"Eric" wrote:

http://dmoz.org/Computers/Usenet/Etiquette/

OE puts your cursor above what you're quoting because Outlook puts your
cursor above what you're quoting. Top posting is probably a good idea for
email, but I think it is a bad idea for a newsgroup. Putting your cursor
there isn't necessarily wrong though. Inline posting is better if there are
multiple specific points to respond to, which is easier if you start at the
top.

yes, it's a user interface bug that should have been fixed before OE
shipped. but now, millions of people must suffer because microsoft
programmers didn't research how usenet works. so sad.

"Adam Albright" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:31:33 -0700, Ted Landry wrote:

"Darkelldar" wrote:

how so? OSX has been tested much longer than Windows, it dates back to
the early 70's before Microsoft was even around... follow the Unix
history chart back... follow the OSX line back and you'll see Windows
doesn't even compare in terms of being "battle tested" more than OSX.

http://www.levenez.com/unix/

If OXS is such a fantastic OS why is there not an IBM PC version out
there
? Sould kick MS's butt according to you.

The IBM "compatible" market is in shambles.

So in your moronic estimation having over 90% of the personal computer
market means IBM clones are in shambles. Interesting spin, but
obviously you have no concept of reality.

It's not the sort of hardware mix you would want to put a high end OS on.

There is nothing "high end" about OSX. For Pete's sake is mostly a
UNIX clone. Its been around for decades. You truly are a dummy.

A good 40% of the problems Windows users deal with is that they may have
saved $40 on a PC
from HP or Dell... over buying a Mac from Apple, but they have spent
$400 in time and stress to clear up problems Apple doesn't allow to
happen in the first place.

More BS. Macs have just as many problems as Windows do. If they had 10
times the customers like the Windows platform does, changes are people
would find ten times more problems.

You can argue that Macs have some good points and they do. However the
typical Mac troll and that's all you are, hasn't and can't seem to be
objective. So you're one sided cheerleading while sticking your head
in the sand and ignoring all the negative things about Macs makes you
sound foolish.

In other words, Apple would never stoup to the poor quality standards of
IBM "compatibles", it just doesn't make sense from a user's perspective.

Some dope such as yourself playing games on a Mac which is likely the
limit of your computer "expertise" trying to lecture people that use
their PC's for serious business purposes is laughable, but at times
I'll admit amusing. If you enjoy making a ass of yourself, please
continue. I can always use a chuckle or two and the Mac trolls provide
that.



So if I understand what you are saying is that OSX is to good for IBM PC's
running on Intel and AMD x86 processors and the rest of the PC hardware out
there?

Then I will for sure stay far away from those new Mac's using the Intel
Core2 processors because your OSX is far to good to run on IBM PC parts.

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 23:58:58 GMT, "Darkelldar"
wrote:


"Adam Albright" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:31:33 -0700, Ted Landry wrote:

"Darkelldar" wrote:

how so? OSX has been tested much longer than Windows, it dates back to
the early 70's before Microsoft was even around... follow the Unix
history chart back... follow the OSX line back and you'll see Windows
doesn't even compare in terms of being "battle tested" more than OSX.

http://www.levenez.com/unix/

If OXS is such a fantastic OS why is there not an IBM PC version out
there
? Sould kick MS's butt according to you.

The IBM "compatible" market is in shambles.

So in your moronic estimation having over 90% of the personal computer
market means IBM clones are in shambles. Interesting spin, but
obviously you have no concept of reality.

It's not the sort of hardware mix you would want to put a high end OS on.

There is nothing "high end" about OSX. For Pete's sake is mostly a
UNIX clone. Its been around for decades. You truly are a dummy.

A good 40% of the problems Windows users deal with is that they may have
saved $40 on a PC
from HP or Dell... over buying a Mac from Apple, but they have spent
$400 in time and stress to clear up problems Apple doesn't allow to
happen in the first place.

More BS. Macs have just as many problems as Windows do. If they had 10
times the customers like the Windows platform does, changes are people
would find ten times more problems.

You can argue that Macs have some good points and they do. However the
typical Mac troll and that's all you are, hasn't and can't seem to be
objective. So you're one sided cheerleading while sticking your head
in the sand and ignoring all the negative things about Macs makes you
sound foolish.

In other words, Apple would never stoup to the poor quality standards of
IBM "compatibles", it just doesn't make sense from a user's perspective.

Some dope such as yourself playing games on a Mac which is likely the
limit of your computer "expertise" trying to lecture people that use
their PC's for serious business purposes is laughable, but at times
I'll admit amusing. If you enjoy making a ass of yourself, please
continue. I can always use a chuckle or two and the Mac trolls provide
that.



So if I understand what you are saying is that OSX is to good for IBM PC's
running on Intel and AMD x86 processors and the rest of the PC hardware out
there?

Then I will for sure stay far away from those new Mac's using the Intel
Core2 processors because your OSX is far to good to run on IBM PC parts.


It seems you have awful reading comprehension.

Ron Miller wrote:

Again, if you have even a trace of decency in you, you'll stop posting
here. If you EVER had a single constructive thing to add to these
discussions, you'd be welcomed, but you never do. Your approach is
infantile in the extreme.

grow up Ron and get a Mac, the PC environment has made you senseless.

PLONK!

Sorry Adam, That post was intended for Ted.

"Adam Albright" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 23:58:58 GMT, "Darkelldar"
wrote:


"Adam Albright" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:31:33 -0700, Ted Landry wrote:

"Darkelldar" wrote:

how so? OSX has been tested much longer than Windows, it dates back
to
the early 70's before Microsoft was even around... follow the Unix
history chart back... follow the OSX line back and you'll see
Windows
doesn't even compare in terms of being "battle tested" more than
OSX.

http://www.levenez.com/unix/

If OXS is such a fantastic OS why is there not an IBM PC version out
there
? Sould kick MS's butt according to you.

The IBM "compatible" market is in shambles.

So in your moronic estimation having over 90% of the personal computer
market means IBM clones are in shambles. Interesting spin, but
obviously you have no concept of reality.

It's not the sort of hardware mix you would want to put a high end OS
on.

There is nothing "high end" about OSX. For Pete's sake is mostly a
UNIX clone. Its been around for decades. You truly are a dummy.

A good 40% of the problems Windows users deal with is that they may have
saved $40 on a PC
from HP or Dell... over buying a Mac from Apple, but they have spent
$400 in time and stress to clear up problems Apple doesn't allow to
happen in the first place.

More BS. Macs have just as many problems as Windows do. If they had 10
times the customers like the Windows platform does, changes are people
would find ten times more problems.

You can argue that Macs have some good points and they do. However the
typical Mac troll and that's all you are, hasn't and can't seem to be
objective. So you're one sided cheerleading while sticking your head
in the sand and ignoring all the negative things about Macs makes you
sound foolish.

In other words, Apple would never stoup to the poor quality standards of
IBM "compatibles", it just doesn't make sense from a user's perspective.

Some dope such as yourself playing games on a Mac which is likely the
limit of your computer "expertise" trying to lecture people that use
their PC's for serious business purposes is laughable, but at times
I'll admit amusing. If you enjoy making a ass of yourself, please
continue. I can always use a chuckle or two and the Mac trolls provide
that.



So if I understand what you are saying is that OSX is to good for IBM PC's
running on Intel and AMD x86 processors and the rest of the PC hardware
out
there?

Then I will for sure stay far away from those new Mac's using the Intel
Core2 processors because your OSX is far to good to run on IBM PC parts.


It seems you have awful reading comprehension.

"Darkelldar" wrote:

So if I understand what you are saying is that OSX is to good for IBM PC's
running on Intel and AMD x86 processors and the rest of the PC hardware out
there?

Yes, Apple had to go into Intel and shake them to build a powerful
enough processor worthy of OSX. The Intel Core Duo was the first that
was almost a match for what IBM was doing with their PowerPC processors.
PowerPC is still faster of course, especially in math but Intel is
starting to show some head way.

Then I will for sure stay far away from those new Mac's using the Intel
Core2 processors because your OSX is far to good to run on IBM PC parts.

Yes, you can't really run a sophisticated OS such as OSX on top of a box
of old IBM "parts", it requires more elegant hardware designs to support
apps such as this...

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/ichat/

AMD is showing some promise on the very high end, but AMD doesn't yet
have a consumer level processor able to run OSX at the level Apple
requires.

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:10:39 -0700, Ted Landry wrote:

Ron Miller wrote:

Again, if you have even a trace of decency in you, you'll stop posting
here. If you EVER had a single constructive thing to add to these
discussions, you'd be welcomed, but you never do. Your approach is
infantile in the extreme.

grow up Ron and get a Mac, the PC environment has made you senseless.

PLONK!

People that need the self-gradification of announcing to a newsgroup
that they "plonked" somebody are obviously mentally inmature. How old
are you anyway Ted? My guess, whatever your physical age, your mental
age is about that of a six year old.

"Ted Landry" wrote in message
...
"Darkelldar" wrote:

So if I understand what you are saying is that OSX is to good for IBM
PC's
running on Intel and AMD x86 processors and the rest of the PC hardware
out
there?

Now I am really confused here.

Yes, Apple had to go into Intel and shake them to build a
powerful
enough processor worthy of OSX. The Intel Core Duo was the first that

I don't think that Apple had anything to do with Intel developing the Core
2 Processor, AMD had the better CPU for a number of years taking market
share from Intel. Intel came back with the Core2 now AMD is following
behind.

was almost a match for what IBM was doing with their PowerPC processors.
PowerPC is still faster of course, especially in math but Intel is
starting to show some head way.

Then why switch to Intel if the PowerPC is a faster CPU ?


Then I will for sure stay far away from those new Mac's using the Intel
Core2 processors because your OSX is far to good to run on IBM PC parts.

Yes, you can't really run a sophisticated OS such as OSX on top of a box
of old IBM "parts", it requires more elegant hardware designs to support
apps such as this...

So why go with Intel, ATI and nVidia parts in the Mac Pro. Makes it just a
PC like mine AMD 4200 x2, ATI X1900 XTX, nVidia based MB.

http://www.apple.com/macpro/specs.html This is your Link Ted

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/ichat/

AMD is showing some promise on the very high end, but AMD doesn't yet
have a consumer level processor able to run OSX at the level Apple
requires.

You are really not making any sense here, Is it the PC Hardware or the MS OS
you dont like because you are swinging both ways here by saying the OSX is
to sophisticated for hardware that Apple itself uses with its systems so
taking that into account Apple computers should have no problems at all
running Windows Vista because of its hardwares sophistication over an IBM
PC.

In message ,
Ted Landry Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

"ChrisM" wrote:

Do you guys ever read your own posts on topics like this?
It's like reading messages by a bunch of kids!
My OS/Platform is better than yours! My dad is bigger than your
dad...!

Basically MAC and PC are two very different platforms. They each
have their own strengths and weaknesses. No-one can deny that PC(in
this case, I mean Microsoft) has a much larger share, but that
doesn't mean it is the better platform for all applications. MAC is
probably better at certain things, especially very high powered
graphical stuff, but that doesn't mean it is the best choice for
everything.
For goodness sake, just use the platform you want to, and accept the
fact that someone from the opposing 'camp' is unlikely to share your
opinions!

chris, that's all nice and cute... but it doesn't get to the reason
these debates exist...

here is the situation:

the mac world, is pulling world society forward on a massive scale...
the first real pc, first color monitors, first floppies, first mouse
first laser printers, first networking, first web access, first
digital cameras, created the www, first to have wireless, first real
mp3 player, etc.

while the PC world, is really "the old IBM punchcard world", they are
concerned with keeping the status quo, they don't like change, they DO
like complexity, they like expensive support, poorly written code,
loud, poorly built computers, etc. they are concerned with "keeping
people down"......

which is the complete antithesis of what the "mac world" is trying to
do.

SO you have conflict... what you see in a flame war is just that
"flame".

it's two difference sides pulling on each other. is either side right?
no, of course not. but the fun thing about the Mac world is we are
using computers and techniques a PC user won't see for 3-10 years, we
get to do the fun stuff, create, explore and have the best tools
while doing so.

pc users are kinda the "unconscious cogs of society", they typically
work at 9-5 jobs, are part of some corporate bureaucracy, have little
personal freedom and have no power "over" their computer, microsoft
controls "all" and they are fine with it. whereas mac users have total
control over their machines, and apple simply stays out of their way.

neither is right or wrong, it's just mac users pull society forward,
and pc users pull society back.

Bye Bye Troll...

(By the way, most people that I know that use Macs, work in 9-5 jobs - Ok,
they maybe 'artistic' jobs, but still 9-5)


--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

Adam Albright wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:10:39 -0700, Ted Landry wrote:

Ron Miller wrote:

Again, if you have even a trace of decency in you, you'll stop posting
here. If you EVER had a single constructive thing to add to these
discussions, you'd be welcomed, but you never do. Your approach is
infantile in the extreme.
grow up Ron and get a Mac, the PC environment has made you senseless.

PLONK!

People that need the self-gradification of announcing to a newsgroup
that they "plonked" somebody are obviously mentally inmature. How old
are you anyway Ted? My guess, whatever your physical age, your mental
age is about that of a six year old.

There are numerous Mac trolls posting here. It may be the same person
using different personas, but if they really are different people, then
"Ted Landry" is the most desperately mentally ill of the bunch.
Rather than "plonking" him, it would be better if no one would rise to
the bait he dangles.