Re: (OT) Steve Jobs.
John Smith
> On Oct 8, 5:42 pm, dave<d...@dave.dave> wrote:
>> On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 12:33:33 -0700, John Smith wrote:
>>> On 10/5/2011 8:10 PM, J R wrote:
>>>> I just now heard on TV news he has died. cuhulin
>>
>>> I guess you just can't keep charging people too much for hardware and OS
>>> forever ... someone elses' turn now ...
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> JS
>>
> - That's not the business Apple is in;
> - they sell a lifestyle of form of substance.
>
> Ah M4 Mania Dave -u-b- Smoking Da App El !
> -aka-'substance'-abuse-
>
> * Mucho Medical-Marijuana Madness [M4]
> .
> .
Reminds me of that old Cheech and Chong movie where they are smuggling
dope into the USA by forming the compressed pot into the material the
auto body is made out of ... maybe dave is indicating you break off
parts of a MAC and smoke it?
I don't know, I'll wait until others have tried it and see if it looks
like something I would like to do, or not ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> In article<clark-605D75....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
>>
>> In article<alangbaker-FA8E8...@news.shawcable.net>,
>> Alan Baker<alang...@telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>> In article<joednXxxSuLvPQzT...@earthlink.com>,
>>> dave<da...@dave.dave> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 11:03:20 +0900, Brenda Ann wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not the business Apple is in; they sell a lifestyle of form
>>>> [over] substance
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> --
>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> --
>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Besides, Apple was extant in the market before PC's (the original Apple
>>>>> computer was something like $3000, a clone was about $2300, IIRC). Apple
>>>>> maintained a following and indeed an increasing market base even after
>>>>> PC's got so cheap that most anyone could afford one.
>>>>>
>>>>> If someone likes a product enough to pay what seems to be an exhorbitant
>>>>> price for it, even in the face of a much cheaper alternative, then that
>>>>> is what they call "market forces" in operation. The consumer, in this
>>>>> case, has actually set the price by buying the product. If nobody were
>>>>> buying it, it would either become cheaper or taken off the market.
>>>>
>>>> They subsidised and strongarmed their way into schools; a whole
>>>> generation equated Apple with computing. It's definitely a fashion thing.
>>>> I was the IT guy at a TV network west coast headquarters. All the
>>>> "creative" types insisted on iMacs; they refused to work on windows
>>>> machines (this is for typing-not editing). Hollywood creative types are
>>>> insufferable boors.
>>>
>>> Of course... ...someone insisting on a product must be a "fashion thing".
>>>
>>> How exactly did Apple "strongarm" their way into schools.
>>
>> Perhaps this genius can also explain why more and more college students
>> in science and engineering are switching to Macs? Of their own free
>> will, that is. And not to use Windoze on them, either.
>>
>> What is Apple at now - 11%, third largest, up from less than 5% four
>> years ago?
>
> Intel won.
>
>
>
Linux is surely the equal, or better, of windows -- however, it is a tad
bit more difficult to use (unbutu perhaps breaks that rule) and is just
as prone to viruses and such, if used by people without proper education
and/or a virus/malware scanner ...
Plus, when you give people a product with is dirt free, they just can
never really trust it, they have to suffer payment or they just have
"that uncomfortable feeling." ROFLOL
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> In article<j6u79a$ekh$1...@dont-email.me>,
> John Smith<bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/10/2011 12:05 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> In article<j6u2q1$oca$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>> John Smith<bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Giving" is "strongarming"?
>>>
>>>> then sold them the software for
>>>> exorbitant prices ... signed them into exploitative contracts, etc.
>>>
>>> Really? And they signed these contracts with the children? Because I was
>>> under the impression that schools had people who were qualified to agree
>>> to such contracts...
>>>
>>>> Contracts which stipulated only apple people maintained the college
>>>> hardware ... etc., etc. Games within games, really.
>>>
>>> Then they were free not to sign them, weren't they? Ergo: not
>>> strongarmed at all.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Back in the late 80's and early 90's I taught at a jr. college, I seen
>>>> first hand how apples predatory sales techniques worked.
>>>
>>> Clearly.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Finally, at the college, a few of us wrote letters of complaint to the
>>>> "higher ups" and rectified the problem ... there was also some business
>>>> of "incentives" being passed about about by apple to those who
>>>> controlled purchasing ... lunches, wining and dining, etc. However,
>>>> digital equipment corporation also participated in such practices ...
>>>> (DEC)
>>>>
>>>> However, one thing I did notice, the "apple room" was always full of
>>>> liberal arts students while the PC sections of the computer labs always
>>>> contained the math, physics, science, etc. students ... just as a casual
>>>> observation ...
>>>
>>> Riiiiiiiight.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> JS
>>>
>>
>> Your post is an excellent example of what I have found about "Apple
>> People", they have a religious devotion to the platform ...
>
> Your post is an excellent example of someone who believes that anyone
> who sees value where you do not must do it out of religious devotion...
>
>>
>> Personally, the only reason I use a PC, and refuse MAC's, is that I
>> write much of the software I use ... plus, I private contract to develop
>> software on multiple platforms (even though I am retired, for the most
>> part) ... while most of that could be done on a MAC, it simply would not
>> make economic sense, for me ... I mean, I am in the business to make
>> money -- NOT pay money to apple ... apple has worked hard in being one
>> of the most proprietary corps I have ever seen, I think they can do that
>> without me ...
>
> In what way is the Mac more "proprietary" than Windows from your
> perspective? The fact that they've always sold computers with their own
> OS? You can write software for that platform just as you can for Windows
> or for Linux.
>
Windows doesn't hold patents on the hardware, to run their software,
just for starters ... and, they don't have an iphone, or even an idildo,
for that matter! ROFLOL
Regards,
JS
Alan Baker
Apple's suddenly an evil empire because they make hardware and Microsoft
doesn't?
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
RD Sandman
news:alangbaker-14EC3...@news.shawcable.net:
Microsoft does make hardware. It is called a mouse.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
Witnessing Republicans and Democrats bickering over
the National Debt is like watching two drunks argue
over a bar bill on the Titanic.....
John Smith
Actually, you have missed the point, gotten off track, the conversation
I seen was focused on fools and overpaying for the same bang less buck
will do ...
It isn't that apple is evil for taking fools money, the fools always end
up giving it to some one ... nor are the fools evil ... evil just
doesn't really apply.
If fools willingly give you money, I am not aware of any crimes which
have been broken, nor evil criminals at fault ... I mean, like, DUH!
Regards,
JS
John Smith
However, I would be quick to believe they get paid to let a hardware
manufacture slap the microsoft name/logo on a stupid mouse, which could
be bought cheaper, if it didn't bear the microsoft name and logo ...
Regards,
JS
RD Sandman
They made mice for a long time.....whether or not they still do, I
honestly don't know. It wass their only piece of hardware.
> However, I would be quick to believe they get paid to let a hardware
> manufacture slap the microsoft name/logo on a stupid mouse, which could
> be bought cheaper, if it didn't bear the microsoft name and logo ...
Believe what you wish.....you will no matter what the truth is.
x=usr(1536)
> and, they don't have an iphone
> or even an idildo, for that matter! ROFLOL
- x.
Alan Baker
John Smith <bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote:
As I said:
How arrogant to assume that anyone who sees value in what you do not
must be a fool...
D Peter Maus
Howard Brazee
<rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>>> Windows doesn't hold patents on the hardware, to run their software,
>>> just for starters ... and, they don't have an iphone, or even an
>>> idildo, for that matter! ROFLOL
>>
>> So?
>>
>> Apple's suddenly an evil empire because they make hardware and
>> Microsoft doesn't?
>
>
>Microsoft does make hardware. It is called a mouse.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Scout
"Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-14EC3...@news.shawcable.net...
Actually Microsoft does make hardware. Mice, keyboards, headsets, webcams,
and even fingerprint readers.
True they don't build systems, but they do produce certain types of
hardware. They even patent certain aspects of that hardware. Such as the
tilt wheel mouse.
Hell, back in 2008, they received a patent for the page up and page down
keys. (Patent #7,415,666)
John Smith
> ...
> So is renting an example of a generation being dumber?
>
It is an example of not owning/having a home ... I don't know that needs
any more explaining ...
> They choose to rent instead of buy because they are dumb?
>
There are owners, and there are those who are slaves and work/pay for
their right to squat on land ... I really don't know what you are
looking for here ... the obvious differences and benefits are simply
that, obvious, to those with the grey matter to know that/those
differences ...
> Or is it they are dumb enough to create the economy where it made more
> sense to rent than to buy?
>
>
The indians sold manhattan for some beads and trinkets ... the russians
sold alaska for less than one days worth of oil which comes out of there ...
Again, those capable already know the importance of these facts ... and
conduct their life accordingly ... the implications, importance and
consequences surrounding what you ask make me think something is wrong
if you must ask the question which you are ...
Regards,
JS
BAR
You get what you pay for. When it is free that is exactly what you get,
free software.
We tend to go with Red Hat ES and SUSE Linux. These have proved to be
the most stable and most apps are supported on them.
I have just gone through migrating a class of applications from Solaris
(SPARC) to Windows. The rational is that there was no need to have your
"highly educated" workforce supporting the applications on UNIX/Linux
when they can be supported by just about anyone on a Windows system.
And, since they are on Windows they easily run in a VM. The cost went
from about $25,000 a year to about $300 for the systems. The run support
is expected to be about $2,500 for the partial off-shore Windows head.
SaPeIsMa
"RD Sandman" <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote in message
news:Xns9F7A864F4...@216.196.121.131...
>> Microsoft doesn't?
>
>
> Microsoft does make hardware. It is called a mouse.
>
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=bvre&cp=13&gs_id=11&xhr=t&q=microsoft+mouse&qe=bWljcm9zb2Z0IG1vdQ&qesig=HMU7YoJlPIWt7r49HVa1FQ&pkc=AFgZ2tk3cNwLeEiZpzP_6naTgTN3A8dA9QTbomdgQNJRrwPkMAKl7lsQb6OGZKGU8UXShJzMOvn5tUMyrOZU7LflIUlovZg9ag&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&site=&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=microsoft+mou&aq=0&aqi=g4&aql=f&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=bb5d7b1533420d98&biw=1109&bih=588
John Smith
Well, red hat and suse have what some don't, proprietary hype and cutsy
GUI tools and implement their own "methods of doing things" ... the most
"honest linux", which stays true to form, the most, to the old UNIX, is
slackware ... simply pick the GUI interface you want to use with it, or
are most comfortable with ... coming from times before the "GREAT GUI
GOD", and related/associated "biblical scriptures in 'GUI syntax'", I
use a command line as much as possible ... but then, up until vista, I
knew how to turn off the windows gui and go mainly commandline (almost
like a 32-bit "super dos!") ... the gui just got too tough to fight ...
I now use the Great GUI Gods tools ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
Good, but then you already knew I would believe you didn't know what you
are talking about ... but your admitting it is nice ... thanks.
Regards,
JS
BAR
I could care less about keeping to "honest Linux" I have applications
that a world wide engineering organizations rely upon 24/7/365. I want
up time.
I used to be a command-line die-hard like you but, I have people who
write code and do all of the nitty-gritty technical stuff and I really
don't care if you use ed or vi to edit your files.
Alan Baker
John Smith <bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote:
> On 10/10/2011 4:49 AM, BAR wrote:
> > In article<clark-605D75....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
> >>
> >> In article<alangbaker-FA8E8...@news.shawcable.net>,
> >> Alan Baker<alang...@telus.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article<joednXxxSuLvPQzT...@earthlink.com>,
> >>> dave<da...@dave.dave> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 11:03:20 +0900, Brenda Ann wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That's not the business Apple is in; they sell a lifestyle of form
> >>>> [over] substance
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> ---
> >>>> --
> >>>> --
> >>>>>
> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> ---
If Linux is "surely the equal, or better, of Windows", then Mac OS X is
surely the superior of Windows, because it is surely the better of Linux.
It offers all that Linux offers and is easier to use.
>
> Plus, when you give people a product with is dirt free, they just can
> never really trust it, they have to suffer payment or they just have
> "that uncomfortable feeling." ROFLOL
>
> Regards,
> JS
--
Alan Baker
John Smith <bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote:
Well you're religion has now been made clear...
RHF
> In article <j6vfr9$sv...@dont-email.me>,
> > > In article<clark-605D75.19350109102...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > > cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
>
> > >> In article<alangbaker-FA8E80.11491209102...@news.shawcable.net>,
> > >> Alan Baker<alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > >>> In article<joednXxxSuLvPQzTnZ2dnUVZ_sudn...@earthlink.com>,
> > >>> dave<d...@dave.dave> wrote:
and dats dat ~ RHF
.
Alan Baker
<b9896f57-ecca-4747...@y12g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
RHF <rhf-new...@pacbell.net> wrote:
:-)
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>On 10/10/2011 2:31 PM, Howard Brazee wrote:
>
>> ...
>> So is renting an example of a generation being dumber?
>>
>
>It is an example of not owning/having a home ... I don't know that needs
>any more explaining ...
There's a lot you don't know. Hardly anybody *owns* a home. And
when the bank owns more than the house is worth, or when a job comes
up and they can't sell their home to move, they wish they had rented.
I am holding off downsizing until housing values go up.
I am also subsidizing other homeowners because they have tax breaks
renters don't get. (and they are subsidizing me for the same thing).
>> They choose to rent instead of buy because they are dumb?
>>
>
>There are owners, and there are those who are slaves and work/pay for
>their right to squat on land ... I really don't know what you are
>looking for here ... the obvious differences and benefits are simply
>that, obvious, to those with the grey matter to know that/those
>differences ...
>
>> Or is it they are dumb enough to create the economy where it made more
>> sense to rent than to buy?
>>
>>
>
>The indians sold manhattan for some beads and trinkets ... the russians
>sold alaska for less than one days worth of oil which comes out of there ...
>
>Again, those capable already know the importance of these facts ... and
>conduct their life accordingly ... the implications, importance and
>consequences surrounding what you ask make me think something is wrong
>if you must ask the question which you are ...
>
>Regards,
>JS
It is always good to examine closely held beliefs. You don't seem
to be willing to do so.
John Smith
> On 10/10/11 3:01 PM, John Smith wrote:
>
>> You confuse "stable" with being "limited like a child."
>
> Nope. Please tell me where I made that comparison; it's all yours.
>
>> You simply can' screw up a MAC like you can a PC because it doesn't
>> allow it ... the PC comes, out of the box, WIDE OPEN!
>
> Disagreed. The threat models are different, but I will concede that OS
> X' security track record has generally been better than Windows', even
> taking into account that there have been four major versions of Windows
> released in parallel with the history of OS X.
>
>> Windows 7 is full of a bunch of nag screens now, asking for rights to
>> install a driver, right to install software, rights to make changes to
>> the registry, etc. ... but morons still don't know what this means and
>> allows it.
>
> Big deal; it's the same on any *nix-based OS (and I'm including OS X in
> that for the sake of the argument). Let an idiot allow malware to do
> something in God Mode and it's just as bad on any platform.
>
>> Truth is, unless you tell a PC to allow a virus/malware, it is NOT going
>> to do it and is just at "stable" (your words) as a MAC.
>
> Wrong. There have been plenty of system-level vulnerabilities in
> Windows that have allowed exactly the kinds of scenarios you're
> proposing here take place *without* user intervention.
>
> Also, don't confuse 'security' with 'stability'. Two different things,
> though one may occasionally depend on the other.
>
>> This assuming
>> you have allowed microsoft to automatically update drivers, software and
>> malware/virus protection -- things which the MAC does without ever
>> giving you opportunity to ignore/stop/refuse ...
>
> Automatic Updates usually address the worm o' the week *after* the fact.
> That's not to say that they're never proactive about problems, but
> usually the patch comes in for the major problem after it's hit CNN.
>
> By the way, you can refuse updates on the Mac (which incidentally is not
> an acronym, so no need to wear out the caps lock key typing it in block
> capitals). You may not know how to do that, but your ignorance of the
> OS X GUI does not mean that your assertion is in any way, shape, or form
> correct. Again.
>
>> You definition of "stable" means, to me, "stopping morons from
>> compromising their systems."
>
> I don't believe that I ever provided you with my definition of stability
> in this context beyond the BSOD, so you're making an assumption there
> again. Nice try, though.
>
>> As I say, PC don't have a "mommy and daddy" protecting you, you will get
>> asked a simple question, about allowing the changes ... if you really
>> don't understand the changes you are allowing, you might not wanna'
>> allow them ...
>
> Welcome to OS X - or pretty much every other *nix variant out there.
>
>> Basically, linux/UNIX and mainframes are the same, totally open ... I
>> can't count the linux machines I have seen compromised which the owners
>> are telling me "linux doesn't get viruses like windows", and, basically,
>> they are correct -- IT IS THEM WHO HAVE ALLOWED IT!
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH*deep breath*HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>
> You haven't been trolling for very long, have you? Here's a hint: if
> you want to be an effective troll, learn to troll effectively.
>
> Now, giving you the benefit of the doubt, you may just be speaking from
> a position of complete ignorance. And that's OK; the world evidently
> needs dumb people too, though I've personally found them substantially
> less than necessary. However, I would have expected someone capable of
> manually poking hex values into memory to be a little more... Savvy.
>
> You clearly have no idea of the difference between a worm, a virus, a
> trojan, or an application- or system-level vulnerability. I'll leave
> configuration (either at the system or application level) out of this
> for now, because I wouldn't want to confuse you any further.
>
> Really, you need to up your game. I'll give you a half-check mark for
> trying, though. Effort does count.
>
>> And, of course, on a main frame you have a system administrator
>> protecting you and making decisions for you, and his/her FIRST decision
>> will be to NOT ALLOW YOU TO MAKE CHANGES ... roflol
>
> Of course you do, and there's no such thing as the 'administrator'
> account (local or domain) on a Windows box. Bless your little heart.
>
>> On a PC, you are GOD ... pure and simple, with the power of GOD comes
>> great responsibility ... makes sure you have the wisdom to be a GOD
>> before proceeding ... GODS don't make mistakes, yanno'?<grin>
>
> Can I have some of what you're huffing? It's clearly the good shit.
>
> - x.
Basically, a whole bunch of added obfuscation changes nothing ... unless
you go allowing it, don't expect many problems ... if you don't know
what you are doing, you already have problems.
Regards,
JS
x=usr(1536)
> Basically, a whole bunch of added obfuscation changes nothing ... unless
> you go allowing it, don't expect many problems ... if you don't know
> what you are doing, you already have problems.
Keep reaching for that rainbow!
- x.
John Smith
he wants one, if he thinks he needs one ... I just don't know ... but, I
could guess ...
The rest of what you had to say, bad decisions, paying too much for a
home, etc. ... well ya', that is covered in "Life 101." If you missed
that class, problems will keep arising until you do take that class! ...
don't make those bad decisions, don't pay too much for over valued
property, don't buy what you can't afford, etc.
Basically, it comes down to common sense, if you can't afford the house,
don't buy it... yet ...
If you are having problems, you will have to examine how you have been
doing things, and change them -- doing what you have just done, and
failing, but expecting a different result THIS TIME is just plain insanity!
If in a dead end job, get out of it. If in a low paying field, leave
it. If you suffer a lack of skills, get them ... the crooks in
government can be blamed for a LOT of stuff -- letting valuable jobs go
overseas, stealing wealth from citizens, graft, corruption, printing
worthless money, etc. But, you are to blame if you haven't placed
yourself in a secure position, not made the right decisions, have over
spent your income, didn't secure rock solid income(s), did not have
mortgage insurance, didn't have backup plans, etc.
I can't believe the number of people who are living from
paycheck-to-paycheck, in bliss, in ignorance, not realizing they are a
hairs breath from total disaster -- and then cry foul and are surprised
when the house-of-cards comes crashing down! The time to have done
something about this is long before it happens to you!
I hate to spring the bad news on you, but if you don't have the price of
the home you are purchasing in the bank, or in assets you can quickly
make liquid, then you probably should not be buying the house. You are
just "ripe for the picking." And, next time the criminals want to
create a "situation" and take their property back, to resell to the next
victim -- they will come for you ... and you will get what you are
asking for.
Good solid citizens just don't start families without first having a
home, a good income, stability and resources to support children into
the same ... and have them in a state of rock solid stability!
If you are talking about a single person ... then maybe a home is not
needed ... depends on what they want, and expect, I suppose.
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> In article<j6vrsv$iag$1...@dont-email.me>, bit_b...@gmx.com says...
Then, why bother, windows is perfect for you ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
able to use any ... they are simply a tool ... a platform for you to
build what is important upon ...
Others will always be searching the perfect tool ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
Computers are like fords and chevys ... you will always prefer one over
the other, truth is, one will take you where you are going just as well
as the other ...
But, some of us prefer four-wheel-drives and Peterbilts!
Regards,
JS
John Smith
Hey, I am not the one into social standards!
I freely admit that a MAC can do anything a PC can do ... the PC can
just do it faster, cheaper and usually better ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
But, I would like to have my ignorance and false beliefs removed. So,
enlighten me, where are the microsoft manufacturing plants which are
making these these things -- mice, keyboards, headsets, webcams, even
fingerprint readers?
All I am aware of is microsoft lending their name to products which
other companies manufacture ... except software, they do produce that,
themselves ... they even hire employees to make it, the software.
Regards,
JS
Scout
"John Smith" <bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:j70n93$vfb$1...@dont-email.me...
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/correct-microsoft-factory-in-china-to-make-new-zunes
You figure out where the rest are. If it is done with their name, then they
are the manufacturer.
John Smith
"The original Zune, released in November, was produced using a framework
and components provided by Toshiba Corp. Reindorp said the company hopes
that by taking a more direct role in manufacturing a second version, it
will help the device gain popularity."
Reading between the lines, it looks like microsoft is just beginning to
attempt to enter actual hardware manufacturing ... probably a good idea,
for microsoft, since all the jobs and investment money have been moved
offshore ... but, probably means a lot more poverty for USA.
And, no, just slapping their name on a product is not manufacturing it,
like I say, saying some "is" does not make it true ...
Frankly, I'd like to see microsoft told, "If you make it there, sell it
there!" ... and have that applied to their software too. If they want
to sell to Americans, they should damn well employ Americans.
Regards,
JS
BAR
problem within the constraints you have to solve the problem.
Linux is not the solution to all problems and neither is Windows the
solution to all problems.
A couple of years ago we did deploy a system on Linux because Linux was
the best platform to solve the problem.
BAR
how...@brazee.net says...
>
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:07:36 -0700, John Smith <bit_b...@gmx.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On 10/10/2011 2:31 PM, Howard Brazee wrote:
> >
> >> ...
> >> So is renting an example of a generation being dumber?
> >>
> >
> >It is an example of not owning/having a home ... I don't know that needs
> >any more explaining ...
>
> There's a lot you don't know. Hardly anybody *owns* a home. And
> when the bank owns more than the house is worth, or when a job comes
> up and they can't sell their home to move, they wish they had rented.
> I am holding off downsizing until housing values go up.
Legally I own the home, the mortgage company has a lien on the title.
Just like when you buy a car, you own the car but the finance company
has a lien on the title.
> I am also subsidizing other homeowners because they have tax breaks
> renters don't get. (and they are subsidizing me for the same thing).
Why is your life on hold waiting for something that may never happen?
I have heard that the housing market will not recover until 2020.
I will be moving in 3 years, selling my house, and moving to a more tax
friendly state. I will not wait for housing values to recover I will
sell to whomever comes to me with a pile of money and I will move on
with my life.
BAR
alang...@telus.net says...
Keep trying. The world runs on Windows.
D Peter Maus
That was not his point. Consensus is not necessarily truth, nor fact.
And popularity is certainly not dispositive proof of quality. If it
were, the Model T would have been the highest quality vehicle of all time.
The post was about which is the better tool. Not about where the
largest sale figures post.
Tankfixer
dpete...@att.net spouted !
Mac's and the Apple operating system were so technologically superior
that Apple adopted the i86 processor and borrowed Linux as the core for
OS10
Too_Many_Tools
> In article <6ub797pr3qmjd7vict9tuj6av6lk4h4...@4ax.com>,
> how...@brazee.net says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:07:36 -0700, John Smith <bit_buc...@gmx.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
In CA, the last big housing hit in the 90's took over 15 years to
recover from.
Don't expect this one to be any different.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> On 10/10/2011 7:57 PM, Howard Brazee wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Good comments.
TMT
D Peter Maus
D Peter Maus
You apparently aren't into reading, either. I said nothing about
social standards. I responded to the comment about the arrogance of
dismissal of values not one's own. THAT is a cultural standard, today.
>
> I freely admit that a MAC can do anything a PC can do ... the PC can
> just do it faster, cheaper and usually better ...
Which exactly explains why there are so many Windows PC's at JPL.
RD Sandman
>> news:j6vkco$u8n$2...@dont-email.me:
>>>> news:alangbaker-14EC3...@news.shawcable.net:
>>>>
>>>>> In article<j6vg3f$sv0$2...@dont-email.me>,
>>>>
>>>
>>> I strongly suspect you lie, and they don't ...
>>
>> They made mice for a long time.....whether or not they still do, I
>> honestly don't know. It wass their only piece of hardware.
>>
>>> However, I would be quick to believe they get paid to let a hardware
>>> manufacture slap the microsoft name/logo on a stupid mouse, which
>>> could be bought cheaper, if it didn't bear the microsoft name and
>>> logo ...
>>
>> Believe what you wish.....you will no matter what the truth is.
>>
>
> Good, but then you already knew I would believe you didn't know what
> you are talking about ... but your admitting it is nice ... thanks.
Whatever......I would bet that my credentials for the statement I made
are better than yours.....but you wouldn't believe that either.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
Witnessing Republicans and Democrats bickering over
the National Debt is like watching two drunks argue
over a bar bill on the Titanic.....
John Smith
trouble is, they keep proving me wrong.
For some reason, you just want to argue that microsoft has been a
hardware manufacturer ... I think that claim can stand on its' own
merit, or not ...
Or, simply, yeah, you said it, I just fail to find any validity in the
claim. Man up, if being wrong upsets, just stop being wrong ...
attacking others for your problems certain fixes nothing. Flying into a
rage, over your own errors, seems insane to me.
Regards,
JS
John Smith
You may not have said the exact words, but if the point that this/these
argument(s)/discussion(s), for many, is centering around computers as
status symbols and the ownership being regarded, by some, as some kind
of social status standard, then I am at a loss for words ... as it seems
quite apparent to me.
Indeed, since the argument/statement(s) of MAC supporters has totally
ignored the ease of upgrading, the diversity of hardware offered, the
abundance of freeware supplied, the ease of codecs to play any possibly
imagined media, multiple and numerous apps offered for every possible
task/job/use, etc., ON THE PC PLATFORM -- while there is a noticeable
lack of these, and only at a notable expense -- obtainable on the apple
platform ... all we are left with is the MAC as a status symbol and ego
trip ... no one really has to "say anything", one only needs to examine
past text in this thread for proof of that statement.
Or, simply, anyone can say anything, in the end, you can just look at it
and see what it really is ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
logic and fact and shoot everything to hell ... GO BACK WHERE YOU CAME
FROM <chuckle>
Regards,
JS
John Smith
some "mistakes in the wording."
I have made some horrible mistakes in life, and paid dearly for them, I
lost my first home, and the money invested in it, and had to begin again ...
I am not attempting to "sit a high horse," I had to re-take the class
"Life 101" a few times, before getting it close to right ...
Basically, you just keep on keeping on ... and, the group of criminals
in the public servant offices are a REAL determent to goals of many
citizens and families ... this needs worked on, along the way, with the
other problems ... I am sure, although I get older by the day, there are
still mistakes awaiting me, in my future, short time, here on the planet ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> In article<j70mfu$r8d$2...@dont-email.me>, bit_b...@gmx.com says...
apps/utilities/drivers/codecs/etc. for most platforms ... I have done
most on a PC, regardless of the platform they were intended for ...
If the plant had nothing but UNIX machines, I used them -- ... except
for my employment in colleges, I have never used a MAC/Apple ... indeed,
back in the early 90s I was engaged in a battle to set up a PC lab and
allow instructors a choice of Apple or PC in their offices ... at one
"Apple biased" college -- thankfully, we "won."
Regards,
JS
D Peter Maus
I didn't even address the issue of social status. ReRead carefully. I
addressed the issue of the technique of dismissing someone's position as
foolish because it doesn't agree with one's own. THAT is a cultural
standard, today.
Who owns which computer? Who gives a shit. I have computers running
Macintosh, Linux and Windows. Status doesn't enter into it.
Please be more diligent in discerning what someone is saying before
you actually attempt to rebut it. It would be nice to engage in a
discussion in which you are actually on the same topic.
>
> Indeed, since the argument/statement(s) of MAC supporters has totally
> ignored the ease of upgrading, the diversity of hardware offered, the
> abundance of freeware supplied, the ease of codecs to play any possibly
> imagined media, multiple and numerous apps offered for every possible
> task/job/use, etc., ON THE PC PLATFORM -- while there is a noticeable
> lack of these, and only at a notable expense -- obtainable on the apple
> platform
You need to spend some time with the Macintosh platform. I have
applications of every size, purpose, and variation on my business
machines. Only a handful of these applications did I have to pay retail
for. The rest are all open source share- or free-ware. And all of the
installed with a simple drag-and-drop. And all work without difficulty.
Any software application I require is available in many forms, from
multiple developers, on the Macintosh platform.
... all we are left with is the MAC as a status symbol and ego
> trip ... no one really has to "say anything", one only needs to examine
> past text in this thread for proof of that statement.
>
> Or, simply, anyone can say anything, in the end, you can just look at it
> and see what it really is ...
That's a good point. But you should really, again, investigate before
you comment.
Your information, is incorrect.
WrongWayWade
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in
> news:alangbaker-14EC3...@news.shawcable.net:
>
>>
>>
>> Apple's suddenly an evil empire because they make hardware and
>> Microsoft doesn't?
>
>
Old joke:
"What can you do with your PC that I can't do with my MAC?"
"Right-click."
RD Sandman
Then don't do it. I don't. ;)
RD Sandman
x=usr(1536)
> "WrongWayWade" <rl31...@excite.com> wrote in news:j72172$d4h$1@dont-
> email.me:
>
>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in
>>> news:alangbaker-14EC3...@news.shawcable.net:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So?
>>>>
>>>> Apple's suddenly an evil empire because they make hardware and
>>>> Microsoft doesn't?
>>>
>>>
>>> Microsoft does make hardware. It is called a mouse.
>>
>> Old joke:
>>
>> "What can you do with your PC that I can't do with my MAC?"
>>
>> "Right-click."
>
>
> ;)
Or just plug a multi-button USB mouse into the Mac; problem solved ;)
(I'll admit that I've done exactly that on my desktop machine - reaching
for the Control key when clicking in order to activate context menus
gets old fast.)
- x.
John Smith
On second look, you are actually quite correct, your text was just
meaningless babble which I attempted to attribute some sense of
importance and meaning to ... I stand corrected ...
Regards,
JS
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>I am not attempting to "sit a high horse," I had to re-take the class
>"Life 101" a few times, before getting it close to right ...
>
>Basically, you just keep on keeping on ... and, the group of criminals
>in the public servant offices are a REAL determent to goals of many
>citizens and families ... this needs worked on, along the way, with the
>other problems ... I am sure, although I get older by the day, there are
>still mistakes awaiting me, in my future, short time, here on the planet ..
choices they make. When someone else makes a different choice than
I do about, say, home ownership - that doesn't mean he's dumber than I
am - nor that I'm dumber than he is.
And if every generation when it gets as old as I am, observes that the
new generations are dumber than we were - that the Right choices were
made by my generation (not the previous generations), I figure that
maybe this time isn't different. A century or two from now, they
won't notice the unique downturn that is so obvious to us.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Howard Brazee
<paul.c...@gmail.c00m> wrote:
>Mac's and the Apple operating system were so technologically superior
>that Apple adopted the i86 processor and borrowed Linux as the core for
>OS10
change to better CPUs. And it had the power to switch its core to
BSD Unix. Microsoft couldn't do this - it did not control the
design of PC compatible computers.
When the environment changed from stand-alone desktop computers to
computers connected with the world, Microsoft had to keep tweaking its
core system again and again as it had to keep compatibility while
making it safe for the new environment. It's like shoring up an
existing building to make it earthquake resistant.
Apple didn't need to shore up its OS in the same way. It tore down
the old structure and built its OS upon a new core that had been
proven to be better designed for connectivity (earthquakes).
These two ways of getting to the same result were necessary because
one was a hardware company and the other was a software company.
Howard Brazee
<rl31...@excite.com> wrote:
>> Microsoft does make hardware. It is called a mouse.
>
>Old joke:
>
>"What can you do with your PC that I can't do with my MAC?"
>
>"Right-click."
does that better.
BAR
how...@brazee.net says...
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:21:12 -0700, John Smith <bit_b...@gmx.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I am not attempting to "sit a high horse," I had to re-take the class
> >"Life 101" a few times, before getting it close to right ...
> >
> >Basically, you just keep on keeping on ... and, the group of criminals
> >in the public servant offices are a REAL determent to goals of many
> >citizens and families ... this needs worked on, along the way, with the
> >other problems ... I am sure, although I get older by the day, there are
> >still mistakes awaiting me, in my future, short time, here on the planet ..
>
> Yep, mistakes happen. And different people have different smart
> choices they make. When someone else makes a different choice than
> I do about, say, home ownership - that doesn't mean he's dumber than I
> am - nor that I'm dumber than he is.
> And if every generation when it gets as old as I am, observes that the
> new generations are dumber than we were - that the Right choices were
> made by my generation (not the previous generations), I figure that
> maybe this time isn't different. A century or two from now, they
> won't notice the unique downturn that is so obvious to us.
wouldn't make.
BAR
how...@brazee.net says...
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:47:07 -0700, Tankfixer
> <paul.c...@gmail.c00m> wrote:
>
> >Mac's and the Apple operating system were so technologically superior
> >that Apple adopted the i86 processor and borrowed Linux as the core for
> >OS10
>
> Apple had the power to start over. It could start over twice to
> change to better CPUs. And it had the power to switch its core to
> BSD Unix. Microsoft couldn't do this - it did not control the
> design of PC compatible computers.
for over 20 years. The first one I encountered was back in 1984. Running
on 8086 and another running on 80186's.
Microsoft's OS, DOS, is more akin to the ICE emulators from Intel from
around the late 70's and early 80's.
> When the environment changed from stand-alone desktop computers to
> computers connected with the world, Microsoft had to keep tweaking its
> core system again and again as it had to keep compatibility while
> making it safe for the new environment. It's like shoring up an
> existing building to make it earthquake resistant.
> Apple didn't need to shore up its OS in the same way. It tore down
> the old structure and built its OS upon a new core that had been
> proven to be better designed for connectivity (earthquakes).
stack for their Macs, in the early days.
> These two ways of getting to the same result were necessary because
> one was a hardware company and the other was a software company.
network. We even had Sun's and DEC's running on the same netwroked all
talking to each others. Mac's were somewhat useful because we could use
them to do native 68000 development rather than cross compiling.
Howard Brazee
>> Yep, mistakes happen. And different people have different smart
>> choices they make. When someone else makes a different choice than
>> I do about, say, home ownership - that doesn't mean he's dumber than I
>> am - nor that I'm dumber than he is.
>
>Who is responsible for yours or his incorrect choices?
someone else is dumb for not making my choice. If a generation
doesn't buy homes the way ours did doesn't mean that this generation
is dumber than ours.
>> And if every generation when it gets as old as I am, observes that the
>> new generations are dumber than we were - that the Right choices were
>> made by my generation (not the previous generations), I figure that
>> maybe this time isn't different. A century or two from now, they
>> won't notice the unique downturn that is so obvious to us.
>
>It isn't so much that they are dumber, they just make decision that we
>wouldn't make.
are dumber because they don't buy houses as much as we did.
D Peter Maus
>
> Regards,
> JS
>
Scout
"John Smith" <bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:j70qbk$eam$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 10/10/2011 11:44 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "John Smith" <bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote in message
>> news:j70n93$vfb$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 10/10/2011 3:02 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:alangbaker-14EC3...@news.shawcable.net...
>>>>> In article <j6vg3f$sv0$2...@dont-email.me>,
>>>> webcams, and even fingerprint readers.
>>>>
>>>> True they don't build systems, but they do produce certain types of
>>>> hardware. They even patent certain aspects of that hardware. Such as
>>>> the
>>>> tilt wheel mouse.
>>>>
>>>> Hell, back in 2008, they received a patent for the page up and page
>>>> down
>>>> keys. (Patent #7,415,666)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, the problem might be semantics, here.
>>>
>>> But, I would like to have my ignorance and false beliefs removed. So,
>>> enlighten me, where are the microsoft manufacturing plants which are
>>> making these these things -- mice, keyboards, headsets, webcams, even
>>> fingerprint readers?
>>>
>>> All I am aware of is microsoft lending their name to products which
>>> other companies manufacture ... except software, they do produce that,
>>> themselves ... they even hire employees to make it, the software.
>>
>> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/correct-microsoft-factory-in-china-to-make-new-zunes
>>
>>
>> You figure out where the rest are. If it is done with their name, then
>> they are the manufacturer.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Yeah, thought so, this from that page:
>
> "The original Zune, released in November, was produced using a framework
> and components provided by Toshiba Corp. Reindorp said the company hopes
> that by taking a more direct role in manufacturing a second version, it
> will help the device gain popularity."
Yep, and you think the Mac is made by Apple?
Hate to tell you but virtually all of the components in an Mac are made by
someone else.
The Ipad is no different.
Looks like you are simply looking for something to make an issue of, and
ignoring that apple works exactly the same way.
Tankfixer
Tankfixer
how...@brazee.net spouted !
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:47:07 -0700, Tankfixer
> <paul.c...@gmail.c00m> wrote:
>
> >Mac's and the Apple operating system were so technologically superior
> >that Apple adopted the i86 processor and borrowed Linux as the core for
> >OS10
>
> Apple had the power to start over. It could start over twice to
> change to better CPUs. And it had the power to switch its core to
> BSD Unix. Microsoft couldn't do this - it did not control the
> design of PC compatible computers.
>
> When the environment changed from stand-alone desktop computers to
> computers connected with the world, Microsoft had to keep tweaking its
> core system again and again as it had to keep compatibility while
> making it safe for the new environment. It's like shoring up an
> existing building to make it earthquake resistant.
Howard Brazee
<paul.c...@gmail.c00m> wrote:
>In article <3jf997531gfpd4eof...@4ax.com>, - Howard Brazee
>how...@brazee.net spouted !
>>
>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:47:07 -0700, Tankfixer
>> <paul.c...@gmail.c00m> wrote:
>>
>> >Mac's and the Apple operating system were so technologically superior
>> >that Apple adopted the i86 processor and borrowed Linux as the core for
>> >OS10
>>
>> Apple had the power to start over. It could start over twice to
>> change to better CPUs. And it had the power to switch its core to
>> BSD Unix. Microsoft couldn't do this - it did not control the
>> design of PC compatible computers.
>
>Oddly enough BSD Unix runs just fine on i86 based machines, doesn't it.
>> When the environment changed from stand-alone desktop computers to
>> computers connected with the world, Microsoft had to keep tweaking its
>> core system again and again as it had to keep compatibility while
>> making it safe for the new environment. It's like shoring up an
>> existing building to make it earthquake resistant.
>
>And no other OS company is continually improving their product ?
There is an advantage in starting over using tools that other
companies have created - such as Unix. Unix has been improved over
the years and because it was designed for different purposes, it made
a safer core than simply improving the Mac operating system. Or
Windows. Since Apple controlled the hardware that its OS used, it
had the power to start over.
Maybe Windows had that power, maybe not - but Microsoft didn't go in
that direction. It would have lost a lot of customers who wanted
backward compatibility. Its primary customers are PC manufacturers.
>> Apple didn't need to shore up its OS in the same way. It tore down
>> the old structure and built its OS upon a new core that had been
>> proven to be better designed for connectivity (earthquakes).
>>
>> These two ways of getting to the same result were necessary because
>> one was a hardware company and the other was a software company.
>
Tankfixer
>
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:38:11 -0700, Tankfixer
> <paul.c...@gmail.c00m> wrote:
>
> >In article <3jf997531gfpd4eof...@4ax.com>, - Howard Brazee
> >how...@brazee.net spouted !
> >>
> >> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:47:07 -0700, Tankfixer
> >> <paul.c...@gmail.c00m> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Mac's and the Apple operating system were so technologically superior
> >> >that Apple adopted the i86 processor and borrowed Linux as the core for
> >> >OS10
> >>
> >> Apple had the power to start over. It could start over twice to
> >> change to better CPUs. And it had the power to switch its core to
> >> BSD Unix. Microsoft couldn't do this - it did not control the
> >> design of PC compatible computers.
> >
> >Oddly enough BSD Unix runs just fine on i86 based machines, doesn't it.
>
> Sure. Which has nothing to do with anything I said.
Microsoft didn't need to since it crafted it's OS to work with what PC
makers build.
>
> >> When the environment changed from stand-alone desktop computers to
> >> computers connected with the world, Microsoft had to keep tweaking its
> >> core system again and again as it had to keep compatibility while
> >> making it safe for the new environment. It's like shoring up an
> >> existing building to make it earthquake resistant.
> >
> >And no other OS company is continually improving their product ?
>
> Huh? Again, what has that to do with what I said?
>
> There is an advantage in starting over using tools that other
> companies have created - such as Unix. Unix has been improved over
> the years and because it was designed for different purposes, it made
> a safer core than simply improving the Mac operating system. Or
> Windows. Since Apple controlled the hardware that its OS used, it
> had the power to start over.
>
> Maybe Windows had that power, maybe not - but Microsoft didn't go in
> that direction. It would have lost a lot of customers who wanted
> backward compatibility. Its primary customers are PC manufacturers.
William Clark
market share. More importantly, I can tell you more and more college
students in technical fields like science and engineering are using Macs
these days. Programming in Matlab, Maple, Mathematica is the norm now,
and they all run perfectly on OS X. Plus they get all the benefits of OS
X in other applications, too. When these kids hit the job market, the
trend will simply continue.
William Clark
> In article <vh2a97pnhvob48foh...@4ax.com>, - Howard Brazee
> how...@brazee.net spouted !
> >
> > On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:38:11 -0700, Tankfixer
> > <paul.c...@gmail.c00m> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <3jf997531gfpd4eof...@4ax.com>, - Howard Brazee
> > >how...@brazee.net spouted !
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:47:07 -0700, Tankfixer
> > >> <paul.c...@gmail.c00m> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >Mac's and the Apple operating system were so technologically superior
> > >> >that Apple adopted the i86 processor and borrowed Linux as the core for
> > >> >OS10
> > >>
> > >> Apple had the power to start over. It could start over twice to
> > >> change to better CPUs. And it had the power to switch its core to
> > >> BSD Unix. Microsoft couldn't do this - it did not control the
> > >> design of PC compatible computers.
> > >
> > >Oddly enough BSD Unix runs just fine on i86 based machines, doesn't it.
> >
> > Sure. Which has nothing to do with anything I said.
>
> Apple had to redesign it's architecture to use it's BSD/UNIX clone OS.
> Microsoft didn't need to since it crafted it's OS to work with what PC
> makers build.
> >
> > >> When the environment changed from stand-alone desktop computers to
> > >> computers connected with the world, Microsoft had to keep tweaking its
> > >> core system again and again as it had to keep compatibility while
> > >> making it safe for the new environment. It's like shoring up an
> > >> existing building to make it earthquake resistant.
> > >
> > >And no other OS company is continually improving their product ?
> >
> > Huh? Again, what has that to do with what I said?
>
> You imply that only Microsoft has to continually improve it's product.
between an extensive rebuild to Windows to Windows 7, or disaster.
> >
> > There is an advantage in starting over using tools that other
> > companies have created - such as Unix. Unix has been improved over
> > the years and because it was designed for different purposes, it made
> > a safer core than simply improving the Mac operating system. Or
> > Windows. Since Apple controlled the hardware that its OS used, it
> > had the power to start over.
> >
> > Maybe Windows had that power, maybe not - but Microsoft didn't go in
> > that direction. It would have lost a lot of customers who wanted
> > backward compatibility. Its primary customers are PC manufacturers.
>
> Instead we have Apple who abandonded previous OS users.
Microsoft's, upward mobility is easy and cheap. We have plenty of folk
still content with Tiger.
John Smith
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:21:12 -0700, John Smith<bit_b...@gmx.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I am not attempting to "sit a high horse," I had to re-take the class
>> "Life 101" a few times, before getting it close to right ...
>>
>> Basically, you just keep on keeping on ... and, the group of criminals
>> in the public servant offices are a REAL determent to goals of many
>> citizens and families ... this needs worked on, along the way, with the
>> other problems ... I am sure, although I get older by the day, there are
>> still mistakes awaiting me, in my future, short time, here on the planet ..
>
> Yep, mistakes happen. And different people have different smart
> choices they make. When someone else makes a different choice than
> I do about, say, home ownership - that doesn't mean he's dumber than I
> am - nor that I'm dumber than he is.
>
> And if every generation when it gets as old as I am, observes that the
> new generations are dumber than we were - that the Right choices were
> made by my generation (not the previous generations), I figure that
> maybe this time isn't different. A century or two from now, they
> won't notice the unique downturn that is so obvious to us.
>
nothing, says nothing and does nothing, etc., etc., against evil, wrong
doing, corruption, graft, etc., etc. and the criminals who would harm
others -- that man is nothing.
Pick one, they are usually just the start of all the others ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:47:07 -0700, Tankfixer
> <paul.c...@gmail.c00m> wrote:
>
>> Mac's and the Apple operating system were so technologically superior
>> that Apple adopted the i86 processor and borrowed Linux as the core for
>> OS10
>
> Apple had the power to start over. It could start over twice to
> change to better CPUs. And it had the power to switch its core to
> BSD Unix. Microsoft couldn't do this - it did not control the
> design of PC compatible computers.
>
> When the environment changed from stand-alone desktop computers to
> computers connected with the world, Microsoft had to keep tweaking its
> core system again and again as it had to keep compatibility while
> making it safe for the new environment. It's like shoring up an
> existing building to make it earthquake resistant.
>
> Apple didn't need to shore up its OS in the same way. It tore down
> the old structure and built its OS upon a new core that had been
> proven to be better designed for connectivity (earthquakes).
>
> These two ways of getting to the same result were necessary because
> one was a hardware company and the other was a software company.
>
BSD is just a much more controlled and closed linux. It is the
beginning of the circle which leads right back to MAX os and windows ...
Linux fixes the errors in a close operating system(s), the financial
incentives will always be aimed at destroying them ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
jacks ... of course, most people don't wish retardation on themselves.
But, they do seem quite content, also ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
Regards,
JS
John Smith
in china?
I think most thought it would be necessary to stipulate MAC too ...
guess we were wrong ...
Regards,
JS
D Peter Maus
An interesting remark from one whose information is so frequently out
of date.
Tankfixer
William Clark cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu spouted !
> In article <MPG.28feb5b7...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.c00m> wrote:
>
> > In article <vh2a97pnhvob48foh...@4ax.com>, - Howard Brazee
> > how...@brazee.net spouted !
> > >
> > > On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:38:11 -0700, Tankfixer
> > > <paul.c...@gmail.c00m> wrote:
> > >
> > > >In article <3jf997531gfpd4eof...@4ax.com>, - Howard Brazee
> > > >how...@brazee.net spouted !
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:47:07 -0700, Tankfixer
> > > >> <paul.c...@gmail.c00m> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >Mac's and the Apple operating system were so technologically superior
> > > >> >that Apple adopted the i86 processor and borrowed Linux as the core for
> > > >> >OS10
> > > >>
> > > >> Apple had the power to start over. It could start over twice to
> > > >> change to better CPUs. And it had the power to switch its core to
> > > >> BSD Unix. Microsoft couldn't do this - it did not control the
> > > >> design of PC compatible computers.
> > > >
> > > >Oddly enough BSD Unix runs just fine on i86 based machines, doesn't it.
> > >
> > > Sure. Which has nothing to do with anything I said.
> >
> > Apple had to redesign it's architecture to use it's BSD/UNIX clone OS.
> > Microsoft didn't need to since it crafted it's OS to work with what PC
> > makers build.
>
> "Crafted"? As in "Vista", I suppose ;-)
> >
> > >
> > > >> When the environment changed from stand-alone desktop computers to
> > > >> computers connected with the world, Microsoft had to keep tweaking its
> > > >> core system again and again as it had to keep compatibility while
> > > >> making it safe for the new environment. It's like shoring up an
> > > >> existing building to make it earthquake resistant.
> > > >
> > > >And no other OS company is continually improving their product ?
> > >
> > > Huh? Again, what has that to do with what I said?
> >
> > You imply that only Microsoft has to continually improve it's product.
>
> You ever tried to use Vista? I thought not.
> Microsoft had a choice
> between an extensive rebuild to Windows to Windows 7, or disaster.
> >
> > >
> > > There is an advantage in starting over using tools that other
> > > companies have created - such as Unix. Unix has been improved over
> > > the years and because it was designed for different purposes, it made
> > > a safer core than simply improving the Mac operating system. Or
> > > Windows. Since Apple controlled the hardware that its OS used, it
> > > had the power to start over.
> > >
> > > Maybe Windows had that power, maybe not - but Microsoft didn't go in
> > > that direction. It would have lost a lot of customers who wanted
> > > backward compatibility. Its primary customers are PC manufacturers.
> >
> > Instead we have Apple who abandonded previous OS users.
>
> Really? Not only do Apple's OS's stay useful much longer than
> Microsoft's, upward mobility is easy and cheap. We have plenty of folk
> still content with Tiger.
Howard Brazee
<paul.c...@gmail.c00m> wrote:
>> >And no other OS company is continually improving their product ?
>>
>> Huh? Again, what has that to do with what I said?
>
>You imply that only Microsoft has to continually improve it's product.
No I didn't.
Howard Brazee
<paul.c...@gmail.c00m> wrote:
>>
>> Sure. Which has nothing to do with anything I said.
>
>Apple had to redesign it's architecture to use it's BSD/UNIX clone OS.
>Microsoft didn't need to since it crafted it's OS to work with what PC
>makers build.
Times changed from when Windows and Apple's OS were designed for
stand-alone computers. What worked best then doesn't work best now.
There are two ways of moving their operating systems to fit our needs,
shoring up the existing structure, or tearing down the old system and
building a stronger foundation. A better foundation was available
for these operating systems (Unix).
Microsoft couldn't take the second option because it had tenants that
wouldn't move. Apple only had itself as a tenant, so it could take
that option.
So it took longer for Microsoft to modify its OS to be safe in today's
connected environment.
Howard Brazee
<cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>> Instead we have Apple who abandonded previous OS users.
>
>Really? Not only do Apple's OS's stay useful much longer than
>Microsoft's, upward mobility is easy and cheap. We have plenty of folk
>still content with Tiger.
Lion besides her USB floppy drive which we don't use anyway.
Alan Baker
own computers.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
Alan Baker
Tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.c00m> wrote:
> In article <j71g7t$in3$1...@dont-email.me>, - D Peter Maus
> dpete...@att.net spouted !
> > On 10/11/11 07:04 , BAR wrote:
> > > In article<alangbaker-A5E88...@news.shawcable.net>,
> > > alang...@telus.net says...
> > >>
> > >> In article<j6vfr9$sv0$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > >> John Smith<bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On 10/10/2011 4:49 AM, BAR wrote:
> > >>>> In article<clark-605D75....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > >>>> cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> In article<alangbaker-FA8E8...@news.shawcable.net>,
> > >>>>> Alan Baker<alang...@telus.net> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> In article<joednXxxSuLvPQzT...@earthlink.com>,
> > >>>>>> dave<da...@dave.dave> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 11:03:20 +0900, Brenda Ann wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> That's not the business Apple is in; they sell a lifestyle of form
> > >>>>>>> [over] substance
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> -----
> > >>>>>>> ---
> > >>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>>>>> -----
> >
> > And popularity is certainly not dispositive proof of quality. If it
> > were, the Model T would have been the highest quality vehicle of all time.
> >
> > The post was about which is the better tool. Not about where the
> > largest sale figures post.
>
> that Apple adopted the i86 processor and borrowed Linux as the core for
> OS10
Greater marketshare meant greater economies of scale for i86 processors.
There was nothing inferior about PowerPC.
And Linux is not used in Mac OS X at all. FreeBSD is a part of its
heritage.
Alan Baker
> On 10/10/2011 2:30 PM, D Peter Maus wrote:
> > On 10/10/11 16:27 , Alan Baker wrote:
> just do it faster, cheaper and usually better ...
Alan Baker
John Smith <bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote:
> On 10/11/2011 8:16 AM, D Peter Maus wrote:
> > standards. I responded to the comment about the arrogance of dismissal
> > of values not one's own. THAT is a cultural standard, today.
> >
> >>
> >> just do it faster, cheaper and usually better ...
> >
> >
>
> You may not have said the exact words, but if the point that this/these
> argument(s)/discussion(s), for many, is centering around computers as
> status symbols and the ownership being regarded, by some, as some kind
> of social status standard, then I am at a loss for words ... as it seems
> quite apparent to me.
>
> ignored the ease of upgrading, the diversity of hardware offered, the
> abundance of freeware supplied, the ease of codecs to play any possibly
> imagined media, multiple and numerous apps offered for every possible
> task/job/use, etc., ON THE PC PLATFORM -- while there is a noticeable
> lack of these, and only at a notable expense -- obtainable on the apple
> past text in this thread for proof of that statement.
>
> Or, simply, anyone can say anything, in the end, you can just look at it
> and see what it really is ...
abundance of pretty much everything else you mentioned on the Mac OS X
platform.
Alan Baker
John Smith <bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote:
> On 10/10/2011 3:02 PM, Scout wrote:
> >
> >
> > "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
> > news:alangbaker-14EC3...@news.shawcable.net...
> >> In article <j6vg3f$sv0$2...@dont-email.me>,
> > Actually Microsoft does make hardware. Mice, keyboards, headsets,
> > webcams, and even fingerprint readers.
> >
> > True they don't build systems, but they do produce certain types of
> > hardware. They even patent certain aspects of that hardware. Such as the
> > tilt wheel mouse.
> >
> > Hell, back in 2008, they received a patent for the page up and page down
> > keys. (Patent #7,415,666)
> >
> >
> >
>
> Actually, the problem might be semantics, here.
>
> But, I would like to have my ignorance and false beliefs removed. So,
> enlighten me, where are the microsoft manufacturing plants which are
> making these these things -- mice, keyboards, headsets, webcams, even
> fingerprint readers?
By that standard, where are Dell's plants?
>
> All I am aware of is microsoft lending their name to products which
> other companies manufacture ... except software, they do produce that,
> themselves ... they even hire employees to make it, the software.
>
> Regards,
> JS
RD Sandman
@speranza.aioe.org:
> On 10/11/11 11:56 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
>> "WrongWayWade" <rl31...@excite.com> wrote in news:j72172$d4h$1@dont-
>> email.me:
>>
>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote in
>>>> news:alangbaker-14EC3...@news.shawcable.net:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So?
>>>>>
>>>>> Apple's suddenly an evil empire because they make hardware and
>>>>> Microsoft doesn't?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Microsoft does make hardware. It is called a mouse.
>>>
>>> Old joke:
>>>
>>> "What can you do with your PC that I can't do with my MAC?"
>>>
>>> "Right-click."
>>
>>
>> ;)
>
> Or just plug a multi-button USB mouse into the Mac; problem solved ;)
>
> (I'll admit that I've done exactly that on my desktop machine -
reaching
> for the Control key when clicking in order to activate context menus
> gets old fast.)
Hell, I remember when it was all command line.....even on PCs.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
Witnessing Republicans and Democrats bickering over
the National Debt is like watching two drunks argue
over a bar bill on the Titanic.....
BAR
Yes there was it cost too much.
> And Linux is not used in Mac OS X at all. FreeBSD is a part of its
> heritage.
What is the real difference between FreeBSD and Linux?
Since Apple switched to a mature operating system as the basis of its
software it has stopped throwing the bomb onto the screen.
D. Peter Maus
> In article<alangbaker-7107A...@news.shawcable.net>,
The move from PowerPC, according Steve Jobs at the MacWorld
conference, was driven by the fact that PowerPC would not take Apple
to where it needed to be. There would be no G6, not in a timely
manner, anyway, because the PPC architecture wouldn't take things
there, and Apple needed to bring speed up to compete. PPC processors
produced too much heat, which required too much power in cooling,
and too much space in the chassis for isolation. And PPC
architecture required more power than Apple's goals for battery life
would permit.
Smaller, lighter, faster, less power. PPC had to go.
Cost was a minor factor in these decisions.
I had PPC Apple computers. They were fine. Stable, and they were
seriously powerful. And my ComEd bill reflected the hours I used
them. But when my single core Intel Mini booted from a cold start in
one third the time of my twin processor G5 PowerMac, it became
pretty clear where the future for Apple Computers was.
>
>> And Linux is not used in Mac OS X at all. FreeBSD is a part of its
>> heritage.
>
> What is the real difference between FreeBSD and Linux?
Aside from features?
BAR
cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
I can tell you that at my large international corporation we are still
not embracing Apple on the desktop. We are running Windows and Linux and
we will soon be running dumb tubes, throw back to the 70's, on the
desktop. There is no reason to put a high dollar, high end computer on
everyone's desktop to run e-mail, surfing, and spreadsheets and
documents.
We are embracing the iPad primarily because we can use it to get to VMs
and because we can run web enabled applications. You can effectively
take your desktop anywhere. These are the only two requirements of a
"pad" that we need. As soon as something cheaper than the iPad is
available we will officially support that and may even provide it to our
users.
The desktop only needs to be a tube, keyboard, and mouse with a
connection to our network.
BAR
You don't understand the concept of economies of scale.
We have two organizations that are allowed to get Apples instead of
Windows. One is a company that we purchased that was 100% Apple before
we bought them and the other is one of our marketing groups.
Scout
"William Clark" <cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
news:clark-A6CEAF....@news.eternal-september.org...
That's pretty typical. The first release after a major rewrite is always a
disaster
Window 95 - sucked
Windows 98 - ok
Windows 2000 - sucked
Windows XP - ok
Vista - sucked
7 - ok
I predict the next major rewrite (not just an upgrade such as 98 to 98SE)
will suck.
>> > There is an advantage in starting over using tools that other
>> > companies have created - such as Unix. Unix has been improved over
>> > the years and because it was designed for different purposes, it made
>> > a safer core than simply improving the Mac operating system. Or
>> > Windows. Since Apple controlled the hardware that its OS used, it
>> > had the power to start over.
>> >
>> > Maybe Windows had that power, maybe not - but Microsoft didn't go in
>> > that direction. It would have lost a lot of customers who wanted
>> > backward compatibility. Its primary customers are PC manufacturers.
>>
>> Instead we have Apple who abandonded previous OS users.
>
> Really? Not only do Apple's OS's stay useful much longer than
> Microsoft's, upward mobility is easy and cheap. We have plenty of folk
> still content with Tiger.
Seems to me that Windows XP is still going strong and plenty of folks are
still content with it, and it's been out there since October of 2001. With
official support of XP is scheduled to end April 2014, that will be a run of
about 13.5 years. With existing users probably continuing to use it for
several years more.
Indeed of the 5 computers I have, only 2 have Win7 on them, and that was
because of hardware/software requirements that mandated Win7.
Meanwhile 'Tiger" only started in April of 2005 and the last security update
that included tiger was 2009-005 on Sept 2009, So at this point Apple has
ceased support of Tiger.
That's a run of about 4.5 years
Tiger users are now at the point that XP users will be in 4.5 years. (ie 2
years without security support).
Hell at work we are STILL setting up new XP boxes. Much cheaper than Win7,
and better performance with cheaper hardware. Win/Win.
Scout
"John Smith" <bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:j741pa$52s$3...@dont-email.me...
So why were you making a big issue about Microsoft then?
Why did you make it seem like Microsoft was doing anything different than
Apple?
You're the one that seems to feel a relevant difference existed. If you wish
to admit now that there isn't then we can simply ignore your comments about
Microsoft and move on.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>Greater marketshare meant greater economies of scale for i86 processors.
>There was nothing inferior about PowerPC.
Greater economies of scale mean more money for more factories and more
R&D to keep improving.
Tankfixer
how...@brazee.net spouted !
>
> <paul.c...@gmail.c00m> wrote:
>
> >> >And no other OS company is continually improving their product ?
> >>
> >> Huh? Again, what has that to do with what I said?
> >
> >You imply that only Microsoft has to continually improve it's product.
>
> No I didn't.
whatever
Tankfixer
Baker alang...@telus.net spouted !
An inability to convice white box makers to use it ?
>
> And Linux is not used in Mac OS X at all. FreeBSD is a part of its
> heritage.
To this layman the difference there is like variations of Vista or
Win7..
Tankfixer
how...@brazee.net spouted !
>
> <paul.c...@gmail.c00m> wrote:
>
> >> >Oddly enough BSD Unix runs just fine on i86 based machines, doesn't it.
> >>
> >> Sure. Which has nothing to do with anything I said.
> >
> >Apple had to redesign it's architecture to use it's BSD/UNIX clone OS.
> >Microsoft didn't need to since it crafted it's OS to work with what PC
> >makers build.
>
> I'm not getting the connection here.
>
> Times changed from when Windows and Apple's OS were designed for
> stand-alone computers. What worked best then doesn't work best now.
>
> There are two ways of moving their operating systems to fit our needs,
> shoring up the existing structure, or tearing down the old system and
> building a stronger foundation. A better foundation was available
> for these operating systems (Unix).
>
> Microsoft couldn't take the second option because it had tenants that
> wouldn't move. Apple only had itself as a tenant, so it could take
> that option.
That doesn't fly, and you know why ?
Microsoft buyers wouldn't have to replace their hardware to switch to a
Linux based OS.
It runs just fine on the same architecture.
Apple did have to switch.
x=usr(1536)
Not entirely correct. OS X had been being built for x86 in parallel
with PPC for its entire development cycle; Apple had been planning a
switch to x86 as far back as MacOS 8 or 9 (I forget which). MacOS 7 had
been planned to be the last major PPC/68K release, but they completely
convoluted their plans for OS X and had two more interim releases in the
shape of 8 and 9 before getting OS X out the door.
- x.
x=usr(1536)
And overall OS architecture?
Anyone who thinks that Linux and *BSD are the same thing should also
consider Windows and VMS to be the same given the developmental (and
other) connections between the two.
http://www.windowsitpro.com/article/windows-2000/windows-nt-and-vms-the-rest-of-the-story
- x.
D. Peter Maus
> On 10/12/11 3:39 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:
>> On 10/12/11 17:27 , BAR wrote:
>
>>> What is the real difference between FreeBSD and Linux?
>>
>>
>> Aside from features?
>
> And overall OS architecture?
Precisely.
John Smith
> In article<j70mvo$r8d$5...@dont-email.me>,
Snap in a high end NVIDIA or ATI card into our PC with a high res HD
monitor, sit in next to a MAC ... you will see what I mean ... do the
same with audio ...
No plug your SDR amateur rig into the USB port of your PC and start
using it ... notice that there is no software available for the MAC ...
linux is covered with an app, etc., etc., etc.
Regards,
JS
John Smith
I don't even know what the fuck you are talking about, everything you
are attributing to me, I simply never said ... get a clue ... you been
smokin' dope with special dave, again?
Regards,
JS