Sure I've been dishonest, I admit it.
Edwin
declining market share, to throw salt into wounds... to counter Maccie
optimism with nay saying...
But I actually don't hate the Mac, and I don't want to see Apple go under,
or to cause the Mac to cease to exist.
I thought the iMac was the most innovative thing I'd seen to date when Apple
launched it. Just like the 1984 Mac that started it all. The dual G5s
are great. I wish I could find a reason to spend the money for one... if my
employer were to plunk a Mac down on my desk, I'd be thrilled, it would be a
dream come true.
I also think Apple did the right thing with Mac OS X. They put a solid,
modern OS under their superior GUI and API technologies. This is just the
kind of thing I thought they ought to have done, back when I looked at MAE.
I honestly believe it was right for Apple to drop the floppy drive. I
haven't had a real use for one for years, other than to upgrade an old BIOS,
which I'm told can be done from Windows now anyway.
Apple was right to adopt PC standards, such as PCI, IDE, AGP, etc. Those
are common technologies across all computer platforms now. Macs aren't just
BSD software and PC parts, as I so often claimed, they're a unique
implementation of these things, with Apple's own unique improvements,
hardware, and software tying them together into an integrated package that's
more than the sum of the parts.
The Mac supercomputer clusters do showcase the power of Mac OS X and the Mac
hardware. I have no doubt they will prove their worth, and take Apple into
new, high level markets.
I wish Apple success, and hope they have something great in store in
September, even if I don't buy it and stay stuck in Wintel land (although
I'm trying Suse Linux and really like it).
So I've really had a long stint of trolling faux. Sure I use Windows
boxes, but advocate that crap seriously? C'mon, there's no such thing as a
Windows Advocate. As everyone knows who visits the ghost towns that are
Windows advocacy groups...
The Wintrolls just seemed so weak here, and it's much easier (and more fun)
to play the bad guy... just like in Pro Wrestling... ;-)
--
Edwin
P.S. Donk says "ha ha i lauf at u cuz u r dum"
George Graves
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
Does that mean you're leaving again? I hope?
--
George Graves
------------------
Bush is a poor leader because he isn't very smart.
What's Kerry's excuse gonna be?
Bob_S
<gmgravesnos-A8BD...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > The Wintrolls just seemed so weak here, and it's much easier (and more fun)
> > to play the bad guy... just like in Pro Wrestling... ;-)
>
Finally..the Edwin has come back to the CSMA!
--
Cheers,
Bob S
Edwin
I imagine you do. ;-)
I've written a lot of nasty things about you George, but I don't really
think you're crazy, or stupid, or a liar. You're really a pretty good guy,
just somewhat prone to fly off the handle.
I didn't really think you were advocating murder back when you told that
little story about the guy who killed his father to get the car he wanted,
but I hope you can finally admit (at least to yourself) that you could have
worded it better.
--
Edwin
Alan Baker
This isn't some magical free pass, Edwin. Admitting you've behaved like
an asshole doesn't make it all go away.
You want more respect? You want credibility? Earn them.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Richard Kilpatrick
alangbaker-A1E5A...@news.telus.net, "Alan Baker"
<alang...@telus.net> wrote:
> This isn't some magical free pass, Edwin. Admitting you've behaved like
> an asshole doesn't make it all go away.
>
> You want more respect? You want credibility? Earn them.
At least Edwin has managed to avoid the same degeneration into meaningless
crap that appears to have taken over a certain group of posters.
I like Edwin's posts for the most part. It's amusing getting these mad
examples/reasons why Windows is better.
FWIW, I might be playing with a £400 Athlon64 box for a while - the company
I bought my 2nd Seagate 160Gb from for the G5 makes PCs, and I was curious
about how quick an Athlon64 that costs less than an eMac really is, so I'm
organising one. It'll probably cost the same as an eMac, rather than less,
but have 1Gb RAM. My main issue is what OS to go with - I really dislike XP
and it's not 64-bit, but Linux ensures a meaningless article for most
people.
Richard
--
Apples of various varieties - currently eMac/G5/PowerBook and ancients.
Carstuff - Supra and New Beetle, and happy with just two for once.
Music stuff - http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/ - MP3s coming soon!
Otherstuff - http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/
Rick
Playing the bad guy can be fun at times, just don't let yourself get too
caught up in it. If you don't mind me mentioning, it seems that you
(among MANY others here) can be quite normal, polite and well-adjusted
when you're away from certain triggers.
BTW - how did you determine which side was bad? Remember that history is
written by the victors, so it remains to be seen if Mac users are the
stalwart visionaries hoping for a better future, or recalcitrant
holdouts turning their heads from the glory of He that is Gates.
(or was it something else)
--
Rick...
Edwin
Remember that when you make your long overdue admission.
> You want more respect? You want credibility? Earn them.
I don't need either from a Usenet group. Get over yourself, Alan.
--
Edwin
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
LOL
BTW, where's your admission that you were wrong about Sun making the
whole "widget"?
>
> > You want more respect? You want credibility? Earn them.
>
> I don't need either from a Usenet group. Get over yourself, Alan.
You don't need the same type of respect and credibility you need in
other aspects of your life, but you do still need them in their own
fashion.
Edwin
Thank you.
> BTW - how did you determine which side was bad?
By reading the group for a long time. If Wintrolls didn't come, Maccies
would "troll faux."
> Remember that history
> is written by the victors, so it remains to be seen if Mac users are
> the stalwart visionaries hoping for a better future, or recalcitrant
> holdouts turning their heads from the glory of He that is Gates.
> (or was it something else)
Those terms may be a bit too grand. I'd think it's safe to say that
they're people who use a good computer that they like, are who frustrated by
the insistance they must use Windows because that's what the majority uses.
More so given that most people who are insisting everyone needs Windows know
little, or even nothing, about the Mac.
--
Edwin
Snit
tBpUc.1798$DA2...@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com on 8/17/04 8:35 AM:
>> You want more respect? You want credibility? Earn them.
>
> I don't need either from a Usenet group. Get over yourself, Alan.
This is one of the recurring themes in csma... like a bunch of kindergarten
kids making threats that if you do not do such and such you won't be my
friend.
Who cares?
There are other groups where I *do* care about what people think - because
by and large the people in those groups are reasonable and intelligent
people.
In csma... well... to fit in with the "in" group you have to lie, attack
people, etc. I will not lower myself to "fit in" here.
Remember - the one who wins the rat race is still a rat.
:)
--
"If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law."
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)
Rick
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
Just had to be contrary, eh? ;) Seriously, I can see the fun in that.
> > Remember that history
> > is written by the victors, so it remains to be seen if Mac users are
> > the stalwart visionaries hoping for a better future, or recalcitrant
> > holdouts turning their heads from the glory of He that is Gates.
> > (or was it something else)
>
> Those terms may be a bit too grand. I'd think it's safe to say that
> they're people who use a good computer that they like, are who frustrated by
> the insistance they must use Windows because that's what the majority uses.
> More so given that most people who are insisting everyone needs Windows know
> little, or even nothing, about the Mac.
Hehehe, well, yeah, the terms were intentionally over-the-top.
I can understand the frustration to a degree - I chose to use a Mac for
my own needs, but not everyone has such a choice.
It is sometimes sad to watch people struggle with Windows, then base
their expectations of computers solely on that basis. It hurts just as
much when people do the same with Linux or Macs, but the fact is that
most people at this point have no experience with anything other than
Windows.
I realize that Usenet is not frequented by these people, for the most
part. But, since Google indexes Usenet, perhaps somebody will one day be
tempted to expand their horizon.
This also applies in reverse, but in much smaller degree; there are very
few people who have never used Windows, and I would encourage them to at
least use it enough to get a good understanding of it.
--
Rick...
Edwin
The Alphabet called. It says you're wearing out those letters.
> BTW, where's your admission that you were wrong about Sun making the
> whole "widget"?
I'm not wrong about that.
>>
>>> You want more respect? You want credibility? Earn them.
>>
>> I don't need either from a Usenet group. Get over yourself, Alan.
>
> You don't need the same type of respect and credibility you need in
> other aspects of your life, but you do still need them in their own
> fashion.
Nope. I don't need anything a Usenet group can give me, and it can't take
anything away from me either. Your efforts to demolish my "credibility"
here are very amusing. Thanks for the entertainment.
--
Edwin
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
Oh, Edwin... ...one last chance to check it out and retract.
>
> >>
> >>> You want more respect? You want credibility? Earn them.
> >>
> >> I don't need either from a Usenet group. Get over yourself, Alan.
> >
> > You don't need the same type of respect and credibility you need in
> > other aspects of your life, but you do still need them in their own
> > fashion.
>
> Nope. I don't need anything a Usenet group can give me, and it can't take
> anything away from me either. Your efforts to demolish my "credibility"
> here are very amusing. Thanks for the entertainment.
LOL
Alan Baker
Richard Kilpatrick <delo...@NOSPAMbtconnect.com> wrote:
> On 17/8/04 4:05 pm, in article
> alangbaker-A1E5A...@news.telus.net, "Alan Baker"
> <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > This isn't some magical free pass, Edwin. Admitting you've behaved like
> > an asshole doesn't make it all go away.
> >
> > You want more respect? You want credibility? Earn them.
>
> At least Edwin has managed to avoid the same degeneration into meaningless
> crap that appears to have taken over a certain group of posters.
>
> I like Edwin's posts for the most part. It's amusing getting these mad
> examples/reasons why Windows is better.
>
> FWIW, I might be playing with a £400 Athlon64 box for a while - the company
> I bought my 2nd Seagate 160Gb from for the G5 makes PCs, and I was curious
> about how quick an Athlon64 that costs less than an eMac really is, so I'm
> organising one. It'll probably cost the same as an eMac, rather than less,
> but have 1Gb RAM. My main issue is what OS to go with - I really dislike XP
> and it's not 64-bit, but Linux ensures a meaningless article for most
> people.
>
> Richard
Sorry, but I can't see how posting incorrect information and claiming it
proves something about Macs vs. the rest of the computing industry is at
all helpful.
Edwin
That's my final answer, Regis.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> You want more respect? You want credibility? Earn them.
>>>>
>>>> I don't need either from a Usenet group. Get over yourself, Alan.
>>>
>>> You don't need the same type of respect and credibility you need in
>>> other aspects of your life, but you do still need them in their own
>>> fashion.
>>
>> Nope. I don't need anything a Usenet group can give me, and it
>> can't take anything away from me either. Your efforts to demolish
>> my "credibility" here are very amusing. Thanks for the
>> entertainment.
>
> LOL
Nooo... not the dreaded "LOL..." you fiend... argh... my credibility...
it's all gone...
--
Edwin
Rick
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
Damn, that was funny! LOL, but in a good way.
--
Rick...
Snit
7XqUc.4431$FV3....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com on 8/17/04 10:07 AM:
LOL. Well stated!
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article <E7qUc.1800$JB2...@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com>,
> > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Alan Baker wrote:
> >>> In article <tBpUc.1798$DA2...@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>>> In article <NydUc.2104$yj3.3...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
<snip>
> >>>>> This isn't some magical free pass, Edwin. Admitting you've behaved
> >>>>> like an asshole doesn't make it all go away.
> >>>>
> >>>> Remember that when you make your long overdue admission.
> >>>
> >>> LOL
> >>
> >> The Alphabet called. It says you're wearing out those letters.
> >>
> >>> BTW, where's your admission that you were wrong about Sun making the
> >>> whole "widget"?
> >>
> >> I'm not wrong about that.
> >
> > Oh, Edwin... ...one last chance to check it out and retract.
>
> That's my final answer, Regis.
First, your quote:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=LScUc.2083%24yj3.359143%40newssvr28
.news.prodigy.com&output=gplain>
'Sun Microsystems is the only company that makes the "whole widget,"
from the Sparc CPU, on through their own graphics chips and cards,
right on through the OS and the applications running on it.'
The SPARC CPU:
First, they don't only use the SPARC CPU:
<http://www.sun.com/desktop/products/ws.html>
Note the Java workstations...
Next, they don't make the SPARC themselves:
<http://www.sparcproductdirectory.com/sparccpu.html>
"There is no single dominant supplier of SPARC CPU's. Historically, the
major SPARC chip manufacturer in any system generation may not have
been the same company that was dominant in the earlier one. That's
because Sun Microsystems, the largest consumer of SPARC chips, runs a
fabless business model. That's not a typo, but means that Sun does not
own the semiconductor fabrication plants which manufacture their
processor chips. Although Sun designs many (but not all) of the chips
used in its computers, the Sun designed chips are actually manufactured
by other leading semiconductor companies."
The graphics cards:
<http://www.sun.com/desktop/products/graphics/xvr100/details.html>
"The Sun XVR-100 graphics accelerator uses the ATI Radeon 7000 chipset, "
The OS:
According to you (when talking about Mac OS X), this doesn't count,
because it's only a rebadged Unix with different GUI on top (despite the
fact that Mac OS X is a lot more than that, that's what you appear to
claim), or do I take it you now admit that Apple's Mac OS X is Apple's
product and not just a rebadged Unix?
As for the application, you're going to have to show me the proof,
Edwin. It doesn't look to me like they offer as many applications as
Apple does for the Mac, and for some reason, your credibility on the
subject of Sun is kind of... ...non-existent.
Edwin
When did I say otherwise?
> <http://www.sun.com/desktop/products/ws.html>
>
> Note the Java workstations...
You mean they have a variety of product lines, some that match what I wrote,
and some that don't? Quite a boggle for you, isn't it?
> Next, they don't make the SPARC themselves:
>
> <http://www.sparcproductdirectory.com/sparccpu.html>
>
> "There is no single dominant supplier of SPARC CPU's. Historically,
> the major SPARC chip manufacturer in any system generation may not
> have been the same company that was dominant in the earlier one.
> That's because Sun Microsystems, the largest consumer of SPARC chips,
> runs a fabless business model. That's not a typo, but means that Sun
> does not own the semiconductor fabrication plants which manufacture
> their processor chips. Although Sun designs many (but not all) of the
> chips used in its computers, the Sun designed chips are actually
> manufactured by other leading semiconductor companies."
Much as an architect doesn't own a lumberyard or a brickyard, but still gets
credit for building a house made from someone else's lumber and bricks.
>
> The graphics cards:
>
> <http://www.sun.com/desktop/products/graphics/xvr100/details.html>
>
> "The Sun XVR-100 graphics accelerator uses the ATI Radeon 7000
> chipset, "
That's not the only graphics card or graphics chipset Sun uses.
> The OS:
>
> According to you (when talking about Mac OS X), this doesn't count,
> because it's only a rebadged Unix with different GUI on top (despite
> the fact that Mac OS X is a lot more than that, that's what you
> appear to claim), or do I take it you now admit that Apple's Mac OS X
> is Apple's product and not just a rebadged Unix?
Sun has been at developing Solaris since 1982. Apple and Mac OS X aren't
in their league.
> As for the application, you're going to have to show me the proof,
> Edwin. It doesn't look to me like they offer as many applications as
> Apple does for the Mac,
They don't have to offer as many for what I wrote to be true.
> and for some reason, your credibility on the
> subject of Sun is kind of... ...non-existent.
LOL (to infinity + 1)
--
Edwin
Edwin
:-) Thank you.
--
Edwin
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
When you said 'makes the "whole widget"'; which they don't when an
Opteron processor is used.
>
> > <http://www.sun.com/desktop/products/ws.html>
> >
> > Note the Java workstations...
>
> You mean they have a variety of product lines, some that match what I wrote,
> and some that don't? Quite a boggle for you, isn't it?
Quite a problem for you, as you didn't say "*sometimes* makes", did you?
>
> > Next, they don't make the SPARC themselves:
> >
> > <http://www.sparcproductdirectory.com/sparccpu.html>
> >
> > "There is no single dominant supplier of SPARC CPU's. Historically,
> > the major SPARC chip manufacturer in any system generation may not
> > have been the same company that was dominant in the earlier one.
> > That's because Sun Microsystems, the largest consumer of SPARC chips,
> > runs a fabless business model. That's not a typo, but means that Sun
> > does not own the semiconductor fabrication plants which manufacture
> > their processor chips. Although Sun designs many (but not all) of the
> > chips used in its computers, the Sun designed chips are actually
> > manufactured by other leading semiconductor companies."
>
> Much as an architect doesn't own a lumberyard or a brickyard, but still gets
> credit for building a house made from someone else's lumber and bricks.
An architect gets credit for *designing*, not building.
>
> >
> > The graphics cards:
> >
> > <http://www.sun.com/desktop/products/graphics/xvr100/details.html>
> >
> > "The Sun XVR-100 graphics accelerator uses the ATI Radeon 7000
> > chipset, "
>
> That's not the only graphics card or graphics chipset Sun uses.
All it takes is one to refute your absolute statement.
You do note that I gave you two chances to retract or modify it?
>
> > The OS:
> >
> > According to you (when talking about Mac OS X), this doesn't count,
> > because it's only a rebadged Unix with different GUI on top (despite
> > the fact that Mac OS X is a lot more than that, that's what you
> > appear to claim), or do I take it you now admit that Apple's Mac OS X
> > is Apple's product and not just a rebadged Unix?
>
> Sun has been at developing Solaris since 1982. Apple and Mac OS X aren't
> in their league.
Why does that matter? It's the nature of the OSs that should be
considered.
>
> > As for the application, you're going to have to show me the proof,
> > Edwin. It doesn't look to me like they offer as many applications as
> > Apple does for the Mac,
>
> They don't have to offer as many for what I wrote to be true.
Show us what they offer...
>
> > and for some reason, your credibility on the
> > subject of Sun is kind of... ...non-existent.
>
> LOL (to infinity + 1)
--
Richard Kilpatrick
alangbaker-F1DAA...@news.telus.net, "Alan Baker"
<alang...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> Sorry, but I can't see how posting incorrect information and claiming it
> proves something about Macs vs. the rest of the computing industry is at
> all helpful.
It gives advocates the ability to post correct and current information in
response. Snit & Co. merely fill the group with nonsense.
Alan Baker
Richard Kilpatrick <delo...@NOSPAMbtconnect.com> wrote:
> On 17/8/04 5:46 pm, in article
> alangbaker-F1DAA...@news.telus.net, "Alan Baker"
> <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > Sorry, but I can't see how posting incorrect information and claiming it
> > proves something about Macs vs. the rest of the computing industry is at
> > all helpful.
>
> It gives advocates the ability to post correct and current information in
> response. Snit & Co. merely fill the group with nonsense.
>
> Richard
Hey, no argument. Snit is far worse.
Snit
BD4808E2.BEBA%delo...@NOSPAMbtconnect.com on 8/17/04 11:11 AM:
> On 17/8/04 5:46 pm, in article
> alangbaker-F1DAA...@news.telus.net, "Alan Baker"
> <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Sorry, but I can't see how posting incorrect information and claiming it
>> proves something about Macs vs. the rest of the computing industry is at
>> all helpful.
>
> It gives advocates the ability to post correct and current information in
> response. Snit & Co. merely fill the group with nonsense.
What nonsense are you in reference to. Every sentence I write that I do
makes sense honest it is I know don't you and is pertinent but Steve Carroll
trolls and others him like no make not sense in no way.
Alan Baker
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> "Richard Kilpatrick" <delo...@NOSPAMbtconnect.com> wrote in
> BD4808E2.BEBA%delo...@NOSPAMbtconnect.com on 8/17/04 11:11 AM:
>
> > On 17/8/04 5:46 pm, in article
> > alangbaker-F1DAA...@news.telus.net, "Alan Baker"
> > <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Sorry, but I can't see how posting incorrect information and claiming it
> >> proves something about Macs vs. the rest of the computing industry is at
> >> all helpful.
> >
> > It gives advocates the ability to post correct and current information in
> > response. Snit & Co. merely fill the group with nonsense.
>
> What nonsense are you in reference to. Every sentence I write that I do
> makes sense honest it is I know don't you and is pertinent but Steve Carroll
> trolls and others him like no make not sense in no way.
Isn't it amazing how everyone but you seems to find your posts to be
nothing but nonsense...
Snit
alangbaker-8F298...@news.telus.net on 8/17/04 11:12 AM:
> In article <BD4808E2.BEBA%delo...@NOSPAMbtconnect.com>,
> Richard Kilpatrick <delo...@NOSPAMbtconnect.com> wrote:
>
>> On 17/8/04 5:46 pm, in article
>> alangbaker-F1DAA...@news.telus.net, "Alan Baker"
>> <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, but I can't see how posting incorrect information and claiming it
>>> proves something about Macs vs. the rest of the computing industry is at
>>> all helpful.
>>
>> It gives advocates the ability to post correct and current information in
>> response. Snit & Co. merely fill the group with nonsense.
>>
>> Richard
>
> Hey, no argument. Snit is far worse.
Wow... at least in my response I included humor.
Well, yours is funny, I just do not think you meant it to be.
:)
Edwin
So their products which use Sparc processors fall under the definition of
what I wrote, those with Opteron processors do not.
>>
>>> <http://www.sun.com/desktop/products/ws.html>
>>>
>>> Note the Java workstations...
>>
>> You mean they have a variety of product lines, some that match what
>> I wrote, and some that don't? Quite a boggle for you, isn't it?
>
> Quite a problem for you, as you didn't say "*sometimes* makes", did
> you?
I said that Sun is the only company that makes the whole widget, and that's
true even though the statement doesn't cover all of their products.
>>
>>> Next, they don't make the SPARC themselves:
>>>
>>> <http://www.sparcproductdirectory.com/sparccpu.html>
>>>
>>> "There is no single dominant supplier of SPARC CPU's. Historically,
>>> the major SPARC chip manufacturer in any system generation may not
>>> have been the same company that was dominant in the earlier one.
>>> That's because Sun Microsystems, the largest consumer of SPARC
>>> chips, runs a fabless business model. That's not a typo, but means
>>> that Sun does not own the semiconductor fabrication plants which
>>> manufacture their processor chips. Although Sun designs many (but
>>> not all) of the chips used in its computers, the Sun designed chips
>>> are actually manufactured by other leading semiconductor companies."
>>
>> Much as an architect doesn't own a lumberyard or a brickyard, but
>> still gets credit for building a house made from someone else's
>> lumber and bricks.
>
> An architect gets credit for *designing*, not building.
No, an architect gets credit for building.
>>
>>>
>>> The graphics cards:
>>>
>>> <http://www.sun.com/desktop/products/graphics/xvr100/details.html>
>>>
>>> "The Sun XVR-100 graphics accelerator uses the ATI Radeon 7000
>>> chipset, "
>>
>> That's not the only graphics card or graphics chipset Sun uses.
>
> All it takes is one to refute your absolute statement.
No it doesn't. Sun is still the only company to make the whole widget,
even though not everything they make fitst that description.
> You do note that I gave you two chances to retract or modify it?
No retractions or modifications are necessary.
>>
>>> The OS:
>>>
>>> According to you (when talking about Mac OS X), this doesn't count,
>>> because it's only a rebadged Unix with different GUI on top (despite
>>> the fact that Mac OS X is a lot more than that, that's what you
>>> appear to claim), or do I take it you now admit that Apple's Mac OS
>>> X is Apple's product and not just a rebadged Unix?
>>
>> Sun has been at developing Solaris since 1982. Apple and Mac OS X
>> aren't in their league.
>
> Why does that matter? It's the nature of the OSs that should be
> considered.
Sun has been a major player in defining the "nature" of Unix since 1982.
>>
>>> As for the application, you're going to have to show me the proof,
>>> Edwin. It doesn't look to me like they offer as many applications as
>>> Apple does for the Mac,
>>
>> They don't have to offer as many for what I wrote to be true.
>
> Show us what they offer...
Snit
> In article <BD4798E8.5CF0C%snit-...@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> "Richard Kilpatrick" <delo...@NOSPAMbtconnect.com> wrote in
>> BD4808E2.BEBA%delo...@NOSPAMbtconnect.com on 8/17/04 11:11 AM:
>>
>>> On 17/8/04 5:46 pm, in article
>>> alangbaker-F1DAA...@news.telus.net, "Alan Baker"
>>> <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but I can't see how posting incorrect information and claiming it
>>>> proves something about Macs vs. the rest of the computing industry is at
>>>> all helpful.
>>>
>>> It gives advocates the ability to post correct and current information in
>>> response. Snit & Co. merely fill the group with nonsense.
>>
>> What nonsense are you in reference to. Every sentence I write that I do
>> makes sense honest it is I know don't you and is pertinent but Steve Carroll
>> trolls and others him like no make not sense in no way.
>
> Isn't it amazing how everyone but you seems to find your posts to be
> nothing but nonsense...
Well, I do write about a 4th grade level. That confuses some in csma.
Steve Carroll
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote in
> tBpUc.1798$DA2...@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com on 8/17/04 8:35 AM:
>
> >> You want more respect? You want credibility? Earn them.
> >
> > I don't need either from a Usenet group. Get over yourself, Alan.
>
> This is one of the recurring themes in csma... like a bunch of kindergarten
> kids making threats that if you do not do such and such you won't be my
> friend.
Friendship doesn't enter into it, that's your cop out for your activity.
People have tried to explain to you the importance of having a shred of
credibility... even if only participating in a NG. If you don't find it
notable that all manner of posters in here, many who do not get along
with each other, have reached the general consensus that you are a
disingenuous, lying troll, no one will be surprised by it. Even Eddie,
who admits what he is doing, doesn't have the same following you have in
this respect and he's been here for a long time.
> Who cares?
About your credibility? You should, for starters.
> There are other groups where I *do* care about what people think - because
> by and large the people in those groups are reasonable and intelligent
> people.
Yeah... we've heard your categorization of csma posters before:) If it's
so bad, why do you post here so often? Being a busy teacher, how do you
find the time to post here and all these others groups while getting all
your work done?
> In csma... well... to fit in with the "in" group you have to lie, attack
> people, etc. I will not lower myself to "fit in" here.
There is no 'in' group, there are just people.
> Remember - the one who wins the rat race is still a rat.
Believe me... everyone in here knows how focused you are on a 'win'.
--
"I may just be the primary topic of this group"
"You really need to learn the whole concept of context"
- Michael Glasser (AKA Snit)
--
Steve C
Richard Kilpatrick
MxrUc.4461$FV3...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com, "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com>
wrote:
> Sun has been at developing Solaris since 1982. Apple and Mac OS X aren't
> in their league.
Meh. Unix is Unix is Unix. Apple started with a more complete variant, and
if you've ever played with A/UX, you see Apple's early Unix experiences were
not altogether bad. A/UX mostly failed because at that time, no-one was
pitching Unix as a desktop OS, and it cost nearly $1,000.
I can't find enough apps, so I gotta learn how to compile some 68K binaries
from suitable aged sources. Once my Quadra is completed, I will, though.
You wouldn't believe the hassle I'm having finding BeOS, either. Purplus
appears to be the only source.
Steve Mackay
Actually, the only one else that was doin' the whole thing, is SGI. They
did own a FAB, that made the MIPS processors IIRC. The OS, the graphics
cards, everything... Very cool boxes. Apple seems to be the SGI of the new
millenium :)
Steve Mackay
<snip>
> I said that Sun is the only company that makes the whole widget, and that's
> true even though the statement doesn't cover all of their products.
But you were wrong, even then. SGI did more of the "whole widget" than SUN.
Sandman
Very good, Edwin. This post reminded me why I have greater respect for you than
- for example - Michael (Snit). You have the guts to stand up for your actions,
even though it may take some time, and it may require some persuasion.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
<alang...@telus.net> wrote:
>>> This isn't some magical free pass, Edwin. Admitting you've behaved
>>> like an asshole doesn't make it all go away.
>>>
>>> You want more respect? You want credibility? Earn them.
>>
>> At least Edwin has managed to avoid the same degeneration into
>> meaningless crap that appears to have taken over a certain group of
>> posters.
>>
>> I like Edwin's posts for the most part. It's amusing getting these
>> mad examples/reasons why Windows is better.
>>
>> FWIW, I might be playing with a £400 Athlon64 box for a while - the
>> company I bought my 2nd Seagate 160Gb from for the G5 makes PCs, and
>> I was curious about how quick an Athlon64 that costs less than an
>> eMac really is, so I'm organising one. It'll probably cost the same
>> as an eMac, rather than less, but have 1Gb RAM. My main issue is what
>> OS to go with - I really dislike XP and it's not 64-bit, but Linux
>> ensures a meaningless article for most people.
>>
>> Richard
>
> Sorry, but I can't see how posting incorrect information and claiming
> it proves something about Macs vs. the rest of the computing industry
> is at all helpful.
It isn't. It's trolling. Edwin is good at it and he knows it. Edwin knows he is
lying and knows that he is wrong.
Of course, soon enough he'll leave the group, and come back with a good
attitude which will degenerate to his own self after time at which time he will
have forgotten all about this post. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Mackay
<snip>
> Very good, Edwin. This post reminded me why I have greater respect for you than
> - for example - Michael (Snit). You have the guts to stand up for your actions,
> even though it may take some time, and it may require some persuasion.
Yup, I've wrestled with Eddie on several occasions also. He is NOTHING
like Mikey. Edwin won't resort to forging blatant lies, and polluting the
group thru multiple topics, regurgitating the same BS just so he can
desperately try for some type of support.
Eddie is okay in my book :)
Hell, at least he's not just a one trick pony trying to advocate the (lack
of)greatness of the Wintel platform like Winnie(until recently).
Edwin
Did, as opposed to does.
--
Edwin
George Graves
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote in
> tBpUc.1798$DA2...@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com on 8/17/04 8:35 AM:
>
> >> You want more respect? You want credibility? Earn them.
> >
> > I don't need either from a Usenet group. Get over yourself, Alan.
>
> This is one of the recurring themes in csma... like a bunch of kindergarten
> kids making threats that if you do not do such and such you won't be my
> friend.
>
> Who cares?
>
> There are other groups where I *do* care about what people think - because
> by and large the people in those groups are reasonable and intelligent
> people.
>
> In csma... well... to fit in with the "in" group you have to lie, attack
> people, etc. I will not lower myself to "fit in" here.
>
> Remember - the one who wins the rat race is still a rat.
>
> :)
This from a man who causes more trouble on this NG than everyone else
put together.
--
George Graves
------------------
Bush is a poor leader because he isn't very smart.
What's Kerry's excuse gonna be?
Steve Mackay
No, I'd bet the do "as much" as SUN does these days. IIRC they do design
their own MIPS processors. Although I could be wrong.
But I do prefer IRIX to Solaris. You really ought to try it sometime :)
I just got a new 10 gig SCSI HD given to me a couple of weeks ago. I
should throw it into my INDY and fire it back up for shits and grins :)
Elizabot
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote in
> tBpUc.1798$DA2...@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com on 8/17/04 8:35 AM:
>
>
>>>You want more respect? You want credibility? Earn them.
>>
>>I don't need either from a Usenet group. Get over yourself, Alan.
>
>
> This is one of the recurring themes in csma... like a bunch of kindergarten
> kids making threats that if you do not do such and such you won't be my
> friend.
>
> Who cares?
>
> There are other groups where I *do* care about what people think - because
> by and large the people in those groups are reasonable and intelligent
> people.
>
> In csma... well... to fit in with the "in" group you have to lie, attack
> people, etc. I will not lower myself to "fit in" here.
You already have done that. Just earlier today you wrote:
Snit: "I suppose in that I have been unfair to Steve Mackay - many of
his posts are reasonable, and I have responded in less than kind ways -
making references to our disagreements. As much as I do have
disagreements with him, he often posts in reasonable ways."
A couple of days ago you wrote about Steve Carroll:
Snit: "I have gone back to mostly ignoring his direct posts..."
And about myself you've written:
Snit: "I shall not be responding to you in the future."
Who do you really think you are fooling here?
> Remember - the one who wins the rat race is still a rat.
>
> :)
>
--
"You see, my invisible green dragon tells me that God is real, and is
even a pretty nice guy, but can not hold his liquor well."
- Snit (aka 尬≡) on 4/27/04
George Graves
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
Some time ago. Have you only just noticed?
Seriously, Edwin. Now that you have "come clean", you might as well
leave. You'll not get an argument about computers here from anyone,
anymore.
George Graves
> "Richard Kilpatrick" <delo...@NOSPAMbtconnect.com> wrote in
> BD4808E2.BEBA%delo...@NOSPAMbtconnect.com on 8/17/04 11:11 AM:
>
> > On 17/8/04 5:46 pm, in article
> > alangbaker-F1DAA...@news.telus.net, "Alan Baker"
> > <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Sorry, but I can't see how posting incorrect information and claiming it
> >> proves something about Macs vs. the rest of the computing industry is at
> >> all helpful.
> >
> > It gives advocates the ability to post correct and current information in
> > response. Snit & Co. merely fill the group with nonsense.
>
> What nonsense are you in reference to. Every sentence I write that I do
> makes sense honest it is I know don't you and is pertinent but Steve Carroll
> trolls and others him like no make not sense in no way.
Yeah, you're sooooo innocent!
George Graves
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > Does that mean you're leaving again? I hope?
>
> I imagine you do. ;-)
>
> I've written a lot of nasty things about you George, but I don't really
> think you're crazy, or stupid, or a liar. You're really a pretty good guy,
> just somewhat prone to fly off the handle.
>
> I didn't really think you were advocating murder back when you told that
> little story about the guy who killed his father to get the car he wanted,
> but I hope you can finally admit (at least to yourself) that you could have
> worded it better.
Perhaps. But nobody else was confused about it's meaning, so I'm not
sure it needed to be better worded.
Warchild
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:sVoUc.4417$FV3....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> Edwin
>
>
Someone has obviously convinced Edwin to go back on his 'meds.
Edwin
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 19:10:57 +0000, Edwin wrote:
>
>> Steve Mackay wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:14:19 +0000, Edwin wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> I said that Sun is the only company that makes the whole widget,
>>>> and that's true even though the statement doesn't cover all of
>>>> their products.
>>>
>>> But you were wrong, even then. SGI did more of the "whole widget"
>>> than SUN.
>>
>> Did, as opposed to does.
>
> No, I'd bet the do "as much" as SUN does these days.
Okay, so Sun and SGI both make the whole widget. I stand corrected.
> IIRC they do
> design their own MIPS processors. Although I could be wrong.
> But I do prefer IRIX to Solaris. You really ought to try it sometime
> :)
>
> I just got a new 10 gig SCSI HD given to me a couple of weeks ago. I
> should throw it into my INDY and fire it back up for shits and grins
> :)
Maybe I'll get an SGI on eBay someday, like I got my Ultra 5. :-)
--
Edwin
Edwin
Alan is still arguing...
--
Edwin
Edwin
The only way to kill this beast is to starve it to death.
--
Edwin
Elizabot
That won't happen because new posters come to this group quite often.
Steve Carroll
Elizabot <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote:
Yup... the only way is to make sure that scarlett letter stays firmly in
place:)
Steve Hix
Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
> In article <MxrUc.4461$FV3...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > In article <7XqUc.4431$FV3....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Alan Baker wrote:
> > >>> In article <E7qUc.1800$JB2...@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com>,
> > >>> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Alan Baker wrote:
> > >>>>> In article <tBpUc.1798$DA2...@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com>,
> > >>>>> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Alan Baker wrote:
> > >>>>>>> In article <NydUc.2104$yj3.3...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> > >>>>>>> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > >>>>>>> This isn't some magical free pass, Edwin. Admitting you've
> > >>>>>>> behaved like an asshole doesn't make it all go away.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Remember that when you make your long overdue admission.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> LOL
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The Alphabet called. It says you're wearing out those letters.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> BTW, where's your admission that you were wrong about Sun making
> > >>>>> the whole "widget"?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I'm not wrong about that.
> > >>>
> > >>> Oh, Edwin... ...one last chance to check it out and retract.
> > >>
> > >> That's my final answer, Regis.
> > >
> > > First, your quote:
> > >
> > > <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=LScUc.2083%24yj3.359143%40newssvr28
> > > .news.prodigy.com&output=gplain>
> > >
> > > 'Sun Microsystems is the only company that makes the "whole widget,"
> > > from the Sparc CPU, on through their own graphics chips and cards,
> > > right on through the OS and the applications running on it.'
> > >
> > > The SPARC CPU:
> > >
> > > First, they don't only use the SPARC CPU:
> >
> > When did I say otherwise?
>
> When you said 'makes the "whole widget"'; which they don't when an
> Opteron processor is used.
They have also used pre-Opteron AMD processors (low-end servers), and
Motorola 68K CPU, starting with the 68010. (The first Sun workstation
sold sits in the lobby of the building where I work.)
> > > The OS:
> > >
> > > According to you (when talking about Mac OS X), this doesn't count,
> > > because it's only a rebadged Unix with different GUI on top (despite
> > > the fact that Mac OS X is a lot more than that, that's what you
> > > appear to claim), or do I take it you now admit that Apple's Mac OS X
> > > is Apple's product and not just a rebadged Unix?
> >
> > Sun has been at developing Solaris since 1982. Apple and Mac OS X aren't
> > in their league.
OS X is, at least, the fourth shipping OS from Apple. Given that they've
run their own OS's on every computer they've made, they're deeper into
it than Sun, who has been shipping some of their systems with Linux.
Steve Hix
Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
And Sun does no more of "the whole widget" than does Apple. They're
pretty comparable in that respect.
Steve Hix
Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 19:10:57 +0000, Edwin wrote:
>
> > Steve Mackay wrote:
> >> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:14:19 +0000, Edwin wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >>> I said that Sun is the only company that makes the whole widget, and
> >>> that's true even though the statement doesn't cover all of their
> >>> products.
> >>
> >> But you were wrong, even then. SGI did more of the "whole widget"
> >> than SUN.
> >
> > Did, as opposed to does.
>
> No, I'd bet the do "as much" as SUN does these days. IIRC they do design
> their own MIPS processors. Although I could be wrong.
They may not do so anymore; Mips, Inc. was spun off from SGI a while
back.
Nashton
> In article <NydUc.2104$yj3.3...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
> This isn't some magical free pass, Edwin. Admitting you've behaved like
> an asshole doesn't make it all go away.
>
> You want more respect? You want credibility? Earn them.
>
Seems that the only way to earn respect and credibility in this ng is to
demonstrate a continual adulatory attitude towards the Mac and
anything Apple related.
No thanks.
Nicolas
Richard Kilpatrick
O6HUc.96778$Np3.4...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca, "Nashton"
<n...@nospam.nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
> Seems that the only way to earn respect and credibility in this ng is to
> demonstrate a continual adulatory attitude towards the Mac and
> anything Apple related.
I'm okay then, you do not want to hear my opinion of Apple's customer
service. Nearly a month since I was promised a new PowerBook...
Got an Airport Express today - really, really neat. Doesn't need Airport
base station to extend the network or share music, either - it's working
fine with my Belkin.
Edwin
Sun has always designed its own processor and graphics chips. Who
fabs them is immaterial. Apple has never been solely responsible for
a processor, and hasn't made it's own video cards for years.
So Sun does the whole widget. Apple does not, and never did.
--
Edwin
Rick G
Richard Kilpatrick <delo...@NOSPAMbtconnect.com> wrote:
> On 18/8/04 12:31 pm, in article
> O6HUc.96778$Np3.4...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca, "Nashton"
> <n...@nospam.nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>
> > Seems that the only way to earn respect and credibility in this ng is to
> > demonstrate a continual adulatory attitude towards the Mac and
> > anything Apple related.
>
> I'm okay then, you do not want to hear my opinion of Apple's customer
> service. Nearly a month since I was promised a new PowerBook...
A month! I assume you've been badgering them daily for the last couple
weeks, then.
It's virtually inexcusable that a replacement would take that long.
>
> Got an Airport Express today - really, really neat. Doesn't need Airport
> base station to extend the network or share music, either - it's working
> fine with my Belkin.
>
> Richard
--
Rick...
Edwin
The do make lots of boxes with Solaris processors, that's the whole
widget. As I've explained more than once, all their products don't
have to fit that description for the statement to be true.
> They have also used pre-Opteron AMD processors (low-end servers), and
> Motorola 68K CPU, starting with the 68010. (The first Sun workstation
> sold sits in the lobby of the building where I work.)
It doesn't change the fact that Sun also builds the whole widget, and
that Apple never did.
> > > > The OS:
> > > >
> > > > According to you (when talking about Mac OS X), this doesn't count,
> > > > because it's only a rebadged Unix with different GUI on top (despite
> > > > the fact that Mac OS X is a lot more than that, that's what you
> > > > appear to claim), or do I take it you now admit that Apple's Mac OS X
> > > > is Apple's product and not just a rebadged Unix?
> > >
> > > Sun has been at developing Solaris since 1982. Apple and Mac OS X aren't
> > > in their league.
>
> OS X is, at least, the fourth shipping OS from Apple. Given that they've
> run their own OS's on every computer they've made, they're deeper into
> it than Sun, who has been shipping some of their systems with Linux.
They're deeper into it than Sun, who have been shipping their own
version of Unix since 1982, for the last 22 years? Solaris has been
around since 1982, and you give more credit to Apple for four versions
of Mac OS X?
You are joking, right?
--
Edwin
Richard Kilpatrick
"Rick G" <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote:
>> I'm okay then, you do not want to hear my opinion of Apple's customer
>> service. Nearly a month since I was promised a new PowerBook...
>
> A month! I assume you've been badgering them daily for the last couple
> weeks, then.
Oh yes.
So far: PowerBook 12" 1GHz bought in November, added 512Mb RAM from the
Apple dealer locally.
Machine froze constantly. Swapped RAM.
Machine kernel panicked when waking from sleep. Also, the case was warped.
Put up with it, but it got more and more annoying, then the machine started
to lose settings, then refused to boot at all with broken Finder.
Sent back. Was returned unchanged IMO, no plastic covers on case etc, note
said "Diagnostic".
Tolerated it for a while, then it went bang this time featuring OF boot
scripts all over the screen. Reformatted it, still didn't work, so sent it
back. Returned 'no fault found'. Apple tell me that if it goes back three
times, I get a replacement. They claim the case was replaced the first time.
Blew several gaskets. Send it back by return, this time a supervised repair
results in a new case, MLB replaced. Wobbles less. Still panics.
Phoned up Apple UK (July 6th), they took the machine back to repair
themselves. They gave up, and offered me a new 12" 1.33GHz (what they make
now) as a replacement. I said thankyou, and waited. And waited.
Apparently there are no 12" 1GHz machines. I've offered to pay the
difference between the 12" with extra 512Mb (they have to replace the RAM,
since mine was 2100 and the new machine needs 2700) and the 15" which is
apparently in stock in various places, but no dice. So now I'm harassing the
Managing Director on a daily basis ;)
I love Apple, I love Mac OS X, but their customer service is fucking
/appalling/.
Rick G
thor...@juno.com (Edwin) wrote:
>Steve Hix <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote in message
>news:<sehix-878364....@news.isp.giganews.com>...
> > OS X is, at least, the fourth shipping OS from Apple. Given that they've
> > run their own OS's on every computer they've made, they're deeper into
> > it than Sun, who has been shipping some of their systems with Linux.
>
> They're deeper into it than Sun, who have been shipping their own
> version of Unix since 1982, for the last 22 years? Solaris has been
> around since 1982, and you give more credit to Apple for four versions
> of Mac OS X?
>
> You are joking, right?
Edwin, I think you might have misunderstood - he is most likely
referring to these:
Apple DOS family
A/UX
"Classic Mac OS"
OS X
Although presume that he may have forgotten Newton OS, and some of the
other "funkier" varients.
--
Rick...
Alan Baker
Nashton <n...@nospam.nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
>
> > In article <NydUc.2104$yj3.3...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> >
<snip>
> >>The Wintrolls just seemed so weak here, and it's much easier (and more fun)
> >>to play the bad guy... just like in Pro Wrestling... ;-)
> >
> >
> > This isn't some magical free pass, Edwin. Admitting you've behaved like
> > an asshole doesn't make it all go away.
> >
> > You want more respect? You want credibility? Earn them.
> >
>
> Seems that the only way to earn respect and credibility in this ng is to
> demonstrate a continual adulatory attitude towards the Mac and
> anything Apple related.
> No thanks.
>
> Nicolas
That has absolutely *nothing* to do with it. It's about not lying. Not
making stuff up just to be contrary.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Alan Baker
There's no such thing as a Solaris processor, and if you meant SPARC
processors, they don't make those any more.
>
> > They have also used pre-Opteron AMD processors (low-end servers), and
> > Motorola 68K CPU, starting with the 68010. (The first Sun workstation
> > sold sits in the lobby of the building where I work.)
>
> It doesn't change the fact that Sun also builds the whole widget, and
> that Apple never did.
Apple pretty much builds as much of it as Sun does.
>
> > > > > The OS:
> > > > >
> > > > > According to you (when talking about Mac OS X), this doesn't count,
> > > > > because it's only a rebadged Unix with different GUI on top (despite
> > > > > the fact that Mac OS X is a lot more than that, that's what you
> > > > > appear to claim), or do I take it you now admit that Apple's Mac OS X
> > > > > is Apple's product and not just a rebadged Unix?
> > > >
> > > > Sun has been at developing Solaris since 1982. Apple and Mac OS X
> > > > aren't
> > > > in their league.
> >
> > OS X is, at least, the fourth shipping OS from Apple. Given that they've
> > run their own OS's on every computer they've made, they're deeper into
> > it than Sun, who has been shipping some of their systems with Linux.
>
> They're deeper into it than Sun, who have been shipping their own
> version of Unix since 1982, for the last 22 years? Solaris has been
> around since 1982, and you give more credit to Apple for four versions
> of Mac OS X?
Apple's been around since 1976, IIRC. And Sun didn't start out shipping
their own version of Unix. It wasn't until 1987 that they even started
to be involved in the development of Unix from others (AT&T), and
Solaris came after that.
>
> You are joking, right?
--
Alan Baker
Are you unaware of the AIM (Apple, IBM, Motorola) consortium? Who are
jointly responsible for the design of PPC chips?
George Graves
Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
> In article <O6HUc.96778$Np3.4...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
> Nashton <n...@nospam.nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>
> > Alan Baker wrote:
> >
> > > In article <NydUc.2104$yj3.3...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> <snip>
>
> > >>The Wintrolls just seemed so weak here, and it's much easier (and more
> > >>fun)
> > >>to play the bad guy... just like in Pro Wrestling... ;-)
> > >
> > >
> > > This isn't some magical free pass, Edwin. Admitting you've behaved like
> > > an asshole doesn't make it all go away.
> > >
> > > You want more respect? You want credibility? Earn them.
> > >
> >
> > Seems that the only way to earn respect and credibility in this ng is to
> > demonstrate a continual adulatory attitude towards the Mac and
> > anything Apple related.
> > No thanks.
> >
> > Nicolas
>
> That has absolutely *nothing* to do with it. It's about not lying. Not
> making stuff up just to be contrary.
You answered Nasty Nashton? For shame, Alan!
George Graves
Richard Kilpatrick <delo...@NOSPAMbtconnect.com> wrote:
> I love Apple, I love Mac OS X, but their customer service is fucking
> /appalling/.
>
> Richard
> --
I'm fond of Macs. Can't say I've ever thought much of Apple when it
comes to customer relations or business practices.
Richard Kilpatrick
gmgravesnos-24E7...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com, "George
Graves" <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> I'm fond of Macs. Can't say I've ever thought much of Apple when it
> comes to customer relations or business practices.
We'll see how this turns out. It's their supply chain at fault for the extra
delay; the lack of PowerBooks (and well, everything apart from Xserves right
now) is well known.
Seems like the current plan is to get me a machine from dealer stock, be it
12 or 15", with the implication being that the 15" is more likely. I shan't
be complaining at that.
Nashton
> In article <O6HUc.96778$Np3.4...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
> Nashton <n...@nospam.nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Alan Baker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <NydUc.2104$yj3.3...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>The Wintrolls just seemed so weak here, and it's much easier (and more fun)
>>>>to play the bad guy... just like in Pro Wrestling... ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>This isn't some magical free pass, Edwin. Admitting you've behaved like
>>>an asshole doesn't make it all go away.
>>>
>>>You want more respect? You want credibility? Earn them.
>>>
>>
>>Seems that the only way to earn respect and credibility in this ng is to
>> demonstrate a continual adulatory attitude towards the Mac and
>>anything Apple related.
>>No thanks.
>>
>>Nicolas
>
>
> That has absolutely *nothing* to do with it. It's about not lying. Not
> making stuff up just to be contrary.
>
You're probably right in this particular context but at large, what I
stated is true also.
Nicolas
Nashton
> In article <alangbaker-9D267...@news.telus.net>,
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <O6HUc.96778$Np3.4...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
>> Nashton <n...@nospam.nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Alan Baker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <NydUc.2104$yj3.3...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>>>The Wintrolls just seemed so weak here, and it's much easier (and more
>>>>>fun)
>>>>>to play the bad guy... just like in Pro Wrestling... ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This isn't some magical free pass, Edwin. Admitting you've behaved like
>>>>an asshole doesn't make it all go away.
>>>>
>>>>You want more respect? You want credibility? Earn them.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Seems that the only way to earn respect and credibility in this ng is to
>>> demonstrate a continual adulatory attitude towards the Mac and
>>>anything Apple related.
>>>No thanks.
>>>
>>>Nicolas
>>
>>That has absolutely *nothing* to do with it. It's about not lying. Not
>>making stuff up just to be contrary.
>
>
> You answered Nasty Nashton? For shame, Alan!
Calm down George.
Nicolas
Alan Baker
Nashton <n...@nospam.nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
Nope. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Adulation of Apple has
nothing to do with it.
Cal Cerise
> 'Sun Microsystems is the only company that makes the "whole widget,"
> from the Sparc CPU, on through their own graphics chips and cards,
> right on through the OS and the applications running on it.'
>
> The SPARC CPU:
>
> First, they don't only use the SPARC CPU:
>
>
> Note the Java workstations...
>
> Next, they don't make the SPARC themselves:
>
> <http://www.sparcproductdirectory.com/sparccpu.html>
>
> "There is no single dominant supplier of SPARC CPU's. Historically, the
> major SPARC chip manufacturer in any system generation may not have
> been the same company that was dominant in the earlier one. That's
> because Sun Microsystems, the largest consumer of SPARC chips, runs a
> fabless business model. That's not a typo, but means that Sun does not
> own the semiconductor fabrication plants which manufacture their
> processor chips. Although Sun designs many (but not all) of the chips
> used in its computers, the Sun designed chips are actually manufactured
> by other leading semiconductor companies."
>
>
> The graphics cards:
>
> <http://www.sun.com/desktop/products/graphics/xvr100/details.html>
>
> "The Sun XVR-100 graphics accelerator uses the ATI Radeon 7000 chipset, "
>
Sun charged too much for too long, although their hardware was better
longer. They were difficult to deal with if you weren't a large
customer. But Solaris is a better Unix than MacOS 10. And the PowerPC
CPU is going to fall further behind Intel. The "Moore's Law" slut
slide will end up with Intel dropping dead of a cash infarction, but
all the other players will be relegated to the embedded systems
netherworld by the time it strikes.
Cal Cerise
Edwin
> In article <ebdd0e2e.04081...@posting.google.com>,
> thor...@juno.com (Edwin) wrote:
>
> > Steve Hix <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote in message
> > news:<sehix-CA0A60....@news.isp.giganews.com>...
> > > In article <pan.2004.08.17....@hotmail.com>,
> > > Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:14:19 +0000, Edwin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > > I said that Sun is the only company that makes the whole widget, and
> > > > > that's
> > > > > true even though the statement doesn't cover all of their products.
> > > >
> > > > But you were wrong, even then. SGI did more of the "whole widget" than
> > > > SUN.
> > >
> > > And Sun does no more of "the whole widget" than does Apple. They're
> > > pretty comparable in that respect.
> >
> > Sun has always designed its own processor and graphics chips. Who
> > fabs them is immaterial. Apple has never been solely responsible for
> > a processor, and hasn't made it's own video cards for years.
> >
> > So Sun does the whole widget. Apple does not, and never did.
>
> Are you unaware of the AIM (Apple, IBM, Motorola) consortium? Who are
> jointly responsible for the design of PPC chips?
I don't see Apple by itself in that list of three names. Sparc was
being dismissed because Sun doesn't have its own fab. What fab does
Apple run?
--
Edwin
Alan Baker
Once again, you don't get it. *You* put forward a company that designs
chips as being equivalent to one that makes them.
Well Apple does that too.
Edwin
I meant Sparc processors, and they most certainly are still made.
>>
>>> They have also used pre-Opteron AMD processors (low-end servers),
>>> and Motorola 68K CPU, starting with the 68010. (The first Sun
>>> workstation sold sits in the lobby of the building where I work.)
>>
>> It doesn't change the fact that Sun also builds the whole widget, and
>> that Apple never did.
>
> Apple pretty much builds as much of it as Sun does.
Apple never built as much of the widget as Sun did or does.
>>
>>>>>> The OS:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> According to you (when talking about Mac OS X), this doesn't
>>>>>> count, because it's only a rebadged Unix with different GUI on
>>>>>> top (despite the fact that Mac OS X is a lot more than that,
>>>>>> that's what you appear to claim), or do I take it you now admit
>>>>>> that Apple's Mac OS X is Apple's product and not just a rebadged
>>>>>> Unix?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sun has been at developing Solaris since 1982. Apple and Mac OS
>>>>> X aren't
>>>>> in their league.
>>>
>>> OS X is, at least, the fourth shipping OS from Apple. Given that
>>> they've run their own OS's on every computer they've made, they're
>>> deeper into it than Sun, who has been shipping some of their
>>> systems with Linux.
>>
>> They're deeper into it than Sun, who have been shipping their own
>> version of Unix since 1982, for the last 22 years? Solaris has been
>> around since 1982, and you give more credit to Apple for four
>> versions of Mac OS X?
>
> Apple's been around since 1976, IIRC.
Not in Unix since then.
> And Sun didn't start out
> shipping their own version of Unix.
You're wrong. Again <g>
http://unixed.com/Resources/history_of_solaris.pdf
"In the early 1980s, Joy left Berkeley with a master'sd egree in electrical
engineering, and became cofounder of Sun Microsystems (Sun stands for
Stanford University Network). Sun's implementation of BSD was called SunOS.
Sun extended the networking tools of the operating system to include the
Networked FileSystem (NFS), which was to become an industry standard.Sun
also did some of the early work in developing windowing software for UNIX.
SunOS was first released in 1983."
1983, Alan, not 1987. And they weren't just using "Unix from others," from
the very start Sun contributed things to the innards of Unix that became
industry standards, for late comers like Apple Computer, Inc. to take
advantage of.
> It wasn't until 1987 that they
> even started to be involved in the development of Unix from others
> (AT&T), and Solaris came after that.
You have stated with confidence things you have been proven wrong about. By
your own standards of judgement, you are a liar.
Have a nice day.
--
Edwin
Edwin
Okay, so you accept that. Sun designed Sparc by itself. What chip did
Apple design by itself? Answer: none.
> Well Apple does that too.
Nope. Not even close. They just got IBM and Motorola to include some Mac
specific things. But AIM hasn't existed for years, and IBM isn't getting
any help from Apple in designing the G5.
--
Edwin
Edwin
> On 17/8/04 6:48 pm, in article
> MxrUc.4461$FV3...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com, "Edwin"
> <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> Sun has been at developing Solaris since 1982. Apple and Mac OS X
>> aren't in their league.
>
> variant,
That "more complete variant" exists in large part due to work done by Sun.
See my recent replies to Alan.
> and if you've ever played with A/UX, you see Apple's early
> Unix experiences were not altogether bad.
Sun's contributions to Unix start in 1983. Apple launched Mac OS (a very
non-Unix OS) in 1984.
That sums up neatly the difference between Apple and Sun. :-)
> A/UX mostly failed because
> at that time, no-one was pitching Unix as a desktop OS, and it cost
> nearly $1,000.
I think A/UX mostly failed because there were better workstations from real
Unix vendors.
[snip]
--
Edwin
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
SunOS was not Solaris
Here's another quote:
"1993
Sun announced that SunOS, release 4.1.4, would be its
last release of an operating system based on BSD. Sun
saw the writing on the wall and moved to System V,
release 4, which they named Solaris. System V, release 4
(SRV4) was a merger of System V and BSD, incorporating
the important features found in SunOS."
IOW, Solaris came along later. SunOS was just what Sun called Unix when
it was sold by them.
Show us what features equivalent to Quartz and IOKit and Cocoa were
included in SunOS when it was introduced...
>
> > It wasn't until 1987 that they
> > even started to be involved in the development of Unix from others
> > (AT&T), and Solaris came after that.
>
> You have stated with confidence things you have been proven wrong about. By
> your own standards of judgement, you are a liar.
You didn't prove them wrong.
>
> Have a nice day.
--
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
I didn't accept that, because it wasn't on the table.
>
> > Well Apple does that too.
>
> Nope. Not even close. They just got IBM and Motorola to include some Mac
> specific things. But AIM hasn't existed for years, and IBM isn't getting
> any help from Apple in designing the G5.
And you know this, how?
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> Richard Kilpatrick wrote:
> > On 17/8/04 6:48 pm, in article
> > MxrUc.4461$FV3...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com, "Edwin"
> > <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Sun has been at developing Solaris since 1982. Apple and Mac OS X
> >> aren't in their league.
> >
> > Meh. Unix is Unix is Unix. Apple started with a more complete
> > variant,
>
> That "more complete variant" exists in large part due to work done by Sun.
> See my recent replies to Alan.
>
> > and if you've ever played with A/UX, you see Apple's early
> > Unix experiences were not altogether bad.
>
> Sun's contributions to Unix start in 1983. Apple launched Mac OS (a very
> non-Unix OS) in 1984.
>
> That sums up neatly the difference between Apple and Sun. :-)
Right. Apple built an OS from scratch that changed the world.
>
> > A/UX mostly failed because
> > at that time, no-one was pitching Unix as a desktop OS, and it cost
> > nearly $1,000.
>
> I think A/UX mostly failed because there were better workstations from real
> Unix vendors.
LOL
Edwin
> In article <eNRUc.4902$FV3....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> Richard Kilpatrick wrote:
>>> On 17/8/04 6:48 pm, in article
>>> MxrUc.4461$FV3...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com, "Edwin"
>>> <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sun has been at developing Solaris since 1982. Apple and Mac OS X
>>>> aren't in their league.
>>>
>>> Meh. Unix is Unix is Unix. Apple started with a more complete
>>> variant,
>>
>> That "more complete variant" exists in large part due to work done
>> by Sun. See my recent replies to Alan.
>>
>>> and if you've ever played with A/UX, you see Apple's early
>>> Unix experiences were not altogether bad.
>>
>> Sun's contributions to Unix start in 1983. Apple launched Mac OS
>> (a very non-Unix OS) in 1984.
>>
>> That sums up neatly the difference between Apple and Sun. :-)
>
> Right. Apple built an OS from scratch that changed the world.
No, the GUI changed the world. The OS Apple came up with is crap, and it
always was.
Sun contributed to and shaped Unix since the release of SunOS (later to be
called Solaris) since 1983.
>>> A/UX mostly failed because
>>> at that time, no-one was pitching Unix as a desktop OS, and it cost
>>> nearly $1,000.
>>
>> I think A/UX mostly failed because there were better workstations
>> from real Unix vendors.
>
> LOL
Would you like to pit a Mac of that time against contemporary SGI, Sun, HP,
and Apollo workstations?
--
Edwin
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
BTW, thought you'd like this:
"In the course of the 1980s, a number of new workstation companies
sprang up. Many preferred to license UNIX rather than developing
operating systems for themselves. In particular, Sun Microsystems
licensed UNIX and implemented a version of 4.2BSD, which they called
SunOS. "
<http://www.lemis.com/bsdpaper.html>
"Licensed and implemented". IOW, they just bought it. Their own work
came much later.
>
>
> > It wasn't until 1987 that they
> > even started to be involved in the development of Unix from others
> > (AT&T), and Solaris came after that.
>
> You have stated with confidence things you have been proven wrong about. By
> your own standards of judgement, you are a liar.
>
> Have a nice day.
--
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article <eNRUc.4902$FV3....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
> > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Richard Kilpatrick wrote:
> >>> On 17/8/04 6:48 pm, in article
> >>> MxrUc.4461$FV3...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com, "Edwin"
> >>> <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Sun has been at developing Solaris since 1982. Apple and Mac OS X
> >>>> aren't in their league.
> >>>
> >>> Meh. Unix is Unix is Unix. Apple started with a more complete
> >>> variant,
> >>
> >> That "more complete variant" exists in large part due to work done
> >> by Sun. See my recent replies to Alan.
> >>
> >>> and if you've ever played with A/UX, you see Apple's early
> >>> Unix experiences were not altogether bad.
> >>
> >> Sun's contributions to Unix start in 1983. Apple launched Mac OS
> >> (a very non-Unix OS) in 1984.
> >>
> >> That sums up neatly the difference between Apple and Sun. :-)
> >
> > Right. Apple built an OS from scratch that changed the world.
>
> No, the GUI changed the world. The OS Apple came up with is crap, and it
> always was.
>
> Sun contributed to and shaped Unix since the release of SunOS (later to be
> called Solaris) since 1983.
All they did was license BSD.
<http://www.lemis.com/bsdpaper.html>
>
> >>> A/UX mostly failed because
> >>> at that time, no-one was pitching Unix as a desktop OS, and it cost
> >>> nearly $1,000.
> >>
> >> I think A/UX mostly failed because there were better workstations
> >> from real Unix vendors.
> >
> > LOL
>
> Would you like to pit a Mac of that time against contemporary SGI, Sun, HP,
> and Apollo workstations?
Absolutely. Do we get to take cost into consideration?
Edwin
Yes it is. SunOS is melded into Solaris. In any case you wrote: "And Sun
didn't start out shipping their own version of Unix." SunOS is Unix, and
they've shipped it since 1983. You are wrong. Again. <g>
> Here's another quote:
>
> "1993
> Sun announced that SunOS, release 4.1.4, would be its
> last release of an operating system based on BSD. Sun
> saw the writing on the wall and moved to System V,
> release 4, which they named Solaris. System V, release 4
> (SRV4) was a merger of System V and BSD, incorporating
> the important features found in SunOS."
See the last sentence? "...a merger of System V and BSD, incorporating
the important features found in SunOS." SunOS live on inside Solaris.
> IOW, Solaris came along later. SunOS was just what Sun called Unix
> when it was sold by them.
The quote above shows that Solaris is a merger of System V, BSD, and SunOS.
Sun made it, it just didn't "come along."
You're wrong. Again. <g> You made absolute statements without checking
your facts. Again. <g>
SunOS was Sun's own modified BSD Unix, not "just what they called Unix when
it was sold by them."
You're wrong. Again. <g>
Since Solaris is Unix, and is sold by Sun to this very day, it belies your
"SunOS was just what Sun called Unix when it was sold by them."
You're wrong. Again. <g>
You have stated with confindence things you are wrong about. By your own
rules of judgement, you are a liar. <g>
> Show us what features equivalent to Quartz and IOKit and Cocoa were
> included in SunOS when it was introduced...
Why should I do that?
>>
>>> It wasn't until 1987 that they
>>> even started to be involved in the development of Unix from others
>>> (AT&T), and Solaris came after that.
>>
>> You have stated with confidence things you have been proven wrong
>> about. By your own standards of judgement, you are a liar.
>
> You didn't prove them wrong.
You wrote: "And Sun didn't start out shipping their own version of Unix."
SunOS is Unix, and Sun's own version of Unix, and they've shipped it since
1983. You are wrong. Again. <g>
You have stated with confidence things you have been proven wrong
about. By your own standards of judgement, you are a liar. <g>
Toodles.
--
Edwin
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
It was just BSD 4.2 by another name.
>
>
> > Here's another quote:
> >
> > "1993
> > Sun announced that SunOS, release 4.1.4, would be its
> > last release of an operating system based on BSD. Sun
> > saw the writing on the wall and moved to System V,
> > release 4, which they named Solaris. System V, release 4
> > (SRV4) was a merger of System V and BSD, incorporating
> > the important features found in SunOS."
>
> See the last sentence? "...a merger of System V and BSD, incorporating
> the important features found in SunOS." SunOS live on inside Solaris.
Right. But SunOS was just a purchased OS.
Like Apple, Sun purchased and OS and then developed it. No more.
>
> > IOW, Solaris came along later. SunOS was just what Sun called Unix
> > when it was sold by them.
>
> The quote above shows that Solaris is a merger of System V, BSD, and SunOS.
> Sun made it, it just didn't "come along."
>
> You're wrong. Again. <g> You made absolute statements without checking
> your facts. Again. <g>
>
> SunOS was Sun's own modified BSD Unix, not "just what they called Unix when
> it was sold by them."
>
> You're wrong. Again. <g>
>
> Since Solaris is Unix, and is sold by Sun to this very day, it belies your
> "SunOS was just what Sun called Unix when it was sold by them."
>
> You're wrong. Again. <g>
>
> You have stated with confindence things you are wrong about. By your own
> rules of judgement, you are a liar. <g>
>
> > Show us what features equivalent to Quartz and IOKit and Cocoa were
> > included in SunOS when it was introduced...
>
> Why should I do that?
Because you're trying to maintain that Sun did/does something that Apple
didn't/doesn't.
>
> >>
> >>> It wasn't until 1987 that they
> >>> even started to be involved in the development of Unix from others
> >>> (AT&T), and Solaris came after that.
> >>
> >> You have stated with confidence things you have been proven wrong
> >> about. By your own standards of judgement, you are a liar.
> >
> > You didn't prove them wrong.
>
> You wrote: "And Sun didn't start out shipping their own version of Unix."
> SunOS is Unix, and Sun's own version of Unix, and they've shipped it since
> 1983. You are wrong. Again. <g>
It was a rebadged BSD 4.2. "Licensed and implemented". Not "licensed and
extended".
>
> You have stated with confidence things you have been proven wrong
> about. By your own standards of judgement, you are a liar. <g>
>
> Toodles.
LOL
Edwin
Sure it was.
" 'Sun Microsystems is the only company that makes the "whole widget,"
from the Sparc CPU, on through their own graphics chips and cards,
right on through the OS and the applications running on it.' "
You even quoted me yourself. The single quotes within my double quotes are
yours.
You're wrong. Again. <g>
>>
>>> Well Apple does that too.
>>
>> Nope. Not even close. They just got IBM and Motorola to include
>> some Mac specific things. But AIM hasn't existed for years, and
>> IBM isn't getting any help from Apple in designing the G5.
>
> And you know this, how?
You can prove otherwise?
Until then, you've been proven wrong about things you stated with
confidence, and so by your own rules of judgement, you are a liar. <g>
--
Edwin
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
And where does it say "designs" in there? I was arguing that Sun doesn't
do what you claim it does, and moreover that it's not very different
from Apple.
>
> >>
> >>> Well Apple does that too.
> >>
> >> Nope. Not even close. They just got IBM and Motorola to include
> >> some Mac specific things. But AIM hasn't existed for years, and
> >> IBM isn't getting any help from Apple in designing the G5.
> >
> > And you know this, how?
>
> You can prove otherwise?
I don't have to prove your claims.
But actually, yes, I can:
<http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL
&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,996,057.WKU.&OS=PN/5,996,0
57&RS=PN/5,996,057>
" Data processing system and method of permutation with replication
within a vector register file
Abstract...
Assignee: Apple (Cupertino, CA); IBM (Armonk, NY); Motorola Inc.
(Schaumburg, IL)"
That's one of the patents related to Altivec; and it belongs to Apple as
well as Motorola and IBM.
>
> Until then, you've been proven wrong about things you stated with
> confidence, and so by your own rules of judgement, you are a liar. <g>
LOL
Edwin
Hey Alan, you missed another place where you're wrong. Again. <g>
>>>>
>>>>> They have also used pre-Opteron AMD processors (low-end servers),
>>>>> and Motorola 68K CPU, starting with the 68010. (The first Sun
>>>>> workstation sold sits in the lobby of the building where I work.)
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't change the fact that Sun also builds the whole widget,
>>>> and that Apple never did.
>>>
>>> Apple pretty much builds as much of it as Sun does.
>>
>> Apple never built as much of the widget as Sun did or does.
Hey Alan, you missed another place where you're wrong. Again. <g>
You deliberately ignored this from above:
" Sun's implementation of BSD was called SunOS.
Sun extended the networking tools of the operating system to include the
Networked FileSystem (NFS), which was to become an industry standard.Sun
also did some of the early work in developing windowing software for UNIX.
SunOS was first released in 1983."
Sun made SunOS more than just a copy of BSD, from the start. You're wrong.
Again. <g>
>>> It wasn't until 1987 that they
>>> even started to be involved in the development of Unix from others
>>> (AT&T), and Solaris came after that.
SunOS was released in 1983. That means the above paragraph is another
place where you're wrong. Again. <g>
You have stated with confidence things you have been proven wrong
about. By your own standards of judgement, you are a liar.
Have a nice day.
--
Edwin
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
<snip>
> >>>>>>>> The OS:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> According to you (when talking about Mac OS X), this doesn't
> >>>>>>>> count, because it's only a rebadged Unix with different GUI on
> >>>>>>>> top (despite the fact that Mac OS X is a lot more than that,
> >>>>>>>> that's what you appear to claim), or do I take it you now admit
> >>>>>>>> that Apple's Mac OS X is Apple's product and not just a
> >>>>>>>> rebadged Unix?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sun has been at developing Solaris since 1982. Apple and Mac
> >>>>>>> OS X aren't in their league.
So you were wrong about this...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> OS X is, at least, the fourth shipping OS from Apple. Given that
> >>>>> they've run their own OS's on every computer they've made, they're
> >>>>> deeper into it than Sun, who has been shipping some of their
> >>>>> systems with Linux.
> >>>>
> >>>> They're deeper into it than Sun, who have been shipping their own
> >>>> version of Unix since 1982, for the last 22 years? Solaris has
> >>>> been around since 1982, and you give more credit to Apple for four
> >>>> versions of Mac OS X?
And about this...
Actually, that came after. Sun OS was first released in 1983 and NFS
didn't come out until afterwards.
>
> >>> It wasn't until 1987 that they
> >>> even started to be involved in the development of Unix from others
> >>> (AT&T), and Solaris came after that.
>
> SunOS was released in 1983. That means the above paragraph is another
> place where you're wrong. Again. <g>
>
> You have stated with confidence things you have been proven wrong
> about. By your own standards of judgement, you are a liar.
>
> Have a nice day.
LOL
Edwin
> In article <nZRUc.4910$FV3....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>> In article <eNRUc.4902$FV3....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
>>> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Richard Kilpatrick wrote:
>>>>> On 17/8/04 6:48 pm, in article
>>>>> MxrUc.4461$FV3...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com, "Edwin"
>>>>> <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sun has been at developing Solaris since 1982. Apple and Mac
>>>>>> OS X aren't in their league.
>>>>>
>>>>> Meh. Unix is Unix is Unix. Apple started with a more complete
>>>>> variant,
>>>>
>>>> That "more complete variant" exists in large part due to work done
>>>> by Sun. See my recent replies to Alan.
>>>>
>>>>> and if you've ever played with A/UX, you see Apple's early
>>>>> Unix experiences were not altogether bad.
>>>>
>>>> Sun's contributions to Unix start in 1983. Apple launched Mac OS
>>>> (a very non-Unix OS) in 1984.
>>>>
>>>> That sums up neatly the difference between Apple and Sun. :-)
>>>
>>> Right. Apple built an OS from scratch that changed the world.
>>
>> No, the GUI changed the world. The OS Apple came up with is crap,
>> and it always was.
Hey Alan, you were wrong again. <g> You stated with confidence things you
were proven wrong about, and by your own rules of judgement, you are a liar.
Again. <g>
>> Sun contributed to and shaped Unix since the release of SunOS (later
>> to be called Solaris) since 1983.
>
> All they did was license BSD.
>
> <http://www.lemis.com/bsdpaper.html>
In 1982, like Sun did?
>>
>>>>> A/UX mostly failed because
>>>>> at that time, no-one was pitching Unix as a desktop OS, and it
>>>>> cost nearly $1,000.
>>>>
>>>> I think A/UX mostly failed because there were better workstations
>>>> from real Unix vendors.
>>>
>>> LOL
>>
>> Would you like to pit a Mac of that time against contemporary SGI,
>> Sun, HP, and Apollo workstations?
>
> Absolutely. Do we get to take cost into consideration?
You mean you're going to use a Wintel argment against workstations? I
can't wait to hear why you think people chose Sun, SGI, etc. instead of a
Mac running A/UX...
--
Edwin
Edwin
> In article <wuSUc.4915$FV3....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>>>>>>> The OS:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> According to you (when talking about Mac OS X), this doesn't
>>>>>>>>>> count, because it's only a rebadged Unix with different GUI
>>>>>>>>>> on top (despite the fact that Mac OS X is a lot more than
>>>>>>>>>> that, that's what you appear to claim), or do I take it you
>>>>>>>>>> now admit that Apple's Mac OS X is Apple's product and not
>>>>>>>>>> just a rebadged Unix?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sun has been at developing Solaris since 1982. Apple and Mac
>>>>>>>>> OS X aren't in their league.
>
> So you were wrong about this...
Nope. I said they were developing Unix since 1982. Did you think it fell
out of the sky in 1983?
You're wrong. Again. <g>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OS X is, at least, the fourth shipping OS from Apple. Given that
>>>>>>> they've run their own OS's on every computer they've made,
>>>>>>> they're deeper into it than Sun, who has been shipping some of
>>>>>>> their systems with Linux.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They're deeper into it than Sun, who have been shipping their own
>>>>>> version of Unix since 1982, for the last 22 years? Solaris has
>>>>>> been around since 1982, and you give more credit to Apple for
>>>>>> four versions of Mac OS X?
>
> And about this...
Nope. You're wrong. Again. <g>
http://www.busan.edu/~nic/networking/puis/ch20_01.htm
"NFS was developed inside Sun Microsystems in the early 1980s. Since that
time, NFS has undergone three major revisions:"
"NFS Version 1 "
"NFS Version 1 was Sun's prototype network filesystem. This version was
never released to the outside world."
"NFS Version 2 "
"NFS Version 2 was first distributed with Sun's SunOS 2 operating system
in 1985. Version 2 was widely licensed to numerous UNIX workstation vendors.
A freely distributable, compatible version was developed in the late 1980s
at the University of California at Berkeley."
You're wrong. Again <g>
>>>>> It wasn't until 1987 that they
>>>>> even started to be involved in the development of Unix from others
>>>>> (AT&T), and Solaris came after that.
>>
>> SunOS was released in 1983. That means the above paragraph is
>> another place where you're wrong. Again. <g>
>>
>> You have stated with confidence things you have been proven wrong
>> about. By your own standards of judgement, you are a liar.
>>
>> Have a nice day.
>
> LOL
LOL
Too bad about your credibility... what's that... you never had any... never
mind then...
--
Edwin
Edwin
You're wrong. Again. <g>
>>
>>
>>> Here's another quote:
>>>
>>> "1993
>>> Sun announced that SunOS, release 4.1.4, would be its
>>> last release of an operating system based on BSD. Sun
>>> saw the writing on the wall and moved to System V,
>>> release 4, which they named Solaris. System V, release 4
>>> (SRV4) was a merger of System V and BSD, incorporating
>>> the important features found in SunOS."
>>
>> See the last sentence? "...a merger of System V and BSD,
>> incorporating the important features found in SunOS." SunOS live
>> on inside Solaris.
>
> Right. But SunOS was just a purchased OS.
Not according to what's been quoted in this thread.
You're wrong. Again <g>
> Like Apple, Sun purchased and OS and then developed it. No more.
You're wrong. Again <g>
>>
>>> IOW, Solaris came along later. SunOS was just what Sun called Unix
>>> when it was sold by them.
>>
>> The quote above shows that Solaris is a merger of System V, BSD, and
>> SunOS. Sun made it, it just didn't "come along."
>>
>> You're wrong. Again. <g> You made absolute statements without
>> checking your facts. Again. <g>
>>
>> SunOS was Sun's own modified BSD Unix, not "just what they called
>> Unix when it was sold by them."
>>
>> You're wrong. Again. <g>
>>
>> Since Solaris is Unix, and is sold by Sun to this very day, it
>> belies your "SunOS was just what Sun called Unix when it was sold by
>> them."
>>
>> You're wrong. Again. <g>
>>
>> You have stated with confindence things you are wrong about. By
>> your own rules of judgement, you are a liar. <g>
>>
>>> Show us what features equivalent to Quartz and IOKit and Cocoa were
>>> included in SunOS when it was introduced...
>>
>> Why should I do that?
>
> Because you're trying to maintain that Sun did/does something that
> Apple didn't/doesn't.
That Sun makes the whole widget, not just that they make something.
You're wrong. Again <g>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> It wasn't until 1987 that they
>>>>> even started to be involved in the development of Unix from others
>>>>> (AT&T), and Solaris came after that.
>>>>
>>>> You have stated with confidence things you have been proven wrong
>>>> about. By your own standards of judgement, you are a liar.
>>>
>>> You didn't prove them wrong.
>>
>> You wrote: "And Sun didn't start out shipping their own version of
>> Unix." SunOS is Unix, and Sun's own version of Unix, and they've
>> shipped it since 1983. You are wrong. Again. <g>
>
> It was a rebadged BSD 4.2. "Licensed and implemented". Not "licensed
> and extended".
You're wrong. Again <g>
>>
>> You have stated with confidence things you have been proven wrong
>> about. By your own standards of judgement, you are a liar. <g>
>>
>> Toodles.
>
> LOL
LOL
--
Edwin
Edwin
The embedded market dwarfs the desktop computing market. The real
"computer revolution" is in your VCR, in your microwave oven, in your
thermostat, in your car, more than it is on your desktop... and that's just
consumer stuff. Throw in Telco, test equipment, CAM, etc., etc., and you'll
find embedded processors outnumber desktop processors by orders of
magnitude.
--
Edwin
Edwin
You accepted that designing the processor give the designer credit for it.
Sun designed the Sparc, and had it built by fabs it doesn't own. They
aren't the only processor designer to work that way, and you tried to give
Apple credit for the PowerPC, even though they never had a fab.
> I was arguing that Sun
> doesn't do what you claim it does,
You were wrong. Again. <g>
> and moreover that it's not very
> different from Apple.
Apple never designed a CPU on their own. Apple didn't contribute to Unix
internals the way Sun did.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Well Apple does that too.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. Not even close. They just got IBM and Motorola to include
>>>> some Mac specific things. But AIM hasn't existed for years, and
>>>> IBM isn't getting any help from Apple in designing the G5.
>>>
>>> And you know this, how?
>>
>> You can prove otherwise?
>
> I don't have to prove your claims.
No, prove your own.
> But actually, yes, I can:
>
> <http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
> Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL
> &p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,996,057.WKU.&OS=PN/5,996,0
57&RS=PN/5,996,057>
>
> " Data processing system and method of permutation with replication
> within a vector register file
>
> Abstract...
>
>
> Assignee: Apple (Cupertino, CA); IBM (Armonk, NY); Motorola Inc.
> (Schaumburg, IL)"
>
> That's one of the patents related to Altivec; and it belongs to Apple
> as well as Motorola and IBM.
"Filed: April 17, 1998"
That's a pre-G5 technology that IBM is including in the G5, not proof Apple
is helping design the G5.
You're wrong. Again. <g>
You have stated with confidence something you were proven wrong about. By
your own rules of judgement, you are a liar. <g>
>>
>> Until then, you've been proven wrong about things you stated with
>> confidence, and so by your own rules of judgement, you are a liar.
>> <g>
>
> LOL
LOL
You're wrong. Again. <G>
--
Edwin
Nash*ton
> On 18/8/04 12:31 pm, in article
> O6HUc.96778$Np3.4...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca, "Nashton"
> <n...@nospam.nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Seems that the only way to earn respect and credibility in this ng is to
>>demonstrate a continual adulatory attitude towards the Mac and
>>anything Apple related.
>
>
> service. Nearly a month since I was promised a new PowerBook...
>
> Got an Airport Express today - really, really neat. Doesn't need Airport
> base station to extend the network or share music, either - it's working
> fine with my Belkin.
>
> Richard
Apple UK seems to have modelled itsef on the Apple Canada model.
There is really no excuse for this kind of treatment, not when you buy a
product in that price range in a day and age that money seems to be
harder and harder to earn.
All the luck to you with your problem:(
Nicolas
Steve Hix
Rick G <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote:
> In article <ebdd0e2e.04081...@posting.google.com>,
> thor...@juno.com (Edwin) wrote:
> >Steve Hix <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote in message
> >news:<sehix-878364....@news.isp.giganews.com>...
>
> > > OS X is, at least, the fourth shipping OS from Apple. Given that they've
> > > run their own OS's on every computer they've made, they're deeper into
> > > it than Sun, who has been shipping some of their systems with Linux.
> >
> > They're deeper into it than Sun, who have been shipping their own
> > version of Unix since 1982, for the last 22 years? Solaris has been
> > around since 1982, and you give more credit to Apple for four versions
> > of Mac OS X?
> >
> > You are joking, right?
>
> Edwin, I think you might have misunderstood - he is most likely
> referring to these:
>
> Apple DOS family
> A/UX
> "Classic Mac OS"
> OS X
>
> Although presume that he may have forgotten Newton OS, and some of the
> other "funkier" varients.
I said "at least four", thinking of Apple][ DOS, SOS, MacOS, MacOS X,
Newton, and A/UX. Forgot about LisaOS, and don't count the iPod as
having an OS, and what it's got is third-party.
As for being "in deeper", other than shipping some Windows variant with
a plug-in card in a couple of Macs, Apple has never shipped systems with
someone else's OS, which Sun is doing.
Steve Hix
Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
> In article <ebdd0e2e.04081...@posting.google.com>,
> thor...@juno.com (Edwin) wrote:
>
> > The do make lots of boxes with Solaris processors, that's the whole
> > widget. As I've explained more than once, all their products don't
> > have to fit that description for the statement to be true.
>
> There's no such thing as a Solaris processor, and if you meant SPARC
> processors, they don't make those any more.
Sun has never made SPARC processors. They design them, and they designed
the architecure in the first place, but their model has been "fabless",
intentionally, from the very beginning.
Fabs are *expensive* to set up.
> > > They have also used pre-Opteron AMD processors (low-end servers), and
> > > Motorola 68K CPU, starting with the 68010. (The first Sun workstation
> > > sold sits in the lobby of the building where I work.)
> >
> > It doesn't change the fact that Sun also builds the whole widget, and
> > that Apple never did.
You'd better come up with some definition of "whole widget" that matches
reality; you're not doing very well so far.
> Apple pretty much builds as much of it as Sun does.
Almost exactly as much.
> > > OS X is, at least, the fourth shipping OS from Apple. Given that they've
> > > run their own OS's on every computer they've made, they're deeper into
> > > it than Sun, who has been shipping some of their systems with Linux.
> >
> > They're deeper into it than Sun, who have been shipping their own
> > version of Unix since 1982, for the last 22 years? Solaris has been
> > around since 1982, and you give more credit to Apple for four versions
> > of Mac OS X?
>
> Apple's been around since 1976, IIRC. And Sun didn't start out shipping
> their own version of Unix. It wasn't until 1987 that they even started
> to be involved in the development of Unix from others (AT&T), and
> Solaris came after that.
That explains why I was using SunOS when I joined Sun in 1985.
You do realize that Solaris is just a marketing name for SunOS, don't
you? Solaris 8 = SunOS 5.8, etc.
SunOS was originally a branch of BSD (which is where/when Bill Joy
hooked up with Sun). The events during 1987 was Sun switching its
codebase from BSD to SVr4 Unix from AT&T. Took a while to get used to
that. I still trip over BSDisms that I got used to back then.
Steve Hix
Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
> SunOS was not Solaris
Of course not...it goes the other way around.
> Here's another quote:
>
> "1993
> Sun announced that SunOS, release 4.1.4, would be its
> last release of an operating system based on BSD. Sun
> saw the writing on the wall and moved to System V,
> release 4, which they named Solaris. System V, release 4
> (SRV4) was a merger of System V and BSD, incorporating
> the important features found in SunOS."
>
> IOW, Solaris came along later. SunOS was just what Sun called Unix when
> it was sold by them.
SunOS was as much a distinct variant of Unix as any other BSD- or
AT&T-based version.
Solaris is nothing more than a marketing label describing later versions
of SunOS.
If you look in various headers, and messages that pop up during system
operating, you see that, for instance, Solaris 8 is actually SunOS 5.8,
Solaris 9 is SunOS 5.9, and so on.
At one time, the numbering was closer, where Solaris 2.5 was SunOS
5.5...then some bright spark decided that MS was getting away with a
marketing coup (or else worried that customers would think that
WindowsNT 3.x was more advanced than Solaris 2.x, so they changed the
naming convention. I think they went from Solaris 2.5 to Solaris 6
("see, it's a bigger number than NT! Obviously better.)
I suppose that three or four customers bought the spin.
Maybe.
Going with Solaris instead of NT because it worked better for you makes
more sense, but tell that to marketeers.
Steve Hix
Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
> In article <XwRUc.4891$FV3....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> The do make lots of boxes with Solaris processors, that's the whole
> > >> widget. As I've explained more than once, all their products don't
> > >> have to fit that description for the statement to be true.
> > >
> > > There's no such thing as a Solaris processor, and if you meant SPARC
> > > processors, they don't make those any more.
> >
> > I meant Sparc processors, and they most certainly are still made.
But not by Sun. And they never were make by Sun.
Steve Hix
Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> All they did was license BSD.
>
> <http://www.lemis.com/bsdpaper.html>
They put in a good lot of value-added work, it wasn't near to being a
plug-in and go purchase.
Alan Baker
Steve Hix <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
My point was that at the beginning, they had a rebadged version of BSD
4.2 (SunOS) which they developed over time to be more (Solaris).
Much as Apple started with NeXT's OS, and then developed it.
Alan Baker
Steve Hix <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
> In article <alangbaker-6378B...@news.telus.net>,
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > SunOS was not Solaris
>
> Of course not...it goes the other way around.
>
> > Here's another quote:
> >
> > "1993
> > Sun announced that SunOS, release 4.1.4, would be its
> > last release of an operating system based on BSD. Sun
> > saw the writing on the wall and moved to System V,
> > release 4, which they named Solaris. System V, release 4
> > (SRV4) was a merger of System V and BSD, incorporating
> > the important features found in SunOS."
> >
> > IOW, Solaris came along later. SunOS was just what Sun called Unix when
> > it was sold by them.
>
> SunOS was as much a distinct variant of Unix as any other BSD- or
> AT&T-based version.
What was distinct about it when it *first* came out?
>
> Solaris is nothing more than a marketing label describing later versions
> of SunOS.
Which had a lot of additional development work done...
>
> If you look in various headers, and messages that pop up during system
> operating, you see that, for instance, Solaris 8 is actually SunOS 5.8,
> Solaris 9 is SunOS 5.9, and so on.
>
> At one time, the numbering was closer, where Solaris 2.5 was SunOS
> 5.5...then some bright spark decided that MS was getting away with a
> marketing coup (or else worried that customers would think that
> WindowsNT 3.x was more advanced than Solaris 2.x, so they changed the
> naming convention. I think they went from Solaris 2.5 to Solaris 6
> ("see, it's a bigger number than NT! Obviously better.)
>
> I suppose that three or four customers bought the spin.
>
> Maybe.
>
> Going with Solaris instead of NT because it worked better for you makes
> more sense, but tell that to marketeers.
--