On 10/11/11 16:40 , John Smith wrote:
On 10/11/2011 11:02 AM, D Peter Maus wrote:
On 10/11/11 11:52 , John Smith wrote:
On 10/11/2011 8:16 AM, D Peter Maus wrote:
On 10/11/11 01:15 , John Smith wrote:
On 10/10/2011 2:30 PM, D Peter Maus wrote:
On 10/10/11 16:27 , Alan Baker wrote:
In ,
John wrote:

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

So?

Apple's suddenly an evil empire because they make hardware and
Microsoft
doesn't?


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

As I said:

How arrogant to assume that anyone who sees value in what you do not
must be a fool...


It's a cultural standard, today.




Hey, I am not the one into social standards!


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.


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.


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 ****. 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.


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 ...


Right back atcha, Buckwheat.



Regards,
JS

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 10/10/2011 11:44 PM, Scout wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 10/10/2011 3:02 PM, Scout wrote:


"Alan Baker" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John Smith wrote:

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

So?

Apple's suddenly an evil empire because they make hardware and
Microsoft
doesn't?

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?

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.marke****ch.com/story/cor...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.

In article , - D Peter Maus
spouted !

On 10/11/11 08:47 , Tankfixer wrote:
In , - D Peter Maus
spouted !

On 10/11/11 07:04 , BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

In ,
John wrote:

On 10/10/2011 4:49 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

In ,
Alan wrote:

In articlejoednXxxSuLvPQzTnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@earthlink .com,
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 ...

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.

Keep trying. The world runs on Windows.


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.

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


Actually, BSD is the core of OSX.

Parts of it...

In article , - Howard Brazee
spouted !

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:47:07 -0700, Tankfixer
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 ?


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.

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:38:11 -0700, Tankfixer
wrote:

In article , - Howard Brazee
spouted !

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:47:07 -0700, Tankfixer
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.

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.

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.


--
"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

In article , - Howard Brazee
spouted !

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:38:11 -0700, Tankfixer
wrote:

In article , - Howard Brazee
spouted !

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:47:07 -0700, Tankfixer
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.


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.



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.

In article ,
BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

In article ,
John Smith wrote:

On 10/10/2011 4:49 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

In ,
Alan wrote:

In articlejoednXxxSuLvPQzTnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@earthlink .com,
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 ...

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.

Keep trying. The world runs on Windows.

Keep trying - increasingly it does not. Check Apple's rapidly growing
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.

In article ,
Tankfixer wrote:

In article , - Howard Brazee
spouted !

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:38:11 -0700, Tankfixer
wrote:

In article , - Howard Brazee
spouted !

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:47:07 -0700, Tankfixer
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.

On 10/11/2011 3:07 PM, Howard Brazee wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:21:12 -0700, John
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.


Usually, no, not even usually, every time I have met a man who owns
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

On 10/11/2011 3:16 PM, Howard Brazee wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:47:07 -0700, Tankfixer
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