they rely on BIOS, for example, and you
> buy a BIOS-supporting motherboard.

good luck on that.

the number of people who still want to run 16 bit apps is not enough to
bother supporting them.

if a particular app hasn't been replaced with a 32 bit version at a
minimum (and these days, 64 bit), either from the original developer or
another company, then there obviously wasn't much of a demand for
whatever that app did.

> New functionality can be added without breaking anything old.

not true.

many times old functionality must be dropped to move forward.

> >> It's the danger with monopolies.
> >
> > microsoft no longer has a monopoly.
>
> Technically that's true, but in practice it's not.

in practice it definitely is.

there are *plenty* of alternatives, more than there ever have been.

microsoft is no longer the only game in town, and that's a good thing
for consumers.

win10 is the best version of windows yet, although they completely blew
it on mobile. windows phone was a complete failure.

> There are no competitors to the Windows operating system that run
> Windows software. You can use WINE and a few others that may or may
> not work. But for the Windows ecosystem, you're stuck with what
> Microsoft gives you.

there is no requirement to run windows software.

if you don't like what microsoft gives you, vote with your wallet and
get something else.

if enough people do that, they'll get the message.

[SilverSlimer]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:49:24 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <0g82id10dc31l03vf...@4ax.com>, SilverSlimer
><.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>
>> >I suspect if Apple reduced their absurd prices to a sensible level they'd
>> >probably clean up in the desktop market and with a bit of effort they could
>> >re-enter the server market with OS/X. Unfortunately they seem more interested
>> >in short term profit flogging their iOS devices rather than making any long
>> >term investment in the OS/X platform which using a fraction of their cash
>> >pile
>> >could be turned into a decent server OS (along with dumping the hideous
>> >objective-C which should have been strangled at birth).
>>
>> Agreed. If they could get their worst machines at a $750 price point,
>
>you're assuming everyone wants a dirt cheap computer or phone. most do
>not.

Some people want to pay more for a computer with the expectation that
the model will be lighter, more powerful, have better battery life or
simply look prettier but that is the smaller amount of people.

>nevertheless, 15 years ago, they released a $499 mac mini.

Which is basically useless if you don't pay additional money for the
monitor, keyboard and mouse.

>the least expensive ipad is currently $329 and the least expensive
>iphone is currently $349, or $139 locked to a carrier (no contract
>either way).
>
><https://www.walmart.com/ip/Straight-Talk-Prepaid-Apple-iPhone-SE-32GB-S
>pace-Gray/497984946>
>
>> I'm sure that they would indeed have a higher market share.
>
>chasing market share is foolish.
>
>apple is selling everything they can make, often backordered, and
>they're on the verge of being the first trillion dollar company.
>
>they're doing quite well doing what they're doing.

With iPhones and iPads, it's hard to argeue their success. They're
rich beyond belief and we will likely never see the company in the
same position they were in around 1997.

>> Unfortunately, the company was never all too interested in appearing
>> to be anything but a high-end brand so I doubt they will ever allow
>> their machines to cost any less than $1,000 for even the worst
>> specified computer. The iPad seems to be the only affordable machine
>> and it's arguable as to whether it can really replace a desktop
>> machine.
>
>it can for many people, and in many cases, an ipad or iphone is their
>only computer.
>
>mobile is the future.

Agreed, and Apple does very well in that category despite being
_functionally_ inferior to its competition. Of course, not everyone
needs the customization options of Android and simply wants a machine
which does everything they need to do on a daily basis... e-mail,
browsing, media playback.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On 6/13/2018 11:49 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article <pfpd4p$2bt$1...@dont-email.me>, Rick C. Hodgin
> <rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> It sucks that legacy software (and hardware) stops working with a new
>>>>> edition of Windows but it was to be expected. Microsoft wants to sell
>>>>> new versions of the same software and help out its third-parties by
>>>>> making you upgrade your hardware. As such, decreasing support for
>>>>> older software they can no longer making any money from makes a lot of
>>>>> sense for them.
>>>>
>>>> Yes. And it doesn't have to be like that. In my view, it's a real
>>>> slap-in-the-face to all of the developers and users out there who paid
>>>> to have software written, and now it suddenly doesn't work simply be-
>>>> cause Microsoft chose to not support some feature that would not have
>>>> taken much effort to maintain for backward compatibility. Other OSes
>>>> do it, for example.
>>>
>>> it's up to the developers update their own apps.
>>
>> I categorically disagree with you. It should be up to the OS vendor
>> to maintain backward compatibility.
>
> nope. that is simply wrong.

I disagree with you top to bottom, front to back, side to side.

> developers need to update their apps to maintain compatibility and take
> full advantage of new features in new versions of the operating system
> and also new hardware.

Once an app is written it is a tool. So long as there is no new thing
that's discovered that is actually damaging, such as a fundamental flaw
in the memory allocation unit in use in the app, then there is no reason
to ever have to recompile software that's written, debugged, and deployed.

It's probably good business to do so, but it's not a requirement. The
same accounting software written in the 1980s on DOS still runs today
if you don't have newer fancy things you need to keep track of.

> if they don't, their competitors will. that's how the industry works,
> and not just software either.

That's a business model and the choices you're advocating follow that
model, but it's wrong to require that of people. I'm genuinely sad
for you that you feel otherwise.

BTW, anonymous coward "nos...@nospam.invalid" ... you should not be
anonymous. It removes credibility away from your statements and
claims. It makes you a troll at best.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[SilverSlimer]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:49:24 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

Yet a Surface with pen does as good if not a better job.

[Ian Collins]

Neither is rebuilding every application if you choose to upgrade your
OS. Neither is being unable to upgrade to a supported OS version
because of legacy applications.

> like every company, microsoft's resources are limited.
>
> their resources are better spent moving the platform forward than
> trying to keep ancient and long obsolete apps running.

They wouldn't have to. Solaris had (and presumably still does in the
niche Oracle has confined it to) a binary compatibility guarantee. If
an application stuck to the public API, it would work as is in newer
version of the OS. This was good for customers who could upgrade just
the OS and good for developers like me with clients running multiple OS
versions. All I had to do was build on the oldest supported version and
know my stuff would work on all.

--
Ian.

[bol...@cylonhq.com]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:49:24 -0400
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>In article <pfr8ph$16st$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, <bol...@cylonHQ.com> wrote:
>
>> >specified computer. The iPad seems to be the only affordable machine
>> >and it's arguable as to whether it can really replace a desktop
>> >machine.
>>
>> Not until they remove the deliberate crippling of the GUI and allow multiple
>> concurrent windows. That simple model might be fine for a small screen phone
>> but not for a large screen tablet that might substitute for a desktop. Even
>> google realised that not all tablets are used simply for media consumption
>and
>> allowed split window mode and in android 7 & 8 (if the OEM has enabled it,
>> samsung has) you can have a proper floating windowing system called freeform
>> windows.
>
>split window was added to ios several years ago, however, it doesn't
>make a lot of sense to have more than two windows on a tablet and

Doesn't it? I had 3 open on my tablet last night. Don't confuse your own use
cases with everyone elses.

>certainly not a phone.

Can't disagree there, unless the phone supports a seperate monitor.

>nevertheless, *four* apps can currently be run at the same time on an
>ipad, although it's not particularly useful:
><https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/21608-24920-IMG_0391-l.jpg>

Wow, so iOS has reached Windows 1.0 functionality levels. Will wonders never
cease?

>the key is that a tablet is *not* a laptop. it's good for a *different*
>set of tasks than a laptop, although there is some overlap.

Unless its a large tablet with a bluetooth keyboard.

>> I used to have an iPad - it was an idiots computer. Replaced it with Android
>> which might not be quite so polished but its far superior in features and
>> usability.
>
>false.
>
>nothing on the android side comes anywhere close to an ipad pro with an
>apple pencil.

LOL, yeah ok :)

[bol...@cylonhq.com]

It might be smaller, but the margins are much healthier than desktop.

>
>mobile is the future.

Sure it is. All development and other types of content creation will one day be
done on a pokey 3 inch screen and a virtual keyboard. Right.

[nospam]

In article <pftecc$11ji$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, <bol...@cylonHQ.com> wrote:

> >mobile is the future.
>
> Sure it is. All development and other types of content creation will one day
> be done on a pokey 3 inch screen and a virtual keyboard. Right.

quite a bit already is created entirely on tablets or phones and that's
only going to increase.

a modern smartphone is more powerful than what sat on people's desks
5-10 years ago.

[bol...@cylonhq.com]

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 09:11:16 -0400
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>In article <pftecc$11ji$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, <bol...@cylonHQ.com> wrote:
>
>> >mobile is the future.
>>
>> Sure it is. All development and other types of content creation will one day
>> be done on a pokey 3 inch screen and a virtual keyboard. Right.
>
>quite a bit already is created entirely on tablets or phones and that's
>only going to increase.

ITYM video has been recorded on them before being downloaded to a proper
computer to do the rest.

>a modern smartphone is more powerful than what sat on people's desks
>5-10 years ago.

The CPU isn't the problem - the I/O is. Anyone who thinks a device with a small
screen, touch interface and a virtual keyboard is suitable for serious work has
obviously never done any.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On 6/13/2018 4:17 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
> They wouldn't have to.  Solaris had (and presumably still does in the niche
> Oracle has confined it to) a binary compatibility guarantee.  If an
> application stuck to the public API, it would work as is in newer version of
> the OS.  This was good for customers who could upgrade just the OS and good
> for developers like me with clients running multiple OS versions.  All I had
> to do was build on the oldest supported version and know my stuff would work
> on all.

The more I learn about Solaris the more impressed I am. Is the code
base from Solaris (before it was closed up by Oracle) still available?

I was never involved or interested in Sun Microsystems back in the
day. I tried to install their OS at one point, but my hardware was
not compatible so I gave up on it. I wish now I would've spent more
time learning the architecture and ecosystem.

Why did Sun sell it? It seems like they had such a good thing going.
What happened in the final year(s)?

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Mayayana]

"Char Jackson" <no...@none.invalid> wrote

| Personally, I used a Windows 10 laptop for work for about a year and it
| would have been fine if everyone I met also used Windows 10. That way,
| they'd know about its issues and they'd fully understand when I'm ready
| to work but *it* is not. Other people running Windows 10 totally get
| that

That's a gem: Win10 being broken wouldn't
be a problem if only everyone would lower their
expectations and expect Windows to be broken.

I can't think of any other field where someone
could even think that thought: "I wouldn't mind
that my XYZ car won't start half the time if it
weren't for the fact that other peoples' cars do
start. It makes my car look bad." :)

[nospam]

In article <pftrta$1r1j$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, <bol...@cylonHQ.com> wrote:

> >> >mobile is the future.
> >>
> >> Sure it is. All development and other types of content creation will one
> >> day be done on a pokey 3 inch screen and a virtual keyboard. Right.
> >
> >quite a bit already is created entirely on tablets or phones and that's
> >only going to increase.
>
> ITYM video has been recorded on them before being downloaded to a proper
> computer to do the rest.

'the rest' not only can be done, but *is* done on a phone or tablet,
including 4k videos.

and it isn't just videos. people are doing quite a bit more on mobile
devices, and in many cases, things not possible on what you ignorantly
are calling a 'proper computer'.

the number of tasks that *require* a desktop computer is shrinking, and
shrinking fast.

> >a modern smartphone is more powerful than what sat on people's desks
> >5-10 years ago.
>
> The CPU isn't the problem - the I/O is.

i didn't say the cpu.

i said a modern smartphone is more powerful, which means the entire
package.

> Anyone who thinks a device with a small
> screen, touch interface and a virtual keyboard is suitable for serious work has
> obviously never done any.

you clearly haven't and you aren't the arbiter of what qualifies as
serious work either.

long ago, people said similar things about laptops, that they weren't
as capable as desktops. they were wrong. laptops have outsold desktops
for many years and users are significantly more productive using them.

[Mayayana]

<bol...@cylonHQ.com> wrote

| I suspect if Apple reduced their absurd prices to a sensible level they'd
| probably clean up in the desktop market and with a bit of effort they
could
| re-enter the server market with OS/X.

The problem with Apple isn't only price. They
want to sell devices, not software. They want
their devices locked down. They want their market
to be consumer entertainment, not "productivity".
Their software development system isn't as open.
So if you could buy a Mac for $400 you'd still
have the problem that it's a restricted, ninny-headed
system with limited software and almost no
hardware flexibility. You'd get a more attractive
GUI (except for the obnoxious kiddie icons) but
give up the reasons that you use a computer for
anything beyond photo editing or online consumer
services.

I think of iPods as the epitome of Apple. People
lauded Jobs's genius for guessing what people
wanted. But he never guessed what anyone
wanted. He guessed what they were susceptible
to. He gave them a drug: constant musical
entertainment with no hassle. Tim Cook is a
fullscale disciple of Jobs. He gushes about Apple's
superiority and noble intentions while he's
building more diddle-devices with slave labor and
perfecting the art of tax evasion.

I don't think Apple is the place to look for
anything healthy or useful in the future.

[Frank Slootweg]

+1 (on all points)

nospam has no clue about how real production systems are (not) run.

He thinks that 'app' (hint, hint) developers should continuously
'update' their 'apps' with 'new' and 'better' 'functionality'. Yeah
right! I.e. the same way that Microsoft adds 'new' and 'better'
'functionality' to Windows, which got us in this mess in the first
place.

What about writing a spec, writing, testing, debugging, etc. and
releasing an 'app', which then happily runs ever after? Nah, can't do in
nospam's parallel universe.

FHI, we've been using unchanged 'apps' (unchanged binaries) for over
two decades, while the platform/OS on which they were run was updated/
upgraded over all that time. They probably would still run today, after
35 years.

And I'm running software on Windows which is 15 years old, without
any change.

[Frank Slootweg]

Ian Collins <ian-...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 14/06/18 03:49, nospam wrote:

[...]

> > backward compatibility is not free.
>
> Neither is rebuilding every application if you choose to upgrade your
> OS. Neither is being unable to upgrade to a supported OS version
> because of legacy applications.
>
> > like every company, microsoft's resources are limited.
> >
> > their resources are better spent moving the platform forward than
> > trying to keep ancient and long obsolete apps running.
>
> They wouldn't have to. Solaris had (and presumably still does in the
> niche Oracle has confined it to) a binary compatibility guarantee. If
> an application stuck to the public API, it would work as is in newer
> version of the OS. This was good for customers who could upgrade just
> the OS and good for developers like me with clients running multiple OS
> versions. All I had to do was build on the oldest supported version and
> know my stuff would work on all.

Same with HP's HP-UX. Binary backward compatibility for decades.

Breaking binary backward compatibility wasn't up for discussion.

[Frank Slootweg]

Mayayana <maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> <bol...@cylonHQ.com> wrote
>
> | I suspect if Apple reduced their absurd prices to a sensible level they'd
> | probably clean up in the desktop market and with a bit of effort they
> could
> | re-enter the server market with OS/X.
>
> The problem with Apple isn't only price. They
> want to sell devices, not software. They want
> their devices locked down. They want their market
> to be consumer entertainment, not "productivity".

Consumer entertainment is indeed their main focus, but Macs are used
in a lot of "productivity" areas, such a newspapers, photography, etc..

For example we're currenly have a doco series about the New York Times
(and Trump). All Macs as far as the eye can see.

A very close relative is a photographer in an advertizing company.
Wall to wall Macs. (And yes, their admin runs on Windows.)

> Their software development system isn't as open.
> So if you could buy a Mac for $400 you'd still
> have the problem that it's a restricted, ninny-headed
> system with limited software and almost no
> hardware flexibility. You'd get a more attractive
> GUI (except for the obnoxious kiddie icons) but
> give up the reasons that you use a computer for
> anything beyond photo editing or online consumer
> services.
>
> I think of iPods as the epitome of Apple. People
> lauded Jobs's genius for guessing what people
> wanted. But he never guessed what anyone
> wanted. He guessed what they were susceptible
> to. He gave them a drug: constant musical
> entertainment with no hassle. Tim Cook is a
> fullscale disciple of Jobs. He gushes about Apple's
> superiority and noble intentions while he's
> building more diddle-devices with slave labor and
> perfecting the art of tax evasion.
>
> I don't think Apple is the place to look for
> anything healthy or useful in the future.

Agreed. So what remains is for us to choose the best out of a set of
flat tyres! :-)

[bol...@cylonhq.com]

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 10:16:45 -0400
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>In article <pftrta$1r1j$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, <bol...@cylonHQ.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >mobile is the future.
>> >>
>> >> Sure it is. All development and other types of content creation will one
>> >> day be done on a pokey 3 inch screen and a virtual keyboard. Right.
>> >
>> >quite a bit already is created entirely on tablets or phones and that's
>> >only going to increase.
>>
>> ITYM video has been recorded on them before being downloaded to a proper
>> computer to do the rest.
>
>'the rest' not only can be done, but *is* done on a phone or tablet,
>including 4k videos.

Sure, if you only want to do simple jobs. Now go away and try and edit an
entire TV program on a phone just by prodding your finger. Or maybe try and
follow a page full of stock market movements on your phone. Or given this is
a C++ forum, try using vi in a shell or eclipse on a phone. You'll soon get
sick of it and wish for a large screen and a mouse.

Guess what? There's a reason some people have 32 inch monitors, sometimes 2
or 3 of them to do their jobs.

>and it isn't just videos. people are doing quite a bit more on mobile
>devices, and in many cases, things not possible on what you ignorantly
>are calling a 'proper computer'.

No possible? Really? Give some examples.

>the number of tasks that *require* a desktop computer is shrinking, and
>shrinking fast.

Sure, when sold to people who only ever surf the web or send the occasional
email. For the rest of us a proper machine is vital.

>i said a modern smartphone is more powerful, which means the entire
>package.

Then you're wrong. Its just a computer with a small screen, poor input
facilities and a camera. There's nothing powerful about it.

>> Anyone who thinks a device with a small
>> screen, touch interface and a virtual keyboard is suitable for serious work
>has
>> obviously never done any.
>
>you clearly haven't and you aren't the arbiter of what qualifies as
>serious work either.

So, of course not. I only worked in the financial markets for 10 years. What
would I know? I'm sure I could have done my job on a smartphone sitting in
a coffee bar.

Not.

>long ago, people said similar things about laptops, that they weren't
>as capable as desktops. they were wrong. laptops have outsold desktops

They weren't.

>for many years and users are significantly more productive using them.

And have you noticed how much bigger they've got? Compare screen sizes to
what was being offered 15 years ago. Notebook sized laptops flopped, perhaps
ask yourself why.

[bol...@cylonhq.com]

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 10:22:43 -0400
"Mayayana" <maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>fullscale disciple of Jobs. He gushes about Apple's

Cook is Jobs without the vision and single mindedness. He reminds me of the
supply teachers who fill in when your kids real teacher is on holiday or ill,
capable but a long way from being the best.

Apple has been treading water since jobs died.

[Scott Lurndal]

"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c...@gmail.com> writes:
>On 6/13/2018 4:17 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
>> They wouldn't have to.  Solaris had (and presumably still does in the niche
>> Oracle has confined it to) a binary compatibility guarantee.  If an
>> application stuck to the public API, it would work as is in newer version of
>> the OS.  This was good for customers who could upgrade just the OS and good
>> for developers like me with clients running multiple OS versions.  All I had
>> to do was build on the oldest supported version and know my stuff would work
>> on all.
>
>
>The more I learn about Solaris the more impressed I am. Is the code
>base from Solaris (before it was closed up by Oracle) still available?
>

Backwards binary compatability was a feature of all major Unix
variants. Most of them also offered a backward compatible
driver API (driver development kit).

The Solaris codebase was always closed. There is an OpenSolaris
fork.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenSolaris

[Rick C. Hodgin]

Thank you, Scott.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[nospam]

In article <9jf2idhklihkh7kl5...@4ax.com>, SilverSlimer

<.m@nsn.s> wrote:

> >
> >> >I suspect if Apple reduced their absurd prices to a sensible level they'd
> >> >probably clean up in the desktop market and with a bit of effort they
> >> >could
> >> >re-enter the server market with OS/X. Unfortunately they seem more
> >> >interested
> >> >in short term profit flogging their iOS devices rather than making any
> >> >long
> >> >term investment in the OS/X platform which using a fraction of their cash
> >> >pile
> >> >could be turned into a decent server OS (along with dumping the hideous
> >> >objective-C which should have been strangled at birth).
> >>
> >> Agreed. If they could get their worst machines at a $750 price point,
> >
> >you're assuming everyone wants a dirt cheap computer or phone. most do
> >not.
>
> Some people want to pay more for a computer with the expectation that
> the model will be lighter, more powerful, have better battery life or
> simply look prettier

true.

that's why there's a wide range of products in a wide range of prices.

no single product is ideal for everyone.

> but that is the smaller amount of people.

not true.

> >nevertheless, 15 years ago, they released a $499 mac mini.
>
> Which is basically useless if you don't pay additional money for the
> monitor, keyboard and mouse.

that's no different than for windows systems.

very few windows pcs are all-in-one imac style.

most pcs a box where the user needs to add a display, keyboard and
mouse.

the microsoft surface studio is an all-in-one, comes with a large
pivoting display and *starts* at $3000, nearly *twice* that of a
similar size imac:
<https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/surface-studio/8xcw9bbpvfv9?activetab
=pivot%3aoverviewtab>

imacs start at $1800 for a 27" (similar size to the surface studio) or
$1100 for a 21". not everyone needs a giant display.

is a large pivoting display worth the extra $1200?
for some people yes, for others no.

choice is good.

> >> Unfortunately, the company was never all too interested in appearing
> >> to be anything but a high-end brand so I doubt they will ever allow
> >> their machines to cost any less than $1,000 for even the worst
> >> specified computer. The iPad seems to be the only affordable machine
> >> and it's arguable as to whether it can really replace a desktop
> >> machine.
> >
> >it can for many people, and in many cases, an ipad or iphone is their
> >only computer.
> >
> >mobile is the future.
>
> Agreed, and Apple does very well in that category despite being
> _functionally_ inferior to its competition.

except that it's *not* functionally inferior.

> Of course, not everyone
> needs the customization options of Android and simply wants a machine
> which does everything they need to do on a daily basis... e-mail,
> browsing, media playback.

of course, not everyone is aware of what can be done with apple
products, blindly believing the myths.

[nospam]

In article <fodcfi...@mid.individual.net>, Ian Collins

<ian-...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >>> it's up to the developers update their own apps.
> >>
> >> I categorically disagree with you. It should be up to the OS vendor
> >> to maintain backward compatibility.
> >
> > nope. that is simply wrong.
> >
> > developers need to update their apps to maintain compatibility and take
> > full advantage of new features in new versions of the operating system
> > and also new hardware.
> >
> > if they don't, their competitors will. that's how the industry works,
> > and not just software either.
> >
> > backward compatibility is not free.
>
> Neither is rebuilding every application if you choose to upgrade your
> OS. Neither is being unable to upgrade to a supported OS version
> because of legacy applications.

users don't rebuild apps. developers do, which is part of the price you
pay for quality software.

updating apps is easy, with many apps automatically updating
themselves. the user doesn't need to do much, if anything.

if the app hasn't been updated and no alternative exists, then whatever
that app did was not in high demand.

> > like every company, microsoft's resources are limited.
> >
> > their resources are better spent moving the platform forward than
> > trying to keep ancient and long obsolete apps running.
>
> They wouldn't have to. Solaris had (and presumably still does in the
> niche Oracle has confined it to) a binary compatibility guarantee. If
> an application stuck to the public API, it would work as is in newer
> version of the OS. This was good for customers who could upgrade just
> the OS and good for developers like me with clients running multiple OS
> versions. All I had to do was build on the oldest supported version and
> know my stuff would work on all.

your apps are the lowest common denominator across all platforms.

that may work in certain cases but definitely not all. most people do
*not* have a wide variety of platforms and want to take full advantage
of everything their hardware can do.

[nospam]

In article <pfrf3e$3mh$1...@dont-email.me>, Rick C. Hodgin

<rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>>>> It sucks that legacy software (and hardware) stops working with a new
> >>>>> edition of Windows but it was to be expected. Microsoft wants to sell
> >>>>> new versions of the same software and help out its third-parties by
> >>>>> making you upgrade your hardware. As such, decreasing support for
> >>>>> older software they can no longer making any money from makes a lot of
> >>>>> sense for them.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes. And it doesn't have to be like that. In my view, it's a real
> >>>> slap-in-the-face to all of the developers and users out there who paid
> >>>> to have software written, and now it suddenly doesn't work simply be-
> >>>> cause Microsoft chose to not support some feature that would not have
> >>>> taken much effort to maintain for backward compatibility. Other OSes
> >>>> do it, for example.
> >>>
> >>> it's up to the developers update their own apps.
> >>
> >> I categorically disagree with you. It should be up to the OS vendor
> >> to maintain backward compatibility.
> >
> > nope. that is simply wrong.
>
> I disagree with you top to bottom, front to back, side to side.

i see that, and you're still wrong.

> > developers need to update their apps to maintain compatibility and take
> > full advantage of new features in new versions of the operating system
> > and also new hardware.
>
> Once an app is written it is a tool. So long as there is no new thing
> that's discovered that is actually damaging, such as a fundamental flaw
> in the memory allocation unit in use in the app, then there is no reason
> to ever have to recompile software that's written, debugged, and deployed.

only if the app is incredibly simple and doesn't do much.

apps *will* need to be rewritten to take full advantage of new apis,
multicore processors, offloading to the gpu, hi-dpi displays and other
hardware, internet connectivity, as well as taking advantage of newer
programming languages and compilers and certainly new processors.

> It's probably good business to do so, but it's not a requirement.

it is if the software developer wants to stay in business.

> The
> same accounting software written in the 1980s on DOS still runs today
> if you don't have newer fancy things you need to keep track of.

the same can be said for a calculator and paper.

what you're advocating is to remain in the 1980s.

the world has moved beyond that with *far* more capable software and
hardware, letting users do all sorts of things that were thought to be
impossible back in the 1980s.

for instance, modern accounting apps can connect to banks and sync
transactions automatically, including paying bills without the need to
mail a paper check. stock portfolios are updated in real time.

a dos app can't do that.

nor can dos apps edit 4k videos, whose sizes are orders of magnitude
larger than anything a dos system can ever hope to handle, taken and
edited entirely on a device that fits in a pocket.

> > if they don't, their competitors will. that's how the industry works,
> > and not just software either.
>
> That's a business model and the choices you're advocating follow that
> model, but it's wrong to require that of people. I'm genuinely sad
> for you that you feel otherwise.

nobody is requiring anything.

a company is free to release an app and never update it. ever.

it won't be a successful product and for good reason. it's the ultimate
disrespect for their users, but it's their choice to do so.

meanwhile, their competitors will release better products, fix bugs and
add features based on customer feedback.

> BTW, anonymous coward "nos...@nospam.invalid" ... you should not be
> anonymous. It removes credibility away from your statements and
> claims. It makes you a troll at best.

ad hominem attacks show just how weak your argument is.

[nospam]

In article <tog2idla2rgtqbd6m...@4ax.com>, SilverSlimer

<.m@nsn.s> wrote:

> >
> >> I used to have an iPad - it was an idiots computer. Replaced it with
> >> Android
> >> which might not be quite so polished but its far superior in features and
> >> usability.
> >
> >false.
> >
> >nothing on the android side comes anywhere close to an ipad pro with an
> >apple pencil.
>
> Yet a Surface with pen does as good if not a better job.

no it definitely doesn't.

although latency with surface is pretty good, it's noticeably higher
than an apple pencil, plus surface have significant reliability issues.


<https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2017/8/10/16125294/microsoft-su
rface-consumer-reports-hardware-freezing-shutdowns-problems>
In a survey of 90,000 tablet and laptop owners, Consumer Reports
found that roughly 25 percent of Surface users have encountered
łproblems by the end of the second year of ownership.˛ Those problems
include freezing, unexpected shutdowns, and touchscreen response
issues. Reuters reported on the latest Consumer Reports reliability
study, which was published on Thursday.

[nospam]

In article <pfu1pv$6kk$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, <bol...@cylonHQ.com> wrote:

> Apple has been treading water since jobs died.

nonsense.

apple's market cap is roughly *four* times what it was when steve jobs
died.

[nospam]

In article <pfttpg$euj$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana

<maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> The problem with Apple isn't only price. They
> want to sell devices, not software.

completely false, but so what?

there is nothing wrong with selling devices and not software. a lot of
companies do exactly that.

> They want
> their devices locked down.

except that they aren't locked down.

it was *microsoft* who came out with windows 10s, which can only run
store apps. no such version of macos exists that *only* runs store
apps.

> They want their market
> to be consumer entertainment, not "productivity".

nonsense. numerous studies show mac users to be more productive.

> Their software development system isn't as open.

wrong again. not only is it more open, but it's based on open source
software.

> So if you could buy a Mac for $400 you'd still
> have the problem that it's a restricted, ninny-headed
> system with limited software and almost no
> hardware flexibility.

more ignorant bullshit.

> You'd get a more attractive
> GUI (except for the obnoxious kiddie icons) but
> give up the reasons that you use a computer for
> anything beyond photo editing or online consumer
> services.

nonsense.

> I think of iPods as the epitome of Apple. People
> lauded Jobs's genius for guessing what people
> wanted. But he never guessed what anyone
> wanted.

he guessed a lot better than most people did.

> He guessed what they were susceptible
> to. He gave them a drug: constant musical
> entertainment with no hassle. Tim Cook is a
> fullscale disciple of Jobs. He gushes about Apple's
> superiority and noble intentions while he's
> building more diddle-devices with slave labor and
> perfecting the art of tax evasion.

nonsense.

> I don't think Apple is the place to look for
> anything healthy or useful in the future.

clearly.

[nospam]

In article <pfu1kb$63h$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, <bol...@cylonHQ.com> wrote:

> >> >> >mobile is the future.
> >> >>
> >> >> Sure it is. All development and other types of content creation will one
> >> >> day be done on a pokey 3 inch screen and a virtual keyboard. Right.
> >> >
> >> >quite a bit already is created entirely on tablets or phones and that's
> >> >only going to increase.
> >>
> >> ITYM video has been recorded on them before being downloaded to a proper
> >> computer to do the rest.
> >
> >'the rest' not only can be done, but *is* done on a phone or tablet,
> >including 4k videos.
>
> Sure, if you only want to do simple jobs. Now go away and try and edit an
> entire TV program on a phone just by prodding your finger. Or maybe try and
> follow a page full of stock market movements on your phone. Or given this is
> a C++ forum, try using vi in a shell or eclipse on a phone. You'll soon get
> sick of it and wish for a large screen and a mouse.

there are people doing all of that on their tablet and even phone.

> Guess what? There's a reason some people have 32 inch monitors, sometimes 2
> or 3 of them to do their jobs.

some tasks might require multiple large displays, but the number of
such tasks is rapidly shrinking.

you are assuming that today's phones will never improve, that what
exists today is how it always will be.

that is a very, very bad assumption.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On 6/14/2018 2:50 PM, nospam wrote:
> [snip; dr]

If you use your real name and sign your posts I'll communicate with
you.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Ian Collins]

On 15/06/18 02:03, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On 6/13/2018 4:17 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
>> They wouldn't have to.  Solaris had (and presumably still does in the niche
>> Oracle has confined it to) a binary compatibility guarantee.  If an
>> application stuck to the public API, it would work as is in newer version of
>> the OS.  This was good for customers who could upgrade just the OS and good
>> for developers like me with clients running multiple OS versions.  All I had
>> to do was build on the oldest supported version and know my stuff would work
>> on all.
>
>
> The more I learn about Solaris the more impressed I am. Is the code
> base from Solaris (before it was closed up by Oracle) still available?

It lives on here: https://wiki.illumos.org/display/illumos/illumos+Home

--
Ian.

[SilverSlimer]

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 14:50:19 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

Sad to hear that it doesn't beat the iPad Pro.

[Richard]

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

SilverSlimer <.m@nsn.s> spake the secret code
<dip5idho7upvsspab...@4ax.com> thusly:

I'm happy with my Surface Book. It's what I've been using for Utah
C++ Programmers presentations for a couple of years now, with no
complaints about the hardware. I hardly use the touch aspect of the
machine; I mostly use it as a very lightweight development laptop.
I wish there was a distinction between Fn keys and special function
keys, like on my Toshiba. As a VS user, you often need to go back and
forth between PageUp/PageDown and Fn keys and these are overloaded on
the surface book keyboard.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals-wiki.org>
The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>

[SilverSlimer]

I'm glad that it works for you but I've read more than a few articles
of widespread complaints about the hardware. I'm not a fan of thin
laptops myself and would probably never buy one but it sucks to know
that yet another piece of hardware Microsoft designs is unreliable for
a large amount of people. They never get things right the first time.

Hell, I had a Microsoft Trackball a few years ago. The worst piece of
crap I've ever used. Meanwhile, this Logitech M570 has been
spectacular since 2011 or so.

[nospam]

In article <dip5idho7upvsspab...@4ax.com>, SilverSlimer

why is it sad?

[bol...@cylonhq.com]

Share values have little relation to reality these days. Sure, they're still
very profitable, but name me one significant device that they've brought out
since Jobs. There's only the watch, and that was a flop. Cook has zero vision,
he's just an accountant in a poloneck. He's trying to emulate job's style
without any of the substance.

[bol...@cylonhq.com]

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 14:50:22 -0400
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>In article <pfu1kb$63h$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, <bol...@cylonHQ.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >> >mobile is the future.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Sure it is. All development and other types of content creation will
>one
>> >> >> day be done on a pokey 3 inch screen and a virtual keyboard. Right.
>> >> >
>> >> >quite a bit already is created entirely on tablets or phones and that's
>> >> >only going to increase.
>> >>
>> >> ITYM video has been recorded on them before being downloaded to a proper
>> >> computer to do the rest.
>> >
>> >'the rest' not only can be done, but *is* done on a phone or tablet,
>> >including 4k videos.
>>
>> Sure, if you only want to do simple jobs. Now go away and try and edit an
>> entire TV program on a phone just by prodding your finger. Or maybe try and
>> follow a page full of stock market movements on your phone. Or given this is
>> a C++ forum, try using vi in a shell or eclipse on a phone. You'll soon get
>> sick of it and wish for a large screen and a mouse.
>
>there are people doing all of that on their tablet and even phone.

Really? 8 hours a day, 5 days a week they're coding on their 3 inch phone
screens? Don't be an ass.

>> Guess what? There's a reason some people have 32 inch monitors, sometimes 2
>> or 3 of them to do their jobs.
>
>some tasks might require multiple large displays, but the number of
>such tasks is rapidly shrinking.

No it isn't. There's a reason people moved to multiscreen and it wasn't
because monitors were getting smaller.

>you are assuming that today's phones will never improve, that what
>exists today is how it always will be.
>
>that is a very, very bad assumption.

Oh, so we'll soon be walking around with phones with 32 inch screens and
a keyboard will we? It doesn't matter how good the tech inside the phone is,
the human interface won't be changing anytime soon and THAT is the problem.
That and the feeble internal storage and poor support for external. And no,
the cloud isn't the answer to everything.

[nospam]

In article <pfvu3t$12u3$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, <bol...@cylonHQ.com> wrote:

> >> >> >> >mobile is the future.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Sure it is. All development and other types of content creation will one
> >> >> >> day be done on a pokey 3 inch screen and a virtual keyboard. Right.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >quite a bit already is created entirely on tablets or phones and that's
> >> >> >only going to increase.
> >> >>
> >> >> ITYM video has been recorded on them before being downloaded to a proper
> >> >> computer to do the rest.
> >> >
> >> >'the rest' not only can be done, but *is* done on a phone or tablet,
> >> >including 4k videos.
> >>
> >> Sure, if you only want to do simple jobs. Now go away and try and edit an
> >> entire TV program on a phone just by prodding your finger. Or maybe try and
> >> follow a page full of stock market movements on your phone. Or given this
> >> is a C++ forum, try using vi in a shell or eclipse on a phone. You'll soon get
> >> sick of it and wish for a large screen and a mouse.
> >
> >there are people doing all of that on their tablet and even phone.
>
> Really? 8 hours a day, 5 days a week they're coding on their 3 inch phone
> screens? Don't be an ass.

straw man.

the reality is that *can* be done on a mobile device, whereas it was
difficult to impossible even just a few years ago.

mobile devices are becoming increasingly more capable and the number of
tasks that require a desktop system will continue to shrink.

the trend is clear. very, very clear.

[nospam]

In article <pfvtsm$12ee$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, <bol...@cylonHQ.com> wrote:

> >> Apple has been treading water since jobs died.
> >
> >nonsense.
> >
> >apple's market cap is roughly *four* times what it was when steve jobs
> >died.
>
> Share values have little relation to reality these days. Sure, they're still
> very profitable, but name me one significant device that they've brought out
> since Jobs. There's only the watch, and that was a flop. Cook has zero vision,
> he's just an accountant in a poloneck. He's trying to emulate job's style
> without any of the substance.

nonsense. apple has released numerous products since then, including
the watch, which is in no way a flop. apple sells more watches than the
entire swiss watch industry combined, and that's in just 3 years or so.

[bol...@cylonhq.com]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 07:36:47 -0400
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>In article <pfvu3t$12u3$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, <bol...@cylonHQ.com> wrote:
>> Really? 8 hours a day, 5 days a week they're coding on their 3 inch phone
>> screens? Don't be an ass.
>
>straw man.

Sorry? Thats how people work. Perhaps you've never had a real job yet and don't
understand that.

>the reality is that *can* be done on a mobile device, whereas it was
>difficult to impossible even just a few years ago.

I could walk 100 miles. But I'd rather use a vehicle. Ditto using a phone
for doing real work on.

>mobile devices are becoming increasingly more capable and the number of
>tasks that require a desktop system will continue to shrink.
>
>the trend is clear. very, very clear.

No, the trend is people buying these things to use for media consumption, not
to work on.

[bol...@cylonhq.com]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 07:36:48 -0400
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>In article <pfvtsm$12ee$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, <bol...@cylonHQ.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Apple has been treading water since jobs died.
>> >
>> >nonsense.
>> >
>> >apple's market cap is roughly *four* times what it was when steve jobs
>> >died.
>>
>> Share values have little relation to reality these days. Sure, they're still
>> very profitable, but name me one significant device that they've brought out
>> since Jobs. There's only the watch, and that was a flop. Cook has zero
>vision,
>> he's just an accountant in a poloneck. He's trying to emulate job's style
>> without any of the substance.
>
>nonsense. apple has released numerous products since then, including

Such as?

>the watch, which is in no way a flop. apple sells more watches than the
>entire swiss watch industry combined, and that's in just 3 years or so.

Says an obvious fanboy. WHere are they then? I almost never see anyone wearing
one, in fact wearing a watch these days is becoming rarer but when I do see
a watch its not apple.

[nospam]

In article <pg09fl$1op1$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, <bol...@cylonHQ.com> wrote:

> >> >> Apple has been treading water since jobs died.
> >> >
> >> >nonsense.
> >> >
> >> >apple's market cap is roughly *four* times what it was when steve jobs
> >> >died.
> >>
> >> Share values have little relation to reality these days. Sure, they're
> >> still
> >> very profitable, but name me one significant device that they've brought
> >> out
> >> since Jobs. There's only the watch, and that was a flop. Cook has zero
> >vision,
> >> he's just an accountant in a poloneck. He's trying to emulate job's style
> >> without any of the substance.
> >
> >nonsense. apple has released numerous products since then, including
>
> Such as?
>
> >the watch, which is in no way a flop. apple sells more watches than the
> >entire swiss watch industry combined, and that's in just 3 years or so.
>
> Says an obvious fanboy.

ad hominem, and the numbers speak for themselves.

<http://fortune.com/2018/02/20/apple-watch-sales-smartwatch/>
In the fourth quarter of 2016, Apple零 six million shipments
represented nearly half of all smartwatch sales.
Apple sold eight million Apple Watches in the final quarter of 2017,
the most since the product was introduced and the highest number of
shipments in a single quarter for any wearable vendor, according to
new estimates from Canalys and IDC.
That figure is also more than the companies in the Swiss watch
industry零 combined sales, according to shipment statistics from the
Federation of the Swiss Watch Industry.
...
At Apple零 shareholder meeting on Feb. 13, Cook said revenue from the
wearables alone is approaching that of a Fortune 400 company. This
means Apple零 wearables business is nearly the size of a company like
Jetblue, with at least $6.7 billion in annual sales.

$6.7b is not what anyone would call 'a flop'.

what's worse is you can't see beyond your apple hatred to accept it.

> WHere are they then? I almost never see anyone wearing
> one, in fact wearing a watch these days is becoming rarer but when I do see
> a watch its not apple.

then you haven't been looking.

[nospam]

In article <pg09br$1oil$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, <bol...@cylonHQ.com> wrote:

> >> Really? 8 hours a day, 5 days a week they're coding on their 3 inch phone
> >> screens? Don't be an ass.
> >
> >straw man.
>
> Sorry? Thats how people work. Perhaps you've never had a real job yet and
> don't understand that.

ad hominem attacks means you have nothing.

> >the reality is that *can* be done on a mobile device, whereas it was
> >difficult to impossible even just a few years ago.
>
> I could walk 100 miles. But I'd rather use a vehicle. Ditto using a phone
> for doing real work on.

bad analogy and missing the point entirely.

> >mobile devices are becoming increasingly more capable and the number of
> >tasks that require a desktop system will continue to shrink.
> >
> >the trend is clear. very, very clear.
>
> No, the trend is people buying these things to use for media consumption, not
> to work on.

absolutely wrong.

these were drawn/painted with an apple pencil on an ipad, i.e.,
*creation*, not consumption:
<https://is3-ssl.mzstatic.com/image/thumb/Purple118/v4/99/7b/f7/997bf74f-
30a0-a3fa-8aa7-11e74ff31f5d/pr_source.png/628x0w.png>
<https://is5-ssl.mzstatic.com/image/thumb/Purple128/v4/5b/23/03/5b23037e-
86a5-a4b4-4192-21786edfc8ef/pr_source.png/628x0w.png>
<https://is3-ssl.mzstatic.com/image/thumb/Purple128/v4/54/03/46/540346ba-
b7f1-9d98-f7bb-00f82c68e1a5/pr_source.png/628x0w.png>

this sure isn't 'media consumption' either:
<http://www.unifiedrepublicofstars.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/image-
1-768x576.png>

[Mayayana]

<bol...@cylonHQ.com> wrote

| Says an obvious fanboy. WHere are they then? I almost never see anyone
wearing
| one, in fact wearing a watch these days is becoming rarer but when I do
see
| a watch its not apple.
|

The cutting edge people are on the go. They
won't be sitting around waiting for you to notice
their computer watch. Rather, they're at the gym,
using the watch to confirm that their heart is
still beating while they pay for the opportunity
to officially walk by renting a treadmill. These
people are very clever. They're a step ahead of
you or I. :)

[SilverSlimer]

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 20:32:23 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

Because it just seems that Apple's got the PC's number in pretty much
every category other than gaming and sheer performance. Their
offerings are always a lot more user friendly even if they seldom use
the most recent processors or even allow people to play the occasional
game. No matter what Microsoft tries to do, Apple always seems to do
it better.

[nospam]

In article <e1e7idd3v1s52c9e8...@4ax.com>, SilverSlimer

again, why is that sad?

what matters is using the best product for a given task. sometimes it's
apple and sometimes it's not.

no device is perfect for everything.

today, people have a wide range of options, more so than ever before,
including mac, windows, chromebook, ios, android and linux, and they
all interoperate with each other (for the most part, anyway).

competition means better products for everyone. choice is good.

that's *not* sad at all.

[bol...@cylonhq.com]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 08:58:19 -0400
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>In article <pg09fl$1op1$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, <bol...@cylonHQ.com> wrote:
>> >the watch, which is in no way a flop. apple sells more watches than the
>> >entire swiss watch industry combined, and that's in just 3 years or so.
>>
>> Says an obvious fanboy.
>
>ad hominem, and the numbers speak for themselves.
>
><http://fortune.com/2018/02/20/apple-watch-sales-smartwatch/>
> In the fourth quarter of 2016, Apple零 six million shipments
> represented nearly half of all smartwatch sales.

Wow, half of all smartwatch sales! Thats like saying

> That figure is also more than the companies in the Swiss watch
> industry零 combined sales, according to shipment statistics from the
> Federation of the Swiss Watch Industry.

Wow!

Now lets see how many watches casio shipped...

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/casio-announces-shipment-of-100-million
th-g-shock-watch-300514167.html

And thats just one model.

> At Apple零 shareholder meeting on Feb. 13, Cook said revenue from the
> wearables alone is approaching that of a Fortune 400 company. This
> means Apple零 wearables business is nearly the size of a company like
> Jetblue, with at least $6.7 billion in annual sales.
>
>$6.7b is not what anyone would call 'a flop'.

Its hardly the blazing success of their smartphones. That amount is small
beer for apple and if they're hoping to build their future revenue on the
watch then I'm glad I'm not a shareholder.

>what's worse is you can't see beyond your apple hatred to accept it.

See, there we go , i'm a "hater". How very adolescent. Actually I use OS/X
every day at work and used to own an iPad until I upgraded to android.

>> WHere are they then? I almost never see anyone wearing
>> one, in fact wearing a watch these days is becoming rarer but when I do see
>> a watch its not apple.
>
>then you haven't been looking.

Sure. Believe what you want.

[bol...@cylonhq.com]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 08:58:20 -0400
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>In article <pg09br$1oil$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, <bol...@cylonHQ.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Really? 8 hours a day, 5 days a week they're coding on their 3 inch phone
>> >> screens? Don't be an ass.
>> >
>> >straw man.
>>
>> Sorry? Thats how people work. Perhaps you've never had a real job yet and
>> don't understand that.
>
>ad hominem attacks means you have nothing.

Not denying it I see.

>> I could walk 100 miles. But I'd rather use a vehicle. Ditto using a phone
>> for doing real work on.
>
>bad analogy and missing the point entirely.

Not at all. You're the one who doesn't know what real work is and have no
reference point to make suitable comparisons or understand analogies.

>> No, the trend is people buying these things to use for media consumption, not
>
>> to work on.
>
>absolutely wrong.
>
>these were drawn/painted with an apple pencil on an ipad, i.e.,
>*creation*, not consumption:
><https://is3-ssl.mzstatic.com/image/thumb/Purple118/v4/99/7b/f7/997bf74f-
>30a0-a3fa-8aa7-11e74ff31f5d/pr_source.png/628x0w.png>
><https://is5-ssl.mzstatic.com/image/thumb/Purple128/v4/5b/23/03/5b23037e-
>86a5-a4b4-4192-21786edfc8ef/pr_source.png/628x0w.png>
><https://is3-ssl.mzstatic.com/image/thumb/Purple128/v4/54/03/46/540346ba-
>b7f1-9d98-f7bb-00f82c68e1a5/pr_source.png/628x0w.png>

Is that it? Seriously? Now lets see it run a full version of photoshop, never
mind blender or lightworks without grinding to a halt.

>this sure isn't 'media consumption' either:
><http://www.unifiedrepublicofstars.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/image-
>1-768x576.png>

And? I've got a terminal emulator on my tablet, it doesn't mean its usable
unless I want to give myself a headache squinting and spending half the time
correcting typos from the virtual keyboard.

Like I said, when you get yourself a proper job working for anything up to 12
hours a day instead of pissing about doing some hipster shit in a cafe for
half an hour while you sip your soya latte, you might understand the use cases
of large screens and a proper keyboard and mouse. Until then...

[bol...@cylonhq.com]

:)

Damn, I knew I was going to the wrong gym. I need to be where these lifestylers
are at! Perhaps I could facetime them while they're on the treadmill and ask
for advice...

[she...@outlook.com]

Slight difference between number shipped and number SOLD. That's the only
real number.

[nospam]

In article <pg0jf2$c7j$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, <bol...@cylonHQ.com> wrote:

> >> I could walk 100 miles. But I'd rather use a vehicle. Ditto using a phone
> >> for doing real work on.
> >
> >bad analogy and missing the point entirely.
>
> Not at all. You're the one who doesn't know what real work is and have no
> reference point to make suitable comparisons or understand analogies.

nope. that would be you.

'real work' is different for different people and you aren't the one
who decides what is real work and what is not.

it's also clear that you do not know how to use a mobile device to its
fullest potential.

[nospam]

In article <pg0itu$b5k$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, <bol...@cylonHQ.com> wrote:

> >> >the watch, which is in no way a flop. apple sells more watches than the
> >> >entire swiss watch industry combined, and that's in just 3 years or so.
> >>
> >> Says an obvious fanboy.
> >
> >ad hominem, and the numbers speak for themselves.
> >
> ><http://fortune.com/2018/02/20/apple-watch-sales-smartwatch/>
> > In the fourth quarter of 2016, Apple零 six million shipments
> > represented nearly half of all smartwatch sales.
>
> Wow, half of all smartwatch sales! Thats like saying

half is incredibly good for a product that's been out for ~3 years.

> > That figure is also more than the companies in the Swiss watch
> > industry零 combined sales, according to shipment statistics from the
> > Federation of the Swiss Watch Industry.
>
> Wow!
>
> Now lets see how many watches casio shipped...
>
> https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/casio-announces-shipment-of-100-milli
> onth-g-shock-watch-300514167.html
>
> And thats just one model.

no, that's *not* just one model.

that's 100 million *total* since 1981, more than 35 years ago.

100 million over 35 years is an average of about 2.8 million per year.

apple sold nearly three times that many in *one* quarter (~8m in q4'17)
with an estimated 18 million watches sold for all of 2017.

if they maintain current growth rates (and all indications are that
they will blow well past it), then 2018 sales should be at least 30
million units.

in other words, based on current estimates, apple will likely sell 100
million watches in another year or so, matching what took casio more
than 35 years to do.

not a very good example to support your claim that it's a flop.

> > At Apple零 shareholder meeting on Feb. 13, Cook said revenue from the
> > wearables alone is approaching that of a Fortune 400 company. This
> > means Apple零 wearables business is nearly the size of a company like
> > Jetblue, with at least $6.7 billion in annual sales.
> >
> >$6.7b is not what anyone would call 'a flop'.
>
> Its hardly the blazing success of their smartphones. That amount is small
> beer for apple and if they're hoping to build their future revenue on the
> watch then I'm glad I'm not a shareholder.

something does not need to sell 200 million units to not be a flop.

many companies would be thrilled to have just a fraction of $6.7b in
sales.

> >what's worse is you can't see beyond your apple hatred to accept it.
>
> See, there we go , i'm a "hater". How very adolescent. Actually I use OS/X
> every day at work and used to own an iPad until I upgraded to android.

you were first with the fanboy comment, and if you actually used "os/x"
you'd know that it is not written that way.

> >> WHere are they then? I almost never see anyone wearing
> >> one, in fact wearing a watch these days is becoming rarer but when I do see
> >> a watch its not apple.
> >
> >then you haven't been looking.
>
> Sure. Believe what you want.

you clearly do.

[Frank Slootweg]

bol...@cylonhq.com wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 08:58:19 -0400
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >In article <pg09fl$1op1$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, <bol...@cylonHQ.com> wrote:
> >> >the watch, which is in no way a flop. apple sells more watches than the
> >> >entire swiss watch industry combined, and that's in just 3 years or so.
> >>
> >> Says an obvious fanboy.
> >
> >ad hominem, and the numbers speak for themselves.
> >
> ><http://fortune.com/2018/02/20/apple-watch-sales-smartwatch/>

> > In the fourth quarter of 2016, Apple?s six million shipments

> > represented nearly half of all smartwatch sales.
>
> Wow, half of all smartwatch sales! Thats like saying

No, it's not half of all smartwatch sales. It's half of a very small -
*selected* - piece of all smartwatch sales, because nospam
'conveniently' left out this bit:

<quote>

The company sold more watches last quarter than Rolex, Omega, and Swatch
combined.

</quote>

So they're mainly looking at Rolex, Omega, and Swatch! What a complete
morons!

There are many, many more brands than just these three. Actually these
three are not even on the list of main brands. See for example
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartwatch#List_of_models_in_production>.

Comparing to Rolex and Omega - and especially Rolex - is like
comparing Audi sales to Rolls Royce sales.

> > That figure is also more than the companies in the Swiss watch

> > industry?s combined sales, according to shipment statistics from the

> > Federation of the Swiss Watch Industry.
>
> Wow!

The 'Swiss Watch Industry' is only a fraction of the worldwide watch
industry. I.e. another total crock.

[...]

[Frank Slootweg]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <pg0itu$b5k$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, <bol...@cylonHQ.com> wrote:

[...]

> > >what's worse is you can't see beyond your apple hatred to accept it.
> >
> > See, there we go , i'm a "hater". How very adolescent. Actually I use OS/X
> > every day at work and used to own an iPad until I upgraded to android.
>
> you were first with the fanboy comment, and if you actually used "os/x"
> you'd know that it is not written that way.

Ah! A spelling lame! Always an incredibly weak c.q. non argument.

FYI, If people who couldn't spell 'HP-UX' properly were non-users, we
wouldn't have had any.

In any case, 'OS X' sure as hell is not written in lowercase, so
physician, heal thyself!

[nospam]

In article <pg17s2...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg

<th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > > >what's worse is you can't see beyond your apple hatred to accept it.
> > >
> > > See, there we go , i'm a "hater". How very adolescent. Actually I use
> > > OS/X
> > > every day at work and used to own an iPad until I upgraded to android.
> >
> > you were first with the fanboy comment, and if you actually used "os/x"
> > you'd know that it is not written that way.
>
> Ah! A spelling lame! Always an incredibly weak c.q. non argument.

you snipped the rest of it.

> FYI, If people who couldn't spell 'HP-UX' properly were non-users, we
> wouldn't have had any.
>
> In any case, 'OS X' sure as hell is not written in lowercase, so
> physician, heal thyself!

it's not called that anymore, nor did i say 'os x' (lower case).

[nospam]

In article <pg16gs...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg

<th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > >
> > ><http://fortune.com/2018/02/20/apple-watch-sales-smartwatch/>
> > > In the fourth quarter of 2016, Apple?s six million shipments
> > > represented nearly half of all smartwatch sales.
> >
> > Wow, half of all smartwatch sales! Thats like saying
>
> No, it's not half of all smartwatch sales.

it is.

<https://marketrealist.imgix.net/uploads/2017/04/Smartwatches-Worldwide-
Share-of-Units-by-Vendor-as-of-2016-2017-04-27.jpg>

> It's half of a very small -
> *selected* - piece of all smartwatch sales, because nospam
> 'conveniently' left out this bit:
>
> <quote>
>
> The company sold more watches last quarter than Rolex, Omega, and Swatch
> combined.
>
> </quote>
>
> So they're mainly looking at Rolex, Omega, and Swatch! What a complete
> morons!

there's nothing moronic about it.

those are the dominant watch makers.

prior to the apple watch, rolex was #1. now they're not.

they're also looking at other smartwatches.

> There are many, many more brands than just these three. Actually these
> three are not even on the list of main brands. See for example
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartwatch#List_of_models_in_production>.

none of which sell anywhere near as many as apple does.

you also 'conveniently' left out this bit:
³Apple has won the wearables game,² said Jason Low, senior analyst at
Canalys.

since you failed to understand the text, perhaps more graphs will clear
it up, despite it being outdated data:
<https://marketrealist.imgix.net/uploads/2017/04/Apple-Has-Taken-over-th
e-Smartwatch-Segment-2017-04-27.jpg>

<https://marketrealist.imgix.net/uploads/2016/06/Apple-watch-market-shar
e.png>

[bol...@cylonhq.com]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 12:19:07 -0400
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>In article <pg0itu$b5k$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, <bol...@cylonHQ.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >the watch, which is in no way a flop. apple sells more watches than the
>> >> >entire swiss watch industry combined, and that's in just 3 years or so.
>> >>
>> >> Says an obvious fanboy.
>> >
>> >ad hominem, and the numbers speak for themselves.
>> >
>> ><http://fortune.com/2018/02/20/apple-watch-sales-smartwatch/>
>> > In the fourth quarter of 2016, Apple零 six million shipments
>> > represented nearly half of all smartwatch sales.
>>
>> Wow, half of all smartwatch sales! Thats like saying
>
>half is incredibly good for a product that's been out for ~3 years.

Given the other makers a bit players and the watches hard to get hold of in
a lot of markets it should be way more than half.

>> And thats just one model.
>
>no, that's *not* just one model.

Ok, one range out of many.

>that's 100 million *total* since 1981, more than 35 years ago.

Actualy its 1983 and the original g shock sold very few. And I wonder what
the chances of the apple watch still being around in 35 years are? Or even
apple?

>> See, there we go , i'm a "hater". How very adolescent. Actually I use OS/X
>> every day at work and used to own an iPad until I upgraded to android.
>
>you were first with the fanboy comment, and if you actually used "os/x"
>you'd know that it is not written that way.

Its not written in lowercase either. And if you don't believe I use OS/X why
not going and look up the posts I made in comp.unix.programmer about OS/X
systems programming.

[bol...@cylonhq.com]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 12:19:08 -0400
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>In article <pg0jf2$c7j$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, <bol...@cylonHQ.com> wrote:
>
>> >> I could walk 100 miles. But I'd rather use a vehicle. Ditto using a phone
>> >> for doing real work on.
>> >
>> >bad analogy and missing the point entirely.
>>
>> Not at all. You're the one who doesn't know what real work is and have no
>> reference point to make suitable comparisons or understand analogies.
>
>nope. that would be you.
>
>'real work' is different for different people and you aren't the one
>who decides what is real work and what is not.

So fill us in on what it is you do as a job then? My guess is you don't have
one, you're a student.

>it's also clear that you do not know how to use a mobile device to its
>fullest potential.

And its clear that you have no idea how real work most often requires decent
input devices. There's a reason Windows 8 flopped big time on the desktop, why
not go find out why.

[nospam]

In article <pg7rc3$1iki$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, <bol...@cylonHQ.com> wrote:

> >> >> I could walk 100 miles. But I'd rather use a vehicle. Ditto using a
> >> >> phone
> >> >> for doing real work on.
> >> >
> >> >bad analogy and missing the point entirely.
> >>
> >> Not at all. You're the one who doesn't know what real work is and have no
> >> reference point to make suitable comparisons or understand analogies.
> >
> >nope. that would be you.
> >
> >'real work' is different for different people and you aren't the one
> >who decides what is real work and what is not.
>
> So fill us in on what it is you do as a job then? My guess is you don't have
> one, you're a student.

you'd be wrong and this is not about me.

> >it's also clear that you do not know how to use a mobile device to its
> >fullest potential.
>
> And its clear that you have no idea how real work most often requires decent
> input devices. There's a reason Windows 8 flopped big time on the desktop, why
> not go find out why.

you don't get to decide what real work is for everyone.

as for win8, it flopped for a few reasons, which you don't appear to
understand at all, ultimately forcing steve ballmer to 'retire' (aka
fired).

[nospam]

In article <pg7r8m$1if3$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, <bol...@cylonHQ.com> wrote:

> >> >> >the watch, which is in no way a flop. apple sells more watches than the
> >> >> >entire swiss watch industry combined, and that's in just 3 years or so.
> >> >>
> >> >> Says an obvious fanboy.
> >> >
> >> >ad hominem, and the numbers speak for themselves.
> >> >
> >> ><http://fortune.com/2018/02/20/apple-watch-sales-smartwatch/>
> >> > In the fourth quarter of 2016, Apple零 six million shipments
> >> > represented nearly half of all smartwatch sales.
> >>
> >> Wow, half of all smartwatch sales! Thats like saying
> >
> >half is incredibly good for a product that's been out for ~3 years.
>
> Given the other makers a bit players and the watches hard to get hold of in
> a lot of markets it should be way more than half.

no.

the reality is that your claim that the watch is a flop is simply
wrong. it's *very* successful.

> >> And thats just one model.
> >
> >no, that's *not* just one model.
>
> Ok, one range out of many.

and over 35 years.

> >that's 100 million *total* since 1981, more than 35 years ago.
>
> Actualy its 1983 and the original g shock sold very few.

the article you linked stated it began in 1981 with the first product
shipping in 1983, not that a difference of 2 years matters.

> And I wonder what
> the chances of the apple watch still being around in 35 years are? Or even
> apple?

that also does not matter.

you're all over the map.

> >> See, there we go , i'm a "hater". How very adolescent. Actually I use OS/X
> >> every day at work and used to own an iPad until I upgraded to android.
> >
> >you were first with the fanboy comment, and if you actually used "os/x"
> >you'd know that it is not written that way.
>
> Its not written in lowercase either. And if you don't believe I use OS/X why
> not going and look up the posts I made in comp.unix.programmer about OS/X
> systems programming.

i didn't say how it was written, other than what you wrote is wrong.

[bol...@cylonhq.com]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 15:52:39 -0400
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>In article <pg7rc3$1iki$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, <bol...@cylonHQ.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >> I could walk 100 miles. But I'd rather use a vehicle. Ditto using a
>> >> >> phone
>> >> >> for doing real work on.
>> >> >
>> >> >bad analogy and missing the point entirely.
>> >>
>> >> Not at all. You're the one who doesn't know what real work is and have no
>> >> reference point to make suitable comparisons or understand analogies.
>> >
>> >nope. that would be you.
>> >
>> >'real work' is different for different people and you aren't the one
>> >who decides what is real work and what is not.
>>
>> So fill us in on what it is you do as a job then? My guess is you don't have
>> one, you're a student.
>
>you'd be wrong and this is not about me.

Not willing to tell us? Unemployed maybe?

>> >it's also clear that you do not know how to use a mobile device to its
>> >fullest potential.
>>
>> And its clear that you have no idea how real work most often requires decent
>> input devices. There's a reason Windows 8 flopped big time on the desktop,
>why
>> not go find out why.
>
>you don't get to decide what real work is for everyone.
>
>as for win8, it flopped for a few reasons, which you don't appear to
>understand at all, ultimately forcing steve ballmer to 'retire' (aka
>fired).

No, it flopped for 1 reason only and that was the metro interface which was
absolutely and truly hopeless on a desktop. And while balmer ultimately
carried the can, it was that arrogant idiot sinofsky who was actually
responsible for it. At least he had the grace to resign before he was fired
too.

[Mayayana]

<bol...@cylonHQ.com> wrote

| >you'd be wrong and this is not about me.
|
| Not willing to tell us? Unemployed maybe?
|

You don't seem to know about nospam. He's a
compulsive arguer who frequents many groups.
As long as you answer him he'll come back with
some kind of correction or disagreement.

Say the sky is blue and he'll say, "Not always".
Say peanut butter is high in fat and he'll say, "Idiot.
It's one of the most nutritious foods." His rebuttals
are always frivolous and combative, but usually have
enough truth in them (in some context or other)
that it appears he could possibly be a coherent
thinker.

There's been speculation that nospam may actually
be a bot being run by some sadistic research
psychologists studying conversation patterns, because
the rebuttals are always the same, always pointless,
usually peppered with misinformation, often just
answering back with your own statement, twisted in
some way. Yet it bears an uncanny resemblance to
reason.

So proceed at your own risk. And only if you have no
other plans until long after the cows come home. :)

[bol...@cylonhq.com]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 09:28:09 -0400
"Mayayana" <maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> So proceed at your own risk. And only if you have no
>other plans until long after the cows come home. :)

Its ok, I consider winding up trolls a cybersport :)