Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old October 11th 11, 01:04 PM posted to rec.radio.shortwave,rec.sport.golf,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.guns
BAR BAR is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Sep 2011
Posts: 20
Default (OT) Steve Jobs.

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.
  #2   Report Post  
Old October 11th 11, 02:27 PM posted to rec.radio.shortwave,rec.sport.golf,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.guns
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Nov 2010
Posts: 48
Default (OT) Steve Jobs.

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.




  #3   Report Post  
Old October 11th 11, 02:47 PM posted to rec.radio.shortwave,rec.sport.golf,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.guns
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Oct 2011
Posts: 10
Default (OT) Steve Jobs.

In article , - 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
  #4   Report Post  
Old October 11th 11, 03:58 PM posted to rec.radio.shortwave
J R J R is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2011
Posts: 543
Default (OT) Steve Jobs.

An article (MAC OS X LION VS. WINDOWS 7: WHICH OS IS BEST?) in my snail
mail September 2011 Laptop Magazine.The article has a URL/website, so I
am typing it now.
http://www.laptopmag.com/lion-vs-win7

They both have their places in the computer World.You can have both.Or,
WebTV and PC and Apple/Mac.
cuhulin

  #5   Report Post  
Old October 11th 11, 04:12 PM posted to rec.radio.shortwave,rec.sport.golf,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.guns
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Nov 2010
Posts: 48
Default (OT) Steve Jobs.

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.





  #6   Report Post  
Old October 12th 11, 03:32 AM posted to rec.radio.shortwave,rec.sport.golf,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.guns
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Oct 2011
Posts: 10
Default (OT) Steve Jobs.

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...

  #7   Report Post  
Old October 11th 11, 06:08 PM posted to rec.radio.shortwave,rec.sport.golf,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.guns
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Apr 2011
Posts: 987
Default (OT) Steve Jobs.

On 10/11/2011 6:47 AM, 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


Hey, everything was just going great, then you show up with quick wit,
logic and fact and shoot everything to hell ... GO BACK WHERE YOU CAME
FROM chuckle

Regards,
JS

  #8   Report Post  
Old October 11th 11, 11:16 PM posted to rec.radio.shortwave,rec.sport.golf,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.guns
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Apr 2011
Posts: 102
Default (OT) Steve Jobs.

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.

--
"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
  #9   Report Post  
Old October 11th 11, 11:39 PM posted to rec.radio.shortwave,rec.sport.golf,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.guns
BAR BAR is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Sep 2011
Posts: 20
Default (OT) Steve Jobs.

In article ,
says...

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.


You do know that there have been UNIX variants running on Intel chips
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.


You are forgetting about Novell.

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).


What? I think you need to look up Appletalk. Apple implemented an OSI
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.


In 1988 I was able to get PC's running UNIX connected to a 10Base2
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.

  #10   Report Post  
Old October 12th 11, 03:38 AM posted to rec.radio.shortwave,rec.sport.golf,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.guns
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Oct 2011
Posts: 10
Default (OT) Steve Jobs.

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.





Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Obama creates 200 new jobs! John Smith[_7_] Shortwave 1 June 26th 11 04:59 AM
Obama creates 200 new jobs! John Smith[_7_] Shortwave 0 June 26th 11 03:06 AM
Disabilities and jobs in broadcasting Chananya Broadcasting 39 April 29th 10 03:28 PM
Obama creates 30,000 jobs with $787 Billion tax dollars Editor RadioTalkingPoints Shortwave 5 October 19th 09 04:41 PM
American Trauma: Jobs and the Economy [email protected] Shortwave 1 May 30th 09 04:38 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:45 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017