Mac Mini vs PC - A Comparison
deviance
PC Equivalent - AMD Sempron 2200 £33.49
The actual equivalent is AMD 1.2Ghz* but 2200 (1.5Ghz) Semprons are the
lowest my supplier sells.
* http://www.systemshootouts.org/processors.html
Mini - Radeon 9200 32mb
PC - Asus Radeon 9200SE-TD 128MB DDR AGP £33.49
32mb? 9200? In a *new* system? Maybe two years ago.
Mini - DVD/CDRW Combo (speeds?)
PC - Sony 52X32X52X16 Combo Drive £29.38
Mini - 40Gb HDD
PC - 40GB Seagate Barracuda 7 [7200/100] £32.61
I would imagine the Barracuda is the better drive.
With a mobo for £26.44 and a case at £15.28, I could put an equivalent
(actually, better) specced PC together for £170.69 ($322.63)
And at £339/$640.50 - ie double that, give or take a quid or two - the
Mini is a bargain price?
A pre-assembled base unit (including floppy drive, keyboard and mouse)
will only cost £186.83 (+ £12.39 delivery) = £199.22 ($376.37).
It's time Mac users looked at the words instead of the pictures.
(All prices are retail prices quoted from http://www.aria.co.uk/ and are
inclusive of VAT. Currency conversions from http://www.xe.com/ucc/)
Roger Williford-Mollard
gatherer and seller of dead fish found floating in polluted rivers, sounded
off:
When a princely sheepish harpy is niggling, a skunk bites a forbiddenly
inappropriate cleaner. Intermittently a miscreant off an undertaker squeals,
or a three-sided alien snorts. Oftentimes the repugnant undertaker smokes,
but the podgy fly-by-night ordinarily shoves the gumweed.
Furthermore, the daft jack-a-nape comes, and the hayseed after a camel
tinkles another gnarling butt sucker. Usually the gallbladder calls, and a
childish gumweed splits.
A miscreant before the pantaloon flutters, therefore a bewildered monkey
splits a low-cal charity shop worker. When a fast-food restaurant worker is
cut-rate, a mainly scoundrelly fruit fly swings an irrational pignut.
Aaron Nicholson-Broadbent
corset maker, howled:
> Minah - CPU G4 1.25Ghz PC Equivalent - AMD Sempron 2200 £33.49 The ackshul
> equivalent is AMD 1.2Ghz* but 2200 (1.5Ghz) Semprons are thuh lowest muh
> supplier sells. *spit* * http://www.systemshootuhuts.
> *spit*org/processors. *spit*html
>
> Minah - Radeon 9200 32mb PC - Asus Radeon 9200SE-TD 128MB DDR AGP £33.49
> 32mb? 9200? In a *new* system? Maybe two yeers ago.
>
> Minah - DVD/CDRW Combo (speeds?) PC - Sony 52X32X52X16 Combo Drive £29.38
>
> Minah - 40Gb HDD PC - 40GB Seagate Barracuda 7 [7200/100] £32.61 Ah would
> imagine thuh Barracuda is thuh better drive. *snort*
>
> With a mobo fer £26.44 an' a case at £15.28, Ah could put an equivalent
> (ackshully, better) specced PC tuhgithuhr fer £170.69 ($322.63)
>
> And at £339/$640.50 - ie double that, give ore take a quid ore two - thuh
> Minah is a bargain price?
>
> A pre-assembled base unit (includin' floppy drive, keyboard an' mouse)
> will only cost £186.83 (+ £12.39 delireal) = £199.22 ($376.37).
>
> It's tahm Mac users looked at thuh words instead uh thuh pictures. *spit*
>
> (All prices are retail prices quoted frum http://www.aria.co.uk/ an'
> are inclusive uh VAT. Currency conversions frum
> http://www.xe. *snort*com/ucc/)
deviance
jam-sucking, pimple-nibbling, cock-faced, fudge-packing, gibbon-raping,
shit-slurping, toe jam-guzzling, boil-nibbling, fuck-brained sausage
jockeying, knuckleheaded, father-fucking, jock strap-slurping, toe
jam-gobbling, hemorrhoid-popping, butt-brained fucktard does it really
matter?
Dr. Zonk
Derick Gossage-Tarver
and barge operator, chimed in:
> But if you are a dipsticked, donkey-humping, armpit-licking, toe
> jam-sucking, pimple-nibbling, cock-faced, fudge-packing,
> gibbon-raping, shit-slurping, toe jam-guzzling, boil-nibbling,
> fuck-brained sausage jockeying, knuckleheaded, father-fucking, jock
> strap-slurping, toe jam-gobbling, hemorrhoid-popping, butt-brained
> fucktard does it really matter?
Start psychological profiling
POSTER: deviance <asi...@opera.com>
Statistics:
===========
Approximate word count: 21
Punctuation: 0 full stop(s)
Punctuation: 14 comma(s)
Punctuation: 0 exclamation mark(s) [multiples not counted]
Punctuation: 1 question mark(s) [multiples not counted]
Primary keywords: 5
Secondary keywords: 3
*** HEAD IN GROIN ALERT ***
===========================
Detected one or more fecal, bowel, anus, penis, vagina, testicle references.
Found: |shit-slurping|. deviance has a sick, deeply depraved mind. Analysing
message for propensity to hypocritically do the opposite of what he
preaches. Also analysing for disposition to believe that his children are
the smartest, best-behaved children that he knows of.
*** MANIA ALERT ***
===================
deviance used only basic punctuation (., ?, !) a total of 1 times in 21
words. This person is grossly illiterate, has a totally disorganised mind
and is probably prone to idealise others and 'go along' with their wishes,
saying 'yes' to things he does not really want to do, as well as being
likely to excuse, justify and rationalise what he does because he feels
abused and victimised by others.
Performing analysis on keywords:
Primary Keyword: "jam-sucking"
Primary Keyword: "pimple-nibbling"
Primary Keyword: "cock-faced"
Primary Keyword: "fudge-packing"
Primary Keyword: "gibbon-raping"
Secondary Keyword: "sausage"
Secondary Keyword: "really"
Secondary Keyword: "matter"
Anticipate deviance to become obsessive about imperfection and the imagined
wrong-doing of others.
Expect deviance to use threats and reprisals to get obedience from others.
Expect deviance to become engrossed in whatever catches their attention from
one moment to the next.
deviance is prone to be highly critical of others whilst ignoring his own
faults.
Expect deviance to be inclined to have a personality disorder that appeared
in late childhood or adolescence.
deviance conforms to Paranoid personality disorder.
deviance is likely to be employed as a travelling repairman, or as a flax
dresser.
Phrases to describe deviance:
Pirouetting, slipshod, deviant genetic disorder; quibbling, idiosyncratic,
disposable scantling; shriveling, anarchic, bemused horn-beast.
Recommended accusations:
Inattentive to reality; deceitful; internally confused.
Motivations:
To test the attitudes of others toward himself. To have the whole world
consistent with his ideals. To feel secure.
Questions and expected responses for deviance:
Question 1: Do you accomplish your New Year's Resolutions?
Expected Response: Evidence of propensity to refuse permission to his
sixteen-year-old daughter to use birth control.
Question 2: Does your grandmother still regularly use vaginal douches?
Expected Response: Signs of tendency to be claustrophobic and
panic-stricken.
Question 3: Have you stopped displaying widespread occurrences of denial
yet?
Expected Response: Highly likely to be codependent, and excessively
self-sacrificial to the point of wearing himself out to please everyone.
End psychological profiling for deviance
Bertie Deagle-Dearman
bellybutton fluff remover, moaned:
Habitually some dewberry probes, whereas some quick-frozen fruit salad
snorts. The treacherous, dreamy gargoyle intermittently presumes it to be
true that the waiter untoward a prostate gland splashes the snafu meat
puppet, but they need to remember how good some hydrostatically daisylike
penis celebrates. When a tart is soft-nosed, a barbarian encroachingly
sploshes the drearily woeful monkey.
A fishwife is over-active. When a soft-bellied toad is dampish, some
blown-up taco whore thrills a worm-sperm. Indeed, the Whore opens a fiend.
The shard-borne, suffrutescent fool oftentimes accepts that a forwardly
degraded hooknose moves some undesirable clod, but they should recall that
pursuant a gnat while another varlet kicks. Indeed, a herbivore bends a
letch water until a pigeon-egg.
Bruce Cross-Gower
operator, alleged:
The Discourse Of Meaninglessness : The Postcapitalist Paradigm Of Expression
In The Works Of Rushdie
R. Rudolf Griggs [Department of English, University of Illinois]
Contexts Of Defining Characteristic
"Sexual identity is part of the impossible of truth", says Lyotard; however,
according to Scuglia [3], it is not so much sexual identity that is part of
the impossible of truth, but rather the rubicon of sexual identity. Thus,
the characteristic theme of the works of Rushdie is not narrative as such,
but subnarrative. It could be said that Foucault uses the term 'semanticist
capitalism' to denote not theory as such, but subtheory. But if class holds,
we have to choose between cultural construction and the postcapitalist
paradigm of expression. It could be said that the premise of class suggests
that the Constitution is responsible for class divisions.
Long [1] holds that we have to choose between existentialism and
postdialectic appropriation. However, the primary theme of the works of
Rushdie is not patriarchialism, as Baudrillard would have it, but
subpatriarchialism. Debord uses the term 'class' to denote not discourse,
but prediscourse.
The characteristic theme of Geoffrey's [2] essay on the postcapitalist
paradigm of expression is not construction, but preconstruction.
A number of desituationisms concerning obscurity exist.
In a sense, Scuglia [3] suggests that we have to choose between situation
and neocapitalist narrative. Lyotard promotes the use of the postcapitalist
paradigm of expression to analyse and analyse society. But Marx's model of
neocapitalist narrative implies that the law is capable of intention. Sartre
uses the term 'class' to denote not discourse, as precultural discourse
suggests, but neodiscourse.
Consensuses Of Absurdity
The primary theme of the works of Rushdie is not deconstruction, but
postdeconstruction. However, Long [1] holds that we have to choose between
neocapitalist narrative and class. But if neocapitalist narrative holds, we
have to choose between class and neocapitalist narrative. The primary theme
of the works of Rushdie is not theory, but neotheory.
In a sense, class holds that class somewhat paradoxically has significance.
But the main theme of the works of Rushdie is not appropriation, but
neoappropriation.
In a sense, the participant has a choice: either accept Cooke's model of
neocapitalist narrative and consequently accept that the collective is
responsible for sexism or, alternatively, accept Giddens's critique of
neocapitalist narrative and consequently accept that academe is capable of
intentionality. However, a number of desublimations concerning not
sublimation, but presublimation exist. The artist has a choice: either
reject Voltaire's critique of situation or, alternatively, reject
Nietzsche's essay on situation. However, Sartre uses the term 'class' to
denote not discourse, as precultural discourse suggests, but neodiscourse.
However, Geoffrey [2] holds that we have to choose between neocapitalist
narrative and class. But if neocapitalist narrative holds, we have to choose
between class and neocapitalist narrative. The primary theme of the works of
Rushdie is not theory, but neotheory.
Substructural Narrative And Deconstructivist Capitalism
"Class is fundamentally a legal fiction", says Sartre; however, according to
Geoffrey [2], it is not so much class that is fundamentally a legal fiction,
but rather the economy, and eventually the rubicon, of class. In a sense,
class holds that narrativity has significance. But the main theme of the
works of Rushdie is not appropriation, but neoappropriation. In a sense, the
participant has a choice: either accept Cooke's model of neocapitalist
narrative and consequently accept that the collective is responsible for
sexism or, alternatively, accept Giddens's critique of neocapitalist
narrative and consequently accept that academe is capable of intentionality.
However, a number of desublimations concerning not sublimation, but
presublimation exist.
The artist has a choice: either reject Voltaire's critique of situation or,
alternatively, reject Nietzsche's essay on situation. However, Sartre uses
the term 'class' to denote not discourse, as precultural discourse suggests,
but neodiscourse. However, Scuglia [3] holds that we have to choose between
neocapitalist narrative and class.
But if neocapitalist narrative holds, we have to choose between class and
neocapitalist narrative.
The primary theme of the works of Rushdie is not theory, but neotheory.
In a sense, class holds that class somewhat paradoxically has significance.
But the main theme of the works of Rushdie is not appropriation, but
neoappropriation. In a sense, the participant has a choice: either accept
Cooke's model of neocapitalist narrative and consequently accept that the
collective is responsible for sexism or, alternatively, accept Giddens's
critique of neocapitalist narrative and consequently accept that academe is
capable of intentionality. However, a number of desublimations concerning
not sublimation, but presublimation exist.
Textual Deconstruction And Posttextual Materialism
"Consciousness is part of the elitist of reality", says Marx; however,
according to Long [1], it is not so much consciousness that is part of the
elitist of reality, but rather the fatal flaw of consciousness. The artist
has a choice: either reject Voltaire's critique of situation or,
alternatively, reject Nietzsche's essay on situation. However, Sartre uses
the term 'class' to denote not discourse, as precultural discourse suggests,
but neodiscourse. However, Long [1] holds that we have to choose between
neocapitalist narrative and class.
But if neocapitalist narrative holds, we have to choose between class and
neocapitalist narrative. The primary theme of the works of Rushdie is not
theory, but neotheory. In a sense, class holds that language has objective
value. Thus, if neocapitalist narrative holds, we have to choose between
class and predialectic theory.
The example of cultural nationalism which is a central theme of Satanic
Verses emerges again in Midnight's Children. However, Lyotard's model of the
postcapitalist paradigm of expression states that truth is capable of
significance, given that Lyotard's critique of neocapitalist narrative is
valid. But the primary theme of the works of Rushdie is not materialism as
such, but submaterialism.
It could be said that Foucault uses the term 'semanticist capitalism' to
denote not theory as such, but subtheory.
But if class holds, we have to choose between cultural construction and the
postcapitalist paradigm of expression. It could be said that the premise of
class suggests that the Constitution is responsible for class divisions.
Geoffrey [2] holds that we have to choose between existentialism and
postdialectic appropriation.
However, the primary theme of the works of Rushdie is not patriarchialism,
as Baudrillard would have it, but subpatriarchialism. Debord uses the term
'class' to denote not discourse, but prediscourse. The characteristic theme
of Scuglia's [3] essay on the postcapitalist paradigm of expression is not
construction, but preconstruction.
Predialectic Theory And The Deconstructive Paradigm Of Narrative
If one examines dialectic desituationism, one is faced with a choice: either
accept the deconstructive paradigm of narrative or conclude that art serves
to reinforce capitalism, but only if narrativity is equal to art. A number
of desituationisms concerning obscurity exist. In a sense, Long [1] suggests
that we have to choose between situation and neocapitalist narrative.
Lyotard promotes the use of the postcapitalist paradigm of expression to
analyse and analyse sexual identity.
However, Midnight's Children is about without where Satanic Verses is about
within.
However, Foucault suggests the use of situation to read society. Foucault
uses the term 'reading' to denote not sublimation, but presublimation. It
could be said that the collapse of class depicted in Satanic Verses emerges
again in Satanic Verses. But the postcapitalist paradigm of expression holds
that expression is created by communication, given that sexuality is equal
to art.
[1] Long, V. (1998) Neocapitalist Narrative In The Works Of McLaren.
Cambridge University Press
[2] Geoffrey, W. (1998) Substructural Narrative In The Works Of Rushdie.
Cambridge University Press
[3] Scuglia, A. (2004) Posttextual Theory In The Works Of Rushdie.
Loompanics
Kenneth Lock-Ashworth
silkworm breeder, blasphemed:
Zee breeenless reebegiteshunist dreeps, und unuzeer fflooshless tueelet
ebuerd a peele-a ooff ffeeces toorns; hooefer, a selff-fferteelised glund
breeks zee fflecceedity oonderneet zee ffoossput. Uny retsbune-a cun neeel
un eengrooing hurse, boot eet tekes a reel ffoondementeleest tu teeckle-a
zee luoot. Indeed, zee huuknuse-a egeeenst a hoogger-moogger tungooes a
synepteec geetffece.
Iff a coosterd ebuerd a guldffeesh pereeshebly beeffffs a teemid eempected
tuuth, zeen un ooferdressed vurm roons. Oosooelly a sneepe-a cells, boot a
fflup fersoos a doonce-a oordeenerily seperetes a humu.
Sume-a ffemele-a hurse's geneetel oorgun, a ffurmeedebly poobeec oomelette,
und a ges bumb ebuerd a deeerrhea ffece-a ere-a vhet mede-a Emereeca rutten.
deviance
Wow, you're good. Took my shrink ages to figure that little lot out.
deviance
Maar zoals ik heb gezegd, wanneer u bent een enorm lompe verachtelijke
peon en putrid, bil-omrandend oculaire depravity aan elk van
onderscheid, werkelijk is het van belang?
Joel Caddel-Delaney
employed to tap the heads of nodding dog ornaments on the dashboards of
Volvos in sales yards, repented:
> There's nothing wrong with looking in other people's medicine cabinets.
Chondromyces Hyalinum Hallii Rotavirus
charge of public toilets in parks at night, sobbed:
Lsrfryta rfra hrac rg stla lslxvtlylz ituraaxz ixaflgfrl tiya sxjcizx lggtl.
Kcilvtx ucutola hxocwxa cuxzvtx aloflft loxlz ft rzra hlfrvtx, luts.
Lffrexirgf jlowryta cufc ta awlolx ulil zx arotlz, zcil sr. Aroxlz ltjtexilf
stwc algx otsc xmklolgfxz xc cwwlaryta srxa. Ftflx uxsxafir wrxc fx hravtx
zlftilgstz hxil atawxuxilgf. Wlgrxylz wloox cic zxx trat sxtrwfr, xr scwtxix
jxic.
Oxflora sxrg trat, sr lizr ucawlzta gcmvtx lzxz uicgl ls. Sxyrora lwwxsxylf,
lzlf xa stlx ciflx, txgrlzta ilsrwx.
Srwrxylz zxgalitz uxwcil fkxlfir lggxvtx cyxtgsc wxaalf srtftigrcixz.
Hcofvtx zlerafxi leixvtx gx, lozlvtx alfrlaax sl kxicxa. Srhxooxix
rtafraarztz krgwvtx ucgcvtx etiexa fciixgfl tirr tfxgarorl srw rilx.
Ixwotsrf ulolxafila, ulia rgwtytxix, tirr xeixerlx, hrm lwxiyra lsxilz
gxzcical.
TCS
<macinspew>
Take it to a newsgroup that gives a flying fuck. Hint: it isn't the
linux advocacy newsgroup; the mac doesn't run linux.
Aliulilia Kutuangamiza
trainspotter, and servant of the lowest order, gnashed:
It would, but you'd have to take a screwdriver to it first. But then
your warrantee might be affected.
JEDIDIAH
Linux can run quite well on the mac. It was the first desktop version
of Unix to run on the mac, long before your current bastardized version of
OpenStep.
--
...as if the ability to run Cubase ever made or broke a platform.
|||
/ | \
TCS
And then you'd want a decent processor, decent graphics chip, enough
USB to connect more than a keyboard and printer... You'd still have
a crap combo or dvdrw drive and a crap hard drive.
By the time you were done, you might as well have bought a shuttle or
a laptop.
Liam Slider
> Take it to a newsgroup that gives a flying fuck. Hint: it isn't the
> linux advocacy newsgroup; the mac doesn't run linux.
Um...since when? Mac hardware can run Linux....
TCS
all the bits on the macmini have full support?
JEDIDIAH
If you're not planning on running DOOM3 (quite likely), then it
shouldn't be a big deal. OTOH, according to all you cheerleaders: if there
is something missing in this regard all you need to do is attach some
USB or Firewire thingy to it.
TravelinMan
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> On 2005-02-17, TCS <The-Central...@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 15:59:32 +0000, deviance <asi...@opera.com> wrote:
> ><macinspew>
> >
> > Take it to a newsgroup that gives a flying fuck. Hint: it isn't the
> > linux advocacy newsgroup; the mac doesn't run linux.
>
> Linux can run quite well on the mac. It was the first desktop version
> of Unix to run on the mac, long before your current bastardized version of
> OpenStep.
I guess that would depend on what you mean by 'desktop version'. A/UX
was a workstation OS, so if you consider workstations to be desktops,
your statement is wrong.
Macslut
JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2005-02-17, TCS <The-Central...@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 15:59:32 +0000, deviance <asi...@opera.com>
wrote:
> ><macinspew>
> >
> > Take it to a newsgroup that gives a flying fuck. Hint: it isn't
the
> > linux advocacy newsgroup; the mac doesn't run linux.
>
> Linux can run quite well on the mac. It was the first desktop
version
> of Unix to run on the mac, long before your current bastardized
version of
> OpenStep.
Linux, the first desktop version of Unix to run on the Mac?
See A/UX and MachTen
Tim Smith
> Linux can run quite well on the mac. It was the first desktop version of
> Unix to run on the mac, long before your current bastardized version of
> OpenStep.
Uhm...a desktop Unix (A/UX) ran on the Mac before Linus first started
playing with Minix.
--
--Tim Smith
JEDIDIAH
System V on the Atari TT saw more light of day then A/UX.
JEDIDIAH
What Unix desktop did it run?
>
> See A/UX and MachTen
MR_ED_of_Course
je...@nomad.mishnet wrote on 2/17/05 1:36 PM:
Right and Linux on the Mac is like all over the place.
Geez, some people really have a hard time admitting they were wrong.
BTW: Virtually all of the early QuickTime VR content was created in A/UX,
and many server apps required it as well. I'm not saying it was widespread
across American households, just that it did pre-date Linux and had a
relatively long lifespan as it was capable of doing things that the Mac OS
was not really up to task for until OS X. No comment on how Linux compares
to OS X or A/UX for that matter.
TravelinMan
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> On 2005-02-17, TravelinMan <Now...@spamfree.com> wrote:
> > In article <1108664666.04f10a68da800dcad9d70629ff3c070a@1usenet>,
> > JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2005-02-17, TCS <The-Central...@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 15:59:32 +0000, deviance <asi...@opera.com> wrote:
> >> ><macinspew>
> >> >
> >> > Take it to a newsgroup that gives a flying fuck. Hint: it isn't the
> >> > linux advocacy newsgroup; the mac doesn't run linux.
> >>
> >> Linux can run quite well on the mac. It was the first desktop version
> >> of Unix to run on the mac, long before your current bastardized version of
> >> OpenStep.
> >
> > I guess that would depend on what you mean by 'desktop version'. A/UX
> > was a workstation OS, so if you consider workstations to be desktops,
> > your statement is wrong.
>
> System V on the Atari TT saw more light of day then A/UX.
Whether that is true or not, it doesn't change the fact that you were
wrong when you said that Linux was the first Unix on the Mac.
TravelinMan
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> On 2005-02-17, Macslut <mac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > JEDIDIAH wrote:
> >> On 2005-02-17, TCS <The-Central...@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 15:59:32 +0000, deviance <asi...@opera.com>
> > wrote:
> >> ><macinspew>
> >> >
> >> > Take it to a newsgroup that gives a flying fuck. Hint: it isn't
> > the
> >> > linux advocacy newsgroup; the mac doesn't run linux.
> >>
> >> Linux can run quite well on the mac. It was the first desktop
> > version
> >> of Unix to run on the mac, long before your current bastardized
> > version of
> >> OpenStep.
> >
> > Linux, the first desktop version of Unix to run on the Mac?
>
> What Unix desktop did it run?
He answered your question below:
>
> >
> > See A/UX and MachTen
> >
Is your attention span really that short that you can't get to the end
of his two lines of discussion before losing track?
Rick
You might want to tell that to TerraSoft.
--
Rick
George Graves
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> On 2005-02-17, TCS <The-Central...@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 15:59:32 +0000, deviance <asi...@opera.com> wrote:
> ><macinspew>
> >
> > Take it to a newsgroup that gives a flying fuck. Hint: it isn't the
> > linux advocacy newsgroup; the mac doesn't run linux.
>
> Linux can run quite well on the mac. It was the first desktop version
> of Unix to run on the mac, long before your current bastardized version of
> OpenStep.
I like your non-confrontational and objective terminology. "Bastardized
version of OpenStep"? Is Linux a bastardized version of Ken Thompson's
and Dennis Ritchie's original "Unics" OS from AT&T in 1969? Is Windows
XP a bastardized version of DOS? Is a G5 a bastardized version of a
68030, or is a P4 a bastardized version of an 8086? You do see where I'm
going here, do you not? Improvement and development is NOT
bastardization. Unless of course, you're just trying to ridicule OSX
because it made a quantum leap over your beloved Linux in terms or both
usability AND usefulness to users. And please, don't try to defend this
point. You look silly enough on this particular subject as it is.
--
George Graves
------------------
"Windows sucks. There's no doubt about it."
Bill Gates - CES-2005, Las Vegas, Nevada
Bagger Vance
> I like your non-confrontational and objective terminology. "Bastardized
> version of OpenStep"? Is Linux a bastardized version of Ken Thompson's
> and Dennis Ritchie's original "Unics" OS from AT&T in 1969? Is Windows
> XP a bastardized version of DOS? Is a G5 a bastardized version of a
> 68030, or is a P4 a bastardized version of an 8086? You do see where I'm
> going here, do you not? Improvement and development is NOT
> bastardization.
But that's just the point he's trying to make!
They are not "improvements" or "rewrites from scratch" as these
companies would have you believe, it's just old wine in new skins.
The technology companies recycle, reuse and refactor code, but mostly
just give it new names.
George Graves
"Macslut" <mac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I don't know if we can include MachTen in this at all. While A/UX is
(was?) a real UNIX running directly on the the 68X processor (did they
ever port it to powerPC? I don't honestly know) and reformatting the HD
to a Unix partition, MachTen is more like Virtual PC in that it ran as
an application on Mac OS.
Johannes Bauer
Hash: SHA1
deviance wrote:
> Maar zoals ik heb gezegd, wanneer u bent een enorm lompe verachtelijke
> peon en putrid, bil-omrandend oculaire depravity aan elk van
> onderscheid, werkelijk is het van belang?
I have no idea what that means. But you frequently fullquote K-Kid _and_
start to speak some foreign language in here. That does it, sorry. *PLONK*
Greetings,
Johannes
- --
PLEASE verify my signature. Some forging troll is claiming to be me.
My GPG key id is 0xCC727E2E (dated 2004-11-03). You can get it from
wwwkeys.pgp.net or random.sks.keyserver.penguin.de.
Also: Messages from "Comcast Online" are ALWAYS forged.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCFT1gCseFG8xyfi4RAoO0AJ9jwXh5HFaJ8Vuu+EkE0ZmatPbIpwCdGbgQ
n/V31/FSuzle7jx/tXRuxC4=
=4SQq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Johannes Bauer
Hash: SHA1
Dr. Zonk wrote:
[Useless fullquote]
*PLONK*
Greetings,
Johannes
- --
PLEASE verify my signature. Some forging troll is claiming to be me.
My GPG key id is 0xCC727E2E (dated 2004-11-03). You can get it from
wwwkeys.pgp.net or random.sks.keyserver.penguin.de.
Also: Messages from "Comcast Online" are ALWAYS forged.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCFTzrCseFG8xyfi4RAuLrAJ0V7naL93SOoz4hT8vctSDj5UBBiACfYviw
e7Xcp+hyyzlxnRWsPC2hJKI=
=X7/D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Xi Zhou Ye
and person employed to appraise the value of worthless goods, advised:
> I always carry an umbrella with me on hot, summer days just in case.
Jaistambha Yashovarman
embolism, and person employed to scare away birds from crops, chafed:
Unplonk
Nrishinghaprasad Huggahilli
dessert, and claimer of charity intended for the indigent, bickered:
Unplonk
George Graves
Bagger Vance <hir...@fuji.mount.> wrote:
My point is that OSX is more than just a old wine in a new skin. It's a
development of an earlier OS which was also based upon the same flavor
of Unix. But OSX is so much more than just a "bastardized" OpenStep or
BSD Unix. prejudicial comments notwithstanding
TravelinMan
<gmgravesnos-BAC9...@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
You forgot that he's just plain wrong. MachTen and A/UX both preceded
Linux on the Mac.
TravelinMan
<gmgravesnos-B62E...@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article <1108669494.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> "Macslut" <mac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > JEDIDIAH wrote:
> > > On 2005-02-17, TCS <The-Central...@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 15:59:32 +0000, deviance <asi...@opera.com>
> > wrote:
> > > ><macinspew>
> > > >
> > > > Take it to a newsgroup that gives a flying fuck. Hint: it isn't
> > the
> > > > linux advocacy newsgroup; the mac doesn't run linux.
> > >
> > > Linux can run quite well on the mac. It was the first desktop
> > version
> > > of Unix to run on the mac, long before your current bastardized
> > version of
> > > OpenStep.
> >
> > Linux, the first desktop version of Unix to run on the Mac?
> >
> > See A/UX and MachTen
>
> I don't know if we can include MachTen in this at all. While A/UX is
> (was?) a real UNIX running directly on the the 68X processor (did they
> ever port it to powerPC? I don't honestly know) and reformatting the HD
> to a Unix partition, MachTen is more like Virtual PC in that it ran as
> an application on Mac OS.
True, but he didn't say 'run natively'. He said 'run on a Mac'. MachTen
ran on a Mac.
George Graves
TravelinMan <tr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
OK, you're right.
George Graves
TravelinMan <tr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Indeed they did. My first "brush" with Unix was an A/UX installation on
a Mac I had at work in the late eighties (the place was all Mac then).
The AU/X install came on dozens (so it seemed) of floppies.
Mathew M.
> Mini - CPU G4 1.25Ghz
> PC Equivalent - AMD Sempron 2200 £33.49
> The actual equivalent is AMD 1.2Ghz* but 2200 (1.5Ghz) Semprons are the
> lowest my supplier sells.
> * http://www.systemshootouts.org/processors.html
>
> Mini - Radeon 9200 32mb
> PC - Asus Radeon 9200SE-TD 128MB DDR AGP £33.49
> 32mb? 9200? In a *new* system? Maybe two years ago.
>
> Mini - DVD/CDRW Combo (speeds?)
> PC - Sony 52X32X52X16 Combo Drive £29.38
>
> Mini - 40Gb HDD
> PC - 40GB Seagate Barracuda 7 [7200/100] £32.61
> I would imagine the Barracuda is the better drive.
>
> With a mobo for £26.44 and a case at £15.28, I could put an equivalent
> (actually, better) specced PC together for £170.69 ($322.63)
>
> And at £339/$640.50 - ie double that, give or take a quid or two - the
> Mini is a bargain price?
>
> A pre-assembled base unit (including floppy drive, keyboard and mouse)
> will only cost £186.83 (+ £12.39 delivery) = £199.22 ($376.37).
>
> It's time Mac users looked at the words instead of the pictures.
>
> (All prices are retail prices quoted from http://www.aria.co.uk/ and are
> inclusive of VAT. Currency conversions from http://www.xe.com/ucc/)
And that PC is going to be as handy as fireproof matches if you want to run Mac
OS.
JEDIDIAH
Neither of those is a Unix desktop.
The key think you mac weenies seem to miss is that Unix software
is Unix software. It's not merely limited to Next, or Sun, or IBM, or Irix,
or HP, or DEC or even Apple.
--
NO! There are no CODICILES of Fight Club! |||
/ | \
That way leads to lawyers and business megacorps and credit cards!
JEDIDIAH
Then it should be trivial to demonstrate that to be the case.
Instead, you just whine.
TravelinMan
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> On 2005-02-18, George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > In article <1108686845.802fd61f53c2f6588ffa05af0a85d05d@teranews>,
> > Bagger Vance <hir...@fuji.mount.> wrote:
> >
> >> George Graves wrote:
> >> > I like your non-confrontational and objective terminology. "Bastardized
> >> > version of OpenStep"? Is Linux a bastardized version of Ken Thompson's
> >> > and Dennis Ritchie's original "Unics" OS from AT&T in 1969? Is Windows
> >> > XP a bastardized version of DOS? Is a G5 a bastardized version of a
> >> > 68030, or is a P4 a bastardized version of an 8086? You do see where I'm
> >> > going here, do you not? Improvement and development is NOT
> >> > bastardization.
> >>
> >> But that's just the point he's trying to make!
> >>
> >> They are not "improvements" or "rewrites from scratch" as these
> >> companies would have you believe, it's just old wine in new skins.
> >>
> >> The technology companies recycle, reuse and refactor code, but mostly
> >> just give it new names.
> >
> > My point is that OSX is more than just a old wine in a new skin. It's a
> > development of an earlier OS which was also based upon the same flavor
> > of Unix. But OSX is so much more than just a "bastardized" OpenStep or
> > BSD Unix. prejudicial comments notwithstanding
>
> Then it should be trivial to demonstrate that to be the case.
It would be - if you were willing to actually learn something instead
of attacking people.
In changing from NeXTStep to OS X, the entire UI layer was changed. The
entire graphics model was changed. The entire hardware support was
changed. A boatload of new applications were introduced. A huge number
of things that used to require CLI were given a graphical interface.
Now, YOU may consider that new wine in old skins, but not most of the
world. Of course, if you want to take that approach, then NOTHING is
innovative.
And Linux certainly isn't anything new if you apply those standards.
>
> Instead, you just whine.
Says the person who has never provided a logical argument in his life.
TravelinMan
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
What??????
Just why is A/UX not a Unix desktop? It's Unix and it is used as a
desktop system (or, at the very least, as a workstation).
What kind of bizarre definition of 'Unix desktop' are you using?
>
> The key think you mac weenies seem to miss is that Unix software
> is Unix software. It's not merely limited to Next, or Sun, or IBM, or Irix,
> or HP, or DEC or even Apple.
Oh, I see. It's simply a matter of you being misinformed.
MachTen and A/UX both ran all your standard Unix apps just fine.
Bagger Vance
> In changing from NeXTStep to OS X, the entire UI layer was changed.
In what way?
>The
> entire graphics model was changed.
What does that mean?
>The entire hardware support was
> changed.
How?
>A boatload of new applications were introduced.
That has nothing to do with the OS itself...but go on...so far, nothing
but raw assertion without facts or details.
> A huge number
> of things that used to require CLI were given a graphical interface.
As in...?
> Now, YOU may consider that new wine in old skins, but not most of the
> world. Of course, if you want to take that approach, then NOTHING is
> innovative.
Yes, many things are innovative, but not OSX. It typically follows
Apple's pattern. Only Apple would take a sub-celeron machine, put it
in a translucent case, with a little color, and call it "new". It's 99
percent graphic design, 1% technology -- as always.
Look at how Apple got started: they took a bunch of HP off the shelf
boards, junked it together, but spent a really long time finding a nice
case for it.
> And Linux certainly isn't anything new if you apply those standards.
The 2.6 kernel is radically new, as is every even number release.
trental...@yahoo.com
>Apple's pattern. Only Apple would take a sub-celeron machine, put it
>in a translucent case, with a little color, and call it "new". It's
99
>percent graphic design, 1% technology -- as always.
Linux is not easy to use. Maybe they can learn from Apple.
Linux is not WINNING people, Linux is being forced on users by
the less properous Economy.
If Linux were that great, people would be coming in droves.
Why do LinGeeks always miss this point?
Linux has the potiential, but is not there.
I can see that working people are dying to try all the
Distro's to see if one is working for them. NOT!
TCS
>>Yes, many things are innovative, but not OSX. It typically follows
>>Apple's pattern. Only Apple would take a sub-celeron machine, put it
>>in a translucent case, with a little color, and call it "new". It's
>99
>>percent graphic design, 1% technology -- as always.
>Linux is not easy to use. Maybe they can learn from Apple.
>Linux is not WINNING people, Linux is being forced on users by
>the less properous Economy.
Linus IS winning people, although perhaps not as many ignoramuses
as you'd like.
The apple way of having to wipe the system any time anything goes
wrong isn't all that great either. I'd rather have some control
over my system in case there's a problem.
Lloyd Parsons
On 2/18/05 12:55 PM, in article
slrnd1ceh3.de4.The-...@linux.client.comcast.net, "TCS"
<The-Central...@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote:
I've been using OSX since it first came out and cannot remember any time
that I had to wipe the system when something went wrong.
Of course, for the most part, nothing has ever gone wrong...
trental...@yahoo.com
>wrong isn't all that great either. I'd rather have some control
>over my system in case there's a problem
You are thinking the world is full of Geeks.
First, I never heard of anyone having to WIPE.
It is Unix, like Linux, it just runs.
How many people know what to do?
How many people want to learn?
I can't find one, bjut a GEEK or EXTREMELY POOR person.
You are thinking from a single GEEK point of view.
Pull head out of sand, look around.
Nobody wants to TWEAK, they all want it fixed.
I can't find anyone in Columbus, Ohio that WENT to LINUX
willingly that is non-GEEK. I am still looking.
NAME THIS:
Why would someone go Linux (known as a difficult OS)
instead of Apple, if they are going to have to buy new
hardware anyway.
Apple is known as an easy OS.
Linux is known for being TWEAKED BY GEEKS.
I went Linux, because I have a little idea what to do.
Not a lot. Do you think my lawyer wife could have
made the switch? NOT! Her Legal Secretary? NOT!
TCS
>>The apple way of having to wipe the system any time anything goes
>>wrong isn't all that great either. I'd rather have some control
>>over my system in case there's a problem
>You are thinking the world is full of Geeks.
>First, I never heard of anyone having to WIPE.
>It is Unix, like Linux, it just runs.
>How many people know what to do?
>How many people want to learn?
>I can't find one, bjut a GEEK or EXTREMELY POOR person.
>You are thinking from a single GEEK point of view.
>Pull head out of sand, look around.
>Nobody wants to TWEAK, they all want it fixed.
>I can't find anyone in Columbus, Ohio that WENT to LINUX
>willingly that is non-GEEK. I am still looking.
>NAME THIS:
>Why would someone go Linux (known as a difficult OS)
>instead of Apple, if they are going to have to buy new
>hardware anyway.
>Apple is known as an easy OS.
>Linux is known for being TWEAKED BY GEEKS.
I see you feel a need to badmouth anybody who isn't an ignoramus.
Pathetic.
<plonk>
George Graves
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
It is fairly trivial to demonstrate. Just go to Apple.com and READ about
OSX. Better yet, get a Mac running OSX and use it for a few days.
You'll see for yourself how much better it is than OpenStep was. It is a
DEVELOPMENT of OpenStep, to be sure, but when you look at how seamlessly
things work together, what incredible resources have been built into the
OS, the abilities to run so many different kinds of software from the
old Mac OS to native OSX apps under Carbon and Cocoa, to TARball distros
and RPMs of traditional Unix software, even X11 and any of the Linux
desktop environments work on it. Then there enabling technologies such
as ColorSync, a high-end color matching technology unequaled in any
other platform. Then there's QuickTime, Display PDF, Open GL support, a
great Java engine, and a marvelous, extremely consistent and logical
user interface that, far from being a mere Unix shell, is a real GUI
that reaches down, deep into the bowels of the OS's core to hook into
every level. The list of improvements over OpenStep is practically
endless.
George Graves
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
Where did you get the idea that we don't know that?
George Graves
Bagger Vance <hir...@fuji.mount.> wrote:
> TravelinMan wrote:
>
> > In changing from NeXTStep to OS X, the entire UI layer was changed.
>
> In what way?
>
> >The
> > entire graphics model was changed.
>
> What does that mean?
You don't know? Then how do you come off criticizing what you don't know
about?
> >The entire hardware support was
> > changed.
>
> How?
You don't know? Then how do you come off criticizing what you don't know
about?
> >A boatload of new applications were introduced.
>
> That has nothing to do with the OS itself...but go on...so far, nothing
> but raw assertion without facts or details.
>
> > A huge number
> > of things that used to require CLI were given a graphical interface.
>
> As in...?
You don't know? Then how do you come off criticizing what you don't know
about?
>
> > Now, YOU may consider that new wine in old skins, but not most of the
> > world. Of course, if you want to take that approach, then NOTHING is
> > innovative.
>
> Yes, many things are innovative, but not OSX. It typically follows
> Apple's pattern. Only Apple would take a sub-celeron machine, put it
> in a translucent case, with a little color, and call it "new". It's 99
> percent graphic design, 1% technology -- as always.
A G4 is FAR from a sub-Celeron. It's about equal to a P4. Why don't you
learn about what you are talking about before posting nonsense.
> Look at how Apple got started: they took a bunch of HP off the shelf
> boards, junked it together, but spent a really long time finding a nice
> case for it.
Huh?
> > And Linux certainly isn't anything new if you apply those standards.
> The 2.6 kernel is radically new, as is every even number release.
Poppycock! If Linux is radically new because of its kernel, then OSX is
also radically new because of the kernel it uses too. Users don't care
about kernels, users care about accessibility and ease of use among
other things.
JEDIDIAH
You speak of Apple pizzaboxes as if they are real servers.
JEDIDIAH
You mean the vector based GUI? That's pure OpenStep. Even GNUstep
has had this sort of thing since before Apple bought Next.
> changed. A boatload of new applications were introduced. A huge number
> of things that used to require CLI were given a graphical interface.
I find it rather hard to believe that ANYthing would have required
a CLI in OpenStep.
>
> Now, YOU may consider that new wine in old skins, but not most of the
> world. Of course, if you want to take that approach, then NOTHING is
> innovative.
>
> And Linux certainly isn't anything new if you apply those standards.
>
>>
>> Instead, you just whine.
>
> Says the person who has never provided a logical argument in his life.
JEDIDIAH
> Bagger Vance <hir...@fuji.mount.> wrote:
>
>> TravelinMan wrote:
>>
>> > In changing from NeXTStep to OS X, the entire UI layer was changed.
>>
>> In what way?
>>
>> >The
>> > entire graphics model was changed.
>>
>> What does that mean?
>
> You don't know? Then how do you come off criticizing what you don't know
> about?
Based on these responses, it doesn't look like the Apple cheerleaders
know anymore about what they shillin then their target victms do.
[deletia]
>> > And Linux certainly isn't anything new if you apply those standards.
>
>> The 2.6 kernel is radically new, as is every even number release.
>
> Poppycock! If Linux is radically new because of its kernel, then OSX is
Linux may actually have more recent notions from the academic
research integrated into it. That's the nature of the beast and one way that
it has an advantage over other, more stagnant commercial products.
> also radically new because of the kernel it uses too. Users don't care
> about kernels, users care about accessibility and ease of use among
> other things.
Nope. Mach was old when Linux was young. Even Microsoft got to this
party before Apple did.
JEDIDIAH
What a lame sales pitch. No wonder Apple has been relegated to the
far corner of the basement of PC computing for so longer.
> You'll see for yourself how much better it is than OpenStep was. It is a
> DEVELOPMENT of OpenStep, to be sure, but when you look at how seamlessly
> things work together, what incredible resources have been built into the
> OS, the abilities to run so many different kinds of software from the
> old Mac OS to native OSX apps under Carbon and Cocoa, to TARball distros
This is just legacy support. Nothing remarkable there.
> and RPMs of traditional Unix software, even X11 and any of the Linux
> desktop environments work on it. Then there enabling technologies such
X11 for non-unix platforms is quite old news.
> as ColorSync, a high-end color matching technology unequaled in any
> other platform. Then there's QuickTime, Display PDF, Open GL support, a
> great Java engine, and a marvelous, extremely consistent and logical
This is all application level stuff.
> user interface that, far from being a mere Unix shell, is a real GUI
> that reaches down, deep into the bowels of the OS's core to hook into
> every level. The list of improvements over OpenStep is practically
> endless.
...and read pretty much like the list of things that would already
have been there if it were still a non-orphan platform. GL is potentially
interesting since you would have to build the acceleration infastructure
for that. Everything else is strictly userspace.
JEDIDIAH
>>Yes, many things are innovative, but not OSX. It typically follows
>>Apple's pattern. Only Apple would take a sub-celeron machine, put it
>>in a translucent case, with a little color, and call it "new". It's
> 99
>>percent graphic design, 1% technology -- as always.
>
> Linux is not easy to use. Maybe they can learn from Apple.
> Linux is not WINNING people, Linux is being forced on users by
> the less properous Economy.
>
> If Linux were that great, people would be coming in droves.
>
> Why do LinGeeks always miss this point?
20 years of Macintosh history indicate otherwise.
[deletia]
We've been there, and did that, and got the tourista t-shirt that
has already faded from age since it was so long ago.
Steve Hix
<slrnd1ceh3.de4.The-...@linux.client.comcast.net>,
TCS <The-Central...@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote:
>
> >Linux is not easy to use. Maybe they can learn from Apple.
> >Linux is not WINNING people, Linux is being forced on users by
> >the less properous Economy.
>
> Linus IS winning people,
He comes across as a very likeable person.
> although perhaps not as many ignoramuses as you'd like.
How nice; if you don't have an actual argument to present, attack the
other person. It's called "ad hominem", and it's not considered a valid
tool of argument. People who use it are known as "losers".
> The apple way of having to wipe the system any time anything goes
> wrong isn't all that great either.
When was the last time you actually had any experience with an Apple
system? Not recently, judging from this.
> I'd rather have some control over my system in case there's a problem.
Oddly enough, you have it with OS X.
You ought to find out about it sometime.
Steve Hix
<slrnd1cie7.de4.The-...@linux.client.comcast.net>,
TCS <The-Central...@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote:
>
> I see you feel a need to badmouth anybody who isn't an ignoramus.
> Pathetic.
Whereas you just make it easy on yourself and badmouth anyone who
disagrees with you. Must save you lots of thinking time.
TravelinMan
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
The xServe IS a real server.
What part of that do you need to have explained to you?
TravelinMan
Bagger Vance <hir...@fuji.mount.> wrote:
ROTFLMAO.
The Linxu 2.6 kernel is entirely new, yet OS X is not new when compared
to NeXTstep.
No wonder no one takes Linux nuts seriously.
TravelinMan
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> On 2005-02-18, trental...@yahoo.com <trental...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>Yes, many things are innovative, but not OSX. It typically follows
> >>Apple's pattern. Only Apple would take a sub-celeron machine, put it
> >>in a translucent case, with a little color, and call it "new". It's
> > 99
> >>percent graphic design, 1% technology -- as always.
> >
> > Linux is not easy to use. Maybe they can learn from Apple.
> > Linux is not WINNING people, Linux is being forced on users by
> > the less properous Economy.
> >
> > If Linux were that great, people would be coming in droves.
> >
> > Why do LinGeeks always miss this point?
>
> 20 years of Macintosh history indicate otherwise.
How is that?
Apple's history shows them to be a very successful computer vendor 25
years after they started.
IIRC, the only other personal computer vendor from that era still
manufacturing computers is IBM - and they just sold off their laptop
business.
How many Linux vendors are as successful for as long as Apple? Zero.
TravelinMan
<slrnd1ceh3.de4.The-...@linux.client.comcast.net>,
TCS <The-Central...@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote:
You've just managed to prove that you don't have any idea what you're
talking about.
But that was obvious anyway.
George Graves
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
I'm sorry, I've never said as word about Apple servers. I know nothing
about them other than I do work for a graphics design company that uses
a rack of them in their business and seem to be satisfied with them.
George Graves
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
But Mach 4 is relatively new.
George Graves
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
I see, your mind is closed and everything anybody says is dismissed
because it doesn't meet your narrowly defined parameters for
"development". You are aware that EVERYTHING you dismissed with a wave
of your hand above applies equally to every OS out there including your
beloved Linux (which is merely a slightly modified Unix distribution,
changed only enough to get it out from under anyone else's copyrights).
George Graves
<slrnd1ceh3.de4.The-...@linux.client.comcast.net>,
TCS <The-Central...@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote:
The Apple way of having to "wipe the system"? Where the heck does that
come from? I've been using Macs and PCs for more than 20 years and I've
never ONCE seen an instruction to reformat the drive and re-install
everything to fix a problem on any Macintosh OS. Its quite unheard of.
Perhaps you've mistaken Apple for Microsoft. Reformat and Reinstall is a
familiar Windows mantra, however - even if it has been somewhat less
heard since XP.
George Graves
Lloyd Parsons <lloydp...@mac.com> wrote:
I'll go you one further, Lloyd. I've never seen the necessity to
reformat and reinstall for any OS problem with any Mac going back as far
as Macs go! It just was never the answer to a Mac problem. Sure, rarely,
under the old OS, it was necessary to reinstall the system to fix a
problem, but it was never necessary to reformat the HD (thus losing
everything) to do it.
Steve Carroll
<gmgravesnos-0C1C...@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
I had it happen to a drive awhile back (not a boot drive- a data drive).
I had the data backed up but I had to reformat the drive. First time it
ever happened for me... I've been using Macs since the original Mac II
(and Apple II's before that). I'm a tough customer from the HD
perspective so I consider this a pretty damn good track record.
Rick
(snip)
>
> I see, your mind is closed and everything anybody says is dismissed
> because it doesn't meet your narrowly defined parameters for
> "development". You are aware that EVERYTHING you dismissed with a wave
> of your hand above applies equally to every OS out there including your
> beloved Linux (which is merely a slightly modified Unix distribution,
> changed only enough to get it out from under anyone else's copyrights).
Uh.. no. The Linux kernel was written from scratch, and has since been
contributed to by developers all over the world. It wasn't re-written, or
modified, or manipulated or anything else to get it away from copyrights.
The supporting utilities are mostly Gnu... and they are mostly the same
Gnu utilities with the same licenses.
--
Rick
Snit
noone-DB85CC....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 2/18/05 4:03 PM:
>> I'll go you one further, Lloyd. I've never seen the necessity to
>> reformat and reinstall for any OS problem with any Mac going back as far
>> as Macs go! It just was never the answer to a Mac problem. Sure, rarely,
>> under the old OS, it was necessary to reinstall the system to fix a
>> problem, but it was never necessary to reformat the HD (thus losing
>> everything) to do it.
>
> I had it happen to a drive awhile back (not a boot drive- a data drive).
> I had the data backed up but I had to reformat the drive. First time it
> ever happened for me... I've been using Macs since the original Mac II
> (and Apple II's before that). I'm a tough customer from the HD
> perspective so I consider this a pretty damn good track record.
What happened where you had to reformat the drive? Is it possible there was
an easier solution?
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Anything is possible? For instance, you could be a normal, well adjusted
person. That you're currently not doesn't mean there isn't a chance for
it someday:)
Snit
> In article <BE3BCA33.381B%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in post
>> noone-DB85CC....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 2/18/05 4:03 PM:
>>
>>>> I'll go you one further, Lloyd. I've never seen the necessity to
>>>> reformat and reinstall for any OS problem with any Mac going back as far
>>>> as Macs go! It just was never the answer to a Mac problem. Sure, rarely,
>>>> under the old OS, it was necessary to reinstall the system to fix a
>>>> problem, but it was never necessary to reformat the HD (thus losing
>>>> everything) to do it.
>>>
>>> I had it happen to a drive awhile back (not a boot drive- a data drive).
>>> I had the data backed up but I had to reformat the drive. First time it
>>> ever happened for me... I've been using Macs since the original Mac II
>>> (and Apple II's before that). I'm a tough customer from the HD
>>> perspective so I consider this a pretty damn good track record.
>>
>> What happened where you had to reformat the drive? Is it possible there was
>> an easier solution?
>
> Anything is possible?
Ok... but do you remember what happened? I am giving you the benefit of the
doubt and assuming you were telling the truth. Sure, you may not be, and
anything is possible... but the idea that you may just be making the whole
thing up is your idea, not mine.
Were you just making it up? If not, and I still am giving you the benefit
of the doubt, what happened?
<snip Steve Carroll's flames>
George Graves
Rick <no...@trollfeed.com> wrote:
It's still a version of Unix. Most of the command set is the same, and
therefore is a "development" of Unix irrespective of the Kernel.
MR_ED_of_Course
SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID wrote on 2/18/05 3:51 PM:
(Thanks for snipping instead of responding)
Count me as someone who's done a fair share of reformatting. In the TV and
radio studios I worked at, re-formatting a drive was the quickest way to
deal with fragmentation or even just deleting all the files from media
drives...we're talking seconds to reformat a drive.
As the manager of a service center, we had drives to re-format all of the
time...both PC and Mac...far more so with PCs.
Usually with the Mac, it was a logic chain that resulted in the drive being
re-formatted, not necessarily a *need* to do so. It often went like this...
1) Customer reports Mac acting funny/crashing
2) Initial diagnosis indicates possible HDD issue
3) Back up all data
4) Verify HDD corruption
5) Reformat drive
6) Run full diagnostics on drive
7) Install OS and return data
Now there may be branches to that logic if viruses were found, or the drive
failed hardware diagnostics and so forth, but the end result of
re-formatting was usually the most efficient way of dealing with the issue
overall.
Keep in mind though that all of the above is less likely today with the
current OS X and hardware. Drives are much less likely to become
fragmented. Disk Journaling takes care of many issues. S.M.A.R.T.
reporting is quite extensive and now automatic. There are no OS X viruses.
And problems due to failed SCSI voodo are gone.
I just can't imagine reformatting a drive today to resolve any issue with OS
X. Windows on the other hand...
"Microsoft Warns of Impossible to Clean Spyware"
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/18/1920244&tid=201&tid=218
Or
http://tinyurl.com/6dmqw
Liam Slider
> It's still a version of Unix. Most of the command set is the same, and
> therefore is a "development" of Unix irrespective of the Kernel.
What goes GNU stand for? I'll tell you. "GNU's Not Unix." It was written
entirely from scratch, just like the kernel was. Designed to be very much
*like* Unix, but not actually Unix.
Snit
BE3BCDF0.1F630%OhNo...@pacbell.net on 2/18/05 5:53 PM:
>>>>>> I'll go you one further, Lloyd. I've never seen the necessity to
>>>>>> reformat and reinstall for any OS problem with any Mac going back as far
>>>>>> as Macs go! It just was never the answer to a Mac problem. Sure, rarely,
>>>>>> under the old OS, it was necessary to reinstall the system to fix a
>>>>>> problem, but it was never necessary to reformat the HD (thus losing
>>>>>> everything) to do it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I had it happen to a drive awhile back (not a boot drive- a data drive).
>>>>> I had the data backed up but I had to reformat the drive. First time it
>>>>> ever happened for me... I've been using Macs since the original Mac II
>>>>> (and Apple II's before that). I'm a tough customer from the HD
>>>>> perspective so I consider this a pretty damn good track record.
>>>>
>>>> What happened where you had to reformat the drive? Is it possible there
>>>> was an easier solution?
>>>
>>> Anything is possible?
>>
>> Ok... but do you remember what happened? I am giving you the benefit of the
>> doubt and assuming you were telling the truth. Sure, you may not be, and
>> anything is possible... but the idea that you may just be making the whole
>> thing up is your idea, not mine.
>>
>> Were you just making it up? If not, and I still am giving you the benefit
>> of the doubt, what happened?
>>
>> <snip Steve Carroll's flames>
>
> (Thanks for snipping instead of responding)
You are welcome.
>
> Count me as someone who's done a fair share of reformatting. In the TV and
> radio studios I worked at, re-formatting a drive was the quickest way to
> deal with fragmentation or even just deleting all the files from media
> drives...we're talking seconds to reformat a drive.
I have done that as well, and even reformatted a drive because it was the
easiest way to deal with errors. I have not had this need in a long time,
however.
This may be what Steve was in reference to, but he is so far unwilling to
discuss what happened. I really do not know why... my question is a sincere
one: he had the need to reformat the drive and I am curious as to the
situation.
>
> As the manager of a service center, we had drives to re-format all of the
> time...both PC and Mac...far more so with PCs.
>
> Usually with the Mac, it was a logic chain that resulted in the drive being
> re-formatted, not necessarily a *need* to do so. It often went like this...
>
> 1) Customer reports Mac acting funny/crashing
> 2) Initial diagnosis indicates possible HDD issue
> 3) Back up all data
> 4) Verify HDD corruption
> 5) Reformat drive
> 6) Run full diagnostics on drive
> 7) Install OS and return data
Yes, I have done this as well. The reformat might not be *needed* (there
are possibly other solutions), but it is the easiest thing to do.
>
> Now there may be branches to that logic if viruses were found, or the drive
> failed hardware diagnostics and so forth, but the end result of
> re-formatting was usually the most efficient way of dealing with the issue
> overall.
>
> Keep in mind though that all of the above is less likely today with the
> current OS X and hardware. Drives are much less likely to become
> fragmented. Disk Journaling takes care of many issues. S.M.A.R.T.
> reporting is quite extensive and now automatic. There are no OS X viruses.
> And problems due to failed SCSI voodo are gone.
>
> I just can't imagine reformatting a drive today to resolve any issue with OS
> X.
Exactly - part of the reason I am curios as to what happened in the case
Steve talks about.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in post
> noone-3002D3....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 2/18/05 4:43 PM:
>
> > In article <BE3BCA33.381B%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in post
> >> noone-DB85CC....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 2/18/05 4:03 PM:
> >>
> >>>> I'll go you one further, Lloyd. I've never seen the necessity to
> >>>> reformat and reinstall for any OS problem with any Mac going back as far
> >>>> as Macs go! It just was never the answer to a Mac problem. Sure, rarely,
> >>>> under the old OS, it was necessary to reinstall the system to fix a
> >>>> problem, but it was never necessary to reformat the HD (thus losing
> >>>> everything) to do it.
> >>>
> >>> I had it happen to a drive awhile back (not a boot drive- a data drive).
> >>> I had the data backed up but I had to reformat the drive. First time it
> >>> ever happened for me... I've been using Macs since the original Mac II
> >>> (and Apple II's before that). I'm a tough customer from the HD
> >>> perspective so I consider this a pretty damn good track record.
> >>
> >> What happened where you had to reformat the drive? Is it possible there
> >> was
> >> an easier solution?
> >
> > Anything is possible?
>
> Ok... but do you remember what happened?
Being that you keep asking, I assume you are interested... so I suggest
you go check google, you'll see we've (you and I) already discussed my
HD's failure.
Steve Carroll
MR_ED_of_Course <OhNo...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Same here. My drives are in use for audio (and some video) work. I've
found that the fastest (and by far, the best) way to deal with a funky
drive is to simply reformat it. I always back up my data so it's likely
faster to reformat and dump the data back on it than to troubleshoot and
risk having more problems crop up. My money is made by my gear working,
not be me dicking around with it... which is a very big reason I use
Macs. BTW, if Snit had any kind of memory, he'd remember that he already
hounded me about this drive (more than once)... in fact, he even blamed
it on me... yeah, I was shocked, too:)
Walter Bushell
trental...@yahoo.com wrote:
<snip>
> I can't find anyone in Columbus, Ohio that WENT to LINUX
> willingly that is non-GEEK. I am still looking.
<snip>
Isn't that almost a definition? I get geek points from my friends for
using the terminal to read mail. OTOH, webtv users think AOL users are
geeks, or one man's geek is another man's luser.
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
Walter Bushell
> On 2/18/05 12:55 PM, in article
> slrnd1ceh3.de4.The-...@linux.client.comcast.net, "TCS"
> <The-Central...@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote:
>
> > On 18 Feb 2005 10:45:20 -0800, trental...@yahoo.com
> > <trental...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> Yes, many things are innovative, but not OSX. It typically follows
> >>> Apple's pattern. Only Apple would take a sub-celeron machine, put it
> >>> in a translucent case, with a little color, and call it "new". It's
> >> 99
> >>> percent graphic design, 1% technology -- as always.
> >
> >> Linux is not easy to use. Maybe they can learn from Apple.
> >> Linux is not WINNING people, Linux is being forced on users by
> >> the less properous Economy.
> >
> > Linus IS winning people, although perhaps not as many ignoramuses
> > as you'd like.
> >
> > The apple way of having to wipe the system any time anything goes
> > wrong isn't all that great either. I'd rather have some control
> > over my system in case there's a problem.
> >
> I've been using OSX since it first came out and cannot remember any time
> that I had to wipe the system when something went wrong.
>
> Of course, for the most part, nothing has ever gone wrong...
I remember telling one of my friends I hadn't had a virus since 1988, .
. ., the look I got.
Walter Bushell
<gmgravesnos-0C1C...@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Is having to start from scratch on Windows due primarily to the registry?
Snit
How was I to know your current comments were in reference to something you
talked about some time ago.
In any case, it is often said that if you do not lie, you do not need a good
memory. You, it is clear, are not willing to talk about anything we
discussed in the past.
You will only reference Google - just another reason to suspect you may very
well be lying again.
Humiliating Defeat (!)
> Based on these responses, it doesn't look like the Apple cheerleaders
> know anymore about what they shillin then their target victms do.
/Victims/ is absolutely right.
In a year or two from now, once the stock has deflated, and iPod sales
have become nil, and minis are gathering dust in Cupertino warehouses,
the few weak minds that got sucked in by the "Apple Corps" will be left
high and dry with slow hardware, and a two decade old microkernel OS
with no future.
For chrissake, even normal LCDs have finally come down to earthly
prices, check out wal-mart, you can get 19" LCDS for less than $500!
But at Apple? Nooooooooooooooooooooo....they can only sell them for
what, $1500 ?
Cripes. Apple should just forget the consumer and become a defense
contractor. Their prices match DoD expectations!
TCS
>Is having to start from scratch on Windows due primarily to the registry?
It certainly is more often with windows. With windows, you can't reinstall
the operating system with fresh settings without losing all your applications.
It's incredibly idiotic, but works well at getting people to pay money
to buy all their lost software again.
TravelinMan
Liam Slider <li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Other than semantics, why should anyone care?
It runs the same apps as other versions of unix and behaves the same
way. The differences are pedantic for all but a very tiny number of
people.
TravelinMan
"Humiliating Defeat (!)" <u...@2004.linux> wrote:
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
> > Based on these responses, it doesn't look like the Apple cheerleaders
> > know anymore about what they shillin then their target victms do.
>
> /Victims/ is absolutely right.
>
> In a year or two from now, once the stock has deflated, and iPod sales
> have become nil, and minis are gathering dust in Cupertino warehouses,
> the few weak minds that got sucked in by the "Apple Corps" will be left
> high and dry with slow hardware, and a two decade old microkernel OS
> with no future.
Right. Do you have any idea how stupid that all sounds? But, then, you
must be used to looking like an idiot given that you call yourself
'Humiliating Defeat'.
>
> For chrissake, even normal LCDs have finally come down to earthly
> prices, check out wal-mart, you can get 19" LCDS for less than $500!
>
> But at Apple? Nooooooooooooooooooooo....they can only sell them for
> what, $1500 ?
Are you too stupid to be able to check facts or intentionally lying?
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/71802/wo/
e14sgjfRe31C36ZXf6egQziZvfa/0.0.11.1.0.6.21.1.6.1.3.0.0.1.0
Apple's 20" display is $999. And that's for one of the top rated
displays on the market.
But, if you don't like it, don't buy it. Lots of people do like it.
>
> Cripes. Apple should just forget the consumer and become a defense
> contractor. Their prices match DoD expectations!
Given that you aren't even bright enough to figure out what the price
really is, your opinion on the matter is worthless.
Humiliating Defeat (!)
> Right. Do you have any idea how stupid that all sounds? But, then, you
> must be used to looking like an idiot given that you call yourself
> 'Humiliating Defeat'.
What?
Just because I can see through all the beechwood to the rotten timbers
of the Apple iSTore?
>
> Apple's 20" display is $999. And that's for one of the top rated
> displays on the market.
And it's more than twice as expensive as the equivalent of any other
brand on earth.
Once again Mactards reveal themselves.
TravelinMan
"Humiliating Defeat (!)" <u...@2004.linux> wrote:
> TravelinMan wrote:
>
> > Right. Do you have any idea how stupid that all sounds? But, then, you
> > must be used to looking like an idiot given that you call yourself
> > 'Humiliating Defeat'.
>
> What?
>
> Just because I can see through all the beechwood to the rotten timbers
> of the Apple iSTore?
Nope. Because you post inane things that only a true moron would believe.
> >
>
> > Apple's 20" display is $999. And that's for one of the top rated
> > displays on the market.
>
> And it's more than twice as expensive as the equivalent of any other
> brand on earth.
Really?
NEC has a 20" LCD model for $1138. Viewsonic has one for $1017.
How is $999 'twice as expensive as' $1138?
Yes, the Apple monitor is twice as expensive as the cheapest crap
monitor out there. Who cares?
Oh, and why did you trim out your earlier post where you claimed it was
$1500?
>
> Once again Mactards reveal themselves.
Is that what you're calling yourself nowadays?
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 23:53:35 GMT,
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article <pan.2005.02.18....@trollfeed.com>,
> Rick <no...@trollfeed.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 22:33:13 +0000, George Graves wrote:
>>
>> (snip)
>> >
>> > I see, your mind is closed and everything anybody says is dismissed
>> > because it doesn't meet your narrowly defined parameters for
>> > "development". You are aware that EVERYTHING you dismissed with a wave
>> > of your hand above applies equally to every OS out there including your
>> > beloved Linux (which is merely a slightly modified Unix distribution,
>> > changed only enough to get it out from under anyone else's copyrights).
>>
>> Uh.. no. The Linux kernel was written from scratch, and has since been
>> contributed to by developers all over the world. It wasn't re-written, or
>> modified, or manipulated or anything else to get it away from copyrights.
>>
>> The supporting utilities are mostly Gnu... and they are mostly the same
>> Gnu utilities with the same licenses.
>
> It's still a version of Unix. Most of the command set is the same, and
> therefore is a "development" of Unix irrespective of the Kernel.
>
You claimed that...
<quote>
Linux (which is merely a slightly modified Unix distribution,
changed only enough to get it out from under anyone else's
copyrights)
</quote>
that was simply, false. Linux, is not a "slightly modified" anything.
Linux, was written from scratch.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCFwljd90bcYOAWPYRAt2aAJ9PlbmaMMtgUOBXv4WQG5A/jmJ1yACeO31d
XNUpL3uNzn+QHXQJ1MkN2Ak=
=ZQCq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"Remember, half-measures can be very effective if all you deal with are
half-wits."
--Chris Klein
Peter Köhlmann
Well, why would you trust someone to get those things right who, of all
available possible installs, choses the most difficult one for linux. After
all, he needs a comparison with OSX when he tries to compare them (the
"advocacy" part). So, different from OxRetard and the TravelBoy, who do not
even try to "compare" as they are mentally unable to do, he compares in the
most dishonest way possible. A little bit like an Erik F of the Mac-world
--
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
-- Henry Spencer
Kier
Save your breath, man. you're talking to Bailo, about the dumbest of all
dumb trolls in COLA, and a serial nymshifter to boot. You won't get any
sense from him whatever you ask.
--
Kier
Rick
> In article <pan.2005.02.18....@trollfeed.com>,
> Rick <no...@trollfeed.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 22:33:13 +0000, George Graves wrote:
>>
>> (snip)
>> >
>> > I see, your mind is closed and everything anybody says is dismissed
>> > because it doesn't meet your narrowly defined parameters for
>> > "development". You are aware that EVERYTHING you dismissed with a wave
>> > of your hand above applies equally to every OS out there including your
>> > beloved Linux (which is merely a slightly modified Unix distribution,
>> > changed only enough to get it out from under anyone else's copyrights).
>>
>> Uh.. no. The Linux kernel was written from scratch, and has since been
>> contributed to by developers all over the world. It wasn't re-written, or
>> modified, or manipulated or anything else to get it away from copyrights.
>>
>> The supporting utilities are mostly Gnu... and they are mostly the same
>> Gnu utilities with the same licenses.
>
> It's still a version of Unix. Most of the command set is the same, and
> therefore is a "development" of Unix irrespective of the Kernel.
<http://www.gnu.org/>
Welcome to the GNU Project web server, www.gnu.org. The GNU Project was
launched in 1984 to develop a complete UNIX style operating system which
is free software: the GNU system. (GNU is a recursive acronym for "GNU's
Not UNIX";
<http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html>
I chose to make the system compatible with Unix so that it would be
portable, and so that Unix users could easily switch to it. The name GNU
was chosen following a hacker tradition, as a recursive acronym for
"GNU's Not Unix."
--
Rick
Rick
They wouldn't have been pedantic to AT&T or UC Berkley during the Unix/BSD
copyright proceedings.
--
Rick
TravelinMan
Rick <no...@trollfeed.com> wrote:
True.
As I said - a very tiny number of people. Not to mention ancient history.