 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / General / General / September 2008alt.comp.os.windows-xp
Truly amazing - 97% of the computing world uses WINDOWS. There is very little traffic there. Very, very few complaints. Not like here. > Truly amazing, 97% of the computing world uses Windoze. > There is very little traffic there. Very, very few complaints. Complaints that you know of.  SignaturePosted from my 1999 Apple G4 Sawtooth A 450 MHz G4 running OS X 10.4.8 >> Truly amazing, 97% of the computing world uses Windoze. >> There is very little traffic there. Very, very few complaints. > > Complaints that you know of. You can go there yourself. You are free to judge for yourself. > >> Truly amazing, 97% of the computing world uses Windoze. > >> There is very little traffic there. Very, very few complaints. > > > > Complaints that you know of. > > You can go there yourself. You are free to judge for yourself. I have judged for myself, enough to switch to the Mac. SignaturePosted from my 1999 Apple G4 Sawtooth A 450 MHz G4 running OS X 10.4.8 >> >> Truly amazing, 97% of the computing world uses Windoze. >> >> There is very little traffic there. Very, very few complaints. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I have judged for myself, enough to switch to the Mac. Proving what a big fool you are. > >> >> Truly amazing, 97% of the computing world uses Windoze. > >> >> There is very little traffic there. Very, very few complaints. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Proving what a big fool you are. Foolish enough to not put up with malware, DLL hell, etc. Now adjust your "Kick Me" sign. SignaturePosted from my 1999 Apple G4 Sawtooth A 450 MHz G4 running OS X 10.4.11 In article <peejster01-546BC7.15272421112007@unlimited.newshosting.com>, Jim Lee Jr. <peejster01@insightbb.com> wrote: > Foolish enough to not put up with malware, DLL hell, etc. Now adjust > your "Kick Me" sign. Zara is such a...uh...what's the word I'm looking for here...fucktard. > In article > <peejster01-546BC7.15272421112007@unlimited.newshosting.com>, Jim Lee [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Zara is such a...uh...what's the word I'm looking for here...fucktard. weak, - very - very - w-e-a-k > > In article > > <peejster01-546BC7.15272421112007@unlimited.newshosting.com>, Jim Lee [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Weak, very, very weak. Admitting you are a weak tit? SignaturePosted from my 1999 Apple G4 Sawtooth A 450 MHz G4 running OS X 10.4.11 On 11/21/07 7:09 PM, in article peejster01-217EA6.19090021112007@unlimited.newshosting.com, "Jim Lee Jr." <peejster01@insightbb.com> wrote: >>> In article >>> <peejster01-546BC7.15272421112007@unlimited.newshosting.com>, Jim Lee [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Admitting you are a weak tit? Naw. His mama wouldn't let him have it. So now he is a puta. >> >> >> Truly amazing, 97% of the computing world uses Windoze. >> >> >> There is very little traffic there. Very, very few complaints. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Foolish enough to not put up with malware, DLL hell, etc. Now adjust > your "Kick Me" sign. 'Malware"? A thing of the past. "DLL hell"? A thing of the past. I have been computing since 1991 - no viruses, trojans, malware, intrusions. > 'Malware"? A thing of the past. "DLL hell"? A thing of the past. I have > been computing since 1991 - no viruses, trojans, malware, intrusions. No truth...no clue... >> 'Malware"? A thing of the past. "DLL hell"? A thing of the past. >> I have been computing since 1991 - no viruses, trojans, malware, >> intrusions. > > No truth...no clue... I've been at it longer. No viruses, trojans, malware, intrusions here either. You have to either be careless, or not have the slightest bit of common sense to get infected with any of that. >>> 'Malware"? A thing of the past. "DLL hell"? A thing of the past. >>> I have been computing since 1991 - no viruses, trojans, malware, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > either. You have to either be careless, or not have the slightest bit of > common sense to get infected with any of that. You guys are hilarious. You mean you have to be ultra-careful with an XP install until it has been patched. I can put a fresh install of OS X on the internet and not worry about it. BECAUSE IT'S SECURE BY DEFAULT. http://www.news.com/Microsoft-exec-calls-XP-hack-frightening/2100-7349_3-6218238.html Greg >>>> 'Malware"? A thing of the past. "DLL hell"? A thing of the past. >>>> I have been computing since 1991 - no viruses, trojans, malware, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > of OS X on the internet and not worry about it. BECAUSE IT'S SECURE > BY DEFAULT. Translated: How can you guys not get infected? I _always_ got infected, therefore you have to be lying. > >>>> 'Malware"? A thing of the past. "DLL hell"? A thing of the past. > >>>> I have been computing since 1991 - no viruses, trojans, malware, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Translated: How can you guys not get infected? I always got infected, > therefore you have to be lying. Try switching to the Mac or Linux, then you will not get infected. Malware infection is par for the course of using Windoze. SignaturePosted from my 1999 Apple G4 Sawtooth A 450 MHz G4 running OS X 10.4.11 >> >>>> 'Malware"? A thing of the past. "DLL hell"? A thing of the past. >> >>>> I have been computing since 1991 - no viruses, trojans, malware, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Try switching to the Mac or Linux, then you will not get infected. > Malware infection is par for the course of using Windoze. Earth to Judy. I think he said he uses a mac. >>>>> 'Malware"? A thing of the past. "DLL hell"? A thing of the past. >>>>> I have been computing since 1991 - no viruses, trojans, malware, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Translated: How can you guys not get infected? I _always_ got infected, > therefore you have to be lying. You haven't put a fresh install of XP SP1 on the internet, have you? 15 minutes is the average length of time it takes for an unpatched XP machine to get exploited when it's put on the internet. It's impossible for it not to get owned. Try it, I have. Greg >>>>>> 'Malware"? A thing of the past. "DLL hell"? A thing of the past. >>>>>> I have been computing since 1991 - no viruses, trojans, malware, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Greg bullshit, I do it all the time. never been hit yet. Would have to get past my Cisco first. > > You haven't put a fresh install of XP SP1 on the internet, have > > you? 15 minutes is the average length of time it takes for an [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > bullshit, I do it all the time. never been hit yet. > Would have to get past my Cisco first. Yeah, you need the Cisco to protect your XP because the naked XP is a virus magnet. But you don't care about facts, so you, Wintroll? SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. >> > You haven't put a fresh install of XP SP1 on the internet, have >> > you? 15 minutes is the average length of time it takes for an [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > But you don't care about facts, so you, Wintroll? Actually I use the Cisco to connect multiple computers fuktard. > Support the troops: Bring them home ASAP. >>>>> 'Malware"? A thing of the past. "DLL hell"? A thing of the past. >>>>> I have been computing since 1991 - no viruses, trojans, malware, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Translated: How can you guys not get infected? I _always_ got infected, > therefore you have to be lying. stay off the porn sites. > stay off the porn sites. What's the matter, you want all that porn to yourself, Wintroll? SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. >> stay off the porn sites. > > What's the matter, you want all that porn to yourself, Wintroll? What a useless fucktard. >>>>>> 'Malware"? A thing of the past. "DLL hell"? A thing of the >>>>>> past. I have been computing since 1991 - no viruses, trojans, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> > stay off the porn sites. See that G.T.? It's good advice. Heed it and maybe you won't always get infected. > See that G.T.? It's good advice. Heed it and maybe you won't always > get infected. You speak from experience, Wintroll. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. >> See that G.T.? It's good advice. Heed it and maybe you won't always >> get infected. > > You speak from experience, Wintroll. PKB > >>> 'Malware"? A thing of the past. "DLL hell"? A thing of the past. > >>> I have been computing since 1991 - no viruses, trojans, malware, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Greg The Micro$lut drones will try to deny that. SignaturePosted from my 1999 Apple G4 Sawtooth A 450 MHz G4 running OS X 10.4.11 > > http://www.news.com/Microsoft-exec-calls-XP-hack-frightening/2100-7349_3-62182 > > 38.html > > > > Greg > > The Micro$lut drones will try to deny that. Nope- it's probably very accurate under the stated conditions: "...a machine running Windows XP with Service Pack 1 to an unsecured wireless network. The machine was running no antivirus, firewall, or anti- spyware software and contained a sample target file of passwords to be stolen." Very frightening! In a related story, money was stolen from a series of automobiles that were parked unguarded in abandoned lots with the windows down, doors unlocked, and the victims' wallets left visibly on the dashboard... Stacking the deck a WEE bit, aren't we? Virtually every router has a firewall on by default, and any name-brand Wintel PC sold in the last few years includes AV software- at least a trial version. While someone patching a home-built PC might not have AV software included, he or she typically isn't newbie enough to run a completely unprotected system either. >>> http://www.news.com/Microsoft-exec-calls-XP-hack-frightening/2100- > 7349_3-62182 [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > typically isn't newbie enough to run a completely unprotected system > either. You Windows apologists just don't get it. There's no reason to not be secure out of the box. Zero. Inexcusable. Greg >>>> http://www.news.com/Microsoft-exec-calls-XP-hack-frightening/2100- >>>> 7349_3-62182 38.html [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > You Windows apologists just don't get it. There's no reason to not be > secure out of the box. Zero. Inexcusable. You mean that you don't even need a condom? Amazing! > You Windows apologists just don't get it. There's no reason to not be > secure out of the box. Zero. Inexcusable. Even with all the AV and anti-spyware software you can think of, the operating system is so poorly designed, it takes constant diligence to remain "clean." >>>> http://www.news.com/Microsoft-exec-calls-XP-hack-frightening/2100- >> 7349_3-62182 [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Greg the only reason there are not many mac attacks is that no one really gives a sh.t enough about an apple to waste time writing one. > the only reason there are not many mac attacks is that no one really gives a > sh.t enough about an apple to waste time writing one. Oh please! How long do we have to go on with this FUD? The reason there are no Mac viruses or spyware is quite simple. It's the design of the operating system. The default user is not logged in as an admin with root access. Jeez...get an education. > > the only reason there are not many mac attacks is that no one > > really gives a sh.t enough about an apple to waste time writing > > one. > > Oh please! How long do we have to go on with this FUD? For as long as Wintrolls exist. > The reason there are no Mac viruses or spyware is quite simple. It's > the design of the operating system. The default user is not logged in > as an admin with root access. Jeez...get an education. You're talking to a Wintroll; they're too emotionally unstable to care about facts. And they don't want to be educated. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. >> the only reason there are not many mac attacks is that no one really >> gives a sh.t enough about an apple to waste time writing one. > > Oh please! How long do we have to go on with this FUD? It will stop as soon as it's proven false. > >> the only reason there are not many mac attacks is that no one > >> really gives a sh.t enough about an apple to waste time writing [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It will stop as soon as it's proven false. How about proving it true, Wintroll? Oh, that's right; you can't prove it true because it ain't true. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. > > Oh please! How long do we have to go on with this FUD? > > It will stop as soon as it's proven false. It was proven false long ago. Let your mom have her e-Machine back now. >>> Oh please! How long do we have to go on with this FUD? >> >> It will stop as soon as it's proven false. > > It was proven false long ago. Let your mom have her e-Machine back > now. Whiner. >> In article >> <474f8885$0$47129$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>, Dozzer [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Whiner. That's how all "advocates" behave when their BS is called. > Whiner. I'm certainly not whining. I don't use Windows. >> Whiner. > > I'm certainly not whining. I don't use Windows. Another one who couldn't get Windows to work and had to buy a mac. > Another one who couldn't get Windows to work and had to buy a mac. What a fucktard! For your information, Mr. Wintroll, I have two Windows certifications in addition to A+ for both PC and Mac. I've probably assembled, configured, and repaired more PCs than you've ever seen. Back in 2000, I got tired of Windows and went to the Macintosh. I have no desire to return to the dark side. >> Another one who couldn't get Windows to work and had to buy a mac. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Back in 2000, I got tired of Windows and went to the Macintosh. I have > no desire to return to the dark side. I let my MCSE expired in 2000 as well. Still gots a bunch of other initials; CCNE, CCNA, CNE, MCNE, A+.... Also got a PHD, pimpin' ho's degree :) > I let my MCSE expired in 2000 as well. > > Still gots a bunch of other initials; CCNE, CCNA, CNE, MCNE, A+.... I haven't kept up with my MS certs. It's such a scam. Just about the time you get one, they retire it or come out with a new version of Windows. It's not worth it. I already know more about Windows than I'd like. > I already know more about Windows than I'd like. I do too; that's why I use a Macintosh. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. >> Another one who couldn't get Windows to work and had to buy a mac. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Back in 2000, I got tired of Windows and went to the Macintosh. I have > no desire to return to the dark side. Yeah, sure. That's what they all say. <BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!! Couldn't get Windows to work. Funny.> >>> Another one who couldn't get Windows to work and had to buy a mac. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > <BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!! Couldn't get Windows to work. Funny.> Nobody can get Windows to work - because it doesn't! SignatureThe only reason that the air we breath is free, is because the corporate world has been unable to figure out a practical way to meter it. > Yeah, sure. That's what they all say. > > <BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!! Couldn't get Windows to work. Funny.> Poor Wintard...too stupid to operate a Mac. >>> Whiner. >> >> I'm certainly not whining. I don't use Windows. > > Another one who couldn't get Windows to work and had to buy a mac. Well, that's the rub isn't it? No operating system should be so difficult that anyone with more than one brain cell should find it difficult. Thanks for admitting that Windows is too difficult and arcane for many and by extension, that the Mac is easy and intuitive enough for someone who finds Windows daunting to find inviting, logical, useful and fun. But then we Mac users have known that for years. Why has it taken YOU this long to figure it out? SignatureThe only reason that the air we breath is free, is because the corporate world has been unable to figure out a practical way to meter it. >>> In article >>> <47504097$0$47151$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>, Dozzer [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > logical, useful and fun. But then we Mac users have known that for > years. Why has it taken YOU this long to figure it out? Why aren't YOU up to the challenge? YOU seem to think an OS that runs on _any_ hardware YOU throw at it should run out-of-the-box. It doesn't, so that's why YOU have to use a f.cking mac; YOU're not good enough to get Windows to work. >>>> In article >>>> <47504097$0$47151$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>, Dozzer [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > doesn't, so that's why YOU have to use a f.cking mac; YOU're not good > enough to get Windows to work. So true, so true. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>>> In article >>>>> <47504097$0$47151$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>, Dozzer [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > So true, so true. And, how the F would you know? The only reason that the air we breath is free, is because the corporate world has been unable to figure out a practical way to meter it. > Why aren't YOU up to the challenge? YOU seem to think an OS that runs on > _any_ hardware YOU throw at it should run out-of-the-box. It doesn't, so > that's why YOU have to use a f.cking mac; YOU're not good enough to get > Windows to work. Right out of the box, any operating system should be secure. Windows isn't even close. > Why aren't YOU up to the challenge? YOU seem to think an OS that runs > on _any_ hardware YOU throw at it should run out-of-the-box. It > doesn't, so that's why YOU have to use a f.cking mac; YOU're not good > enough to get Windows to work. That's the point; you shouldn't have to be "good enough" to operate a computer. The computer, not the user, should be doing the work. While you twiddle with your registries and other stuff, we Mac users are getting things accomplished with our computers. Yeah, sometimes we have to twiddle too, but not nearly as often, for more esoteric things that the average user rarely encounters. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. > While you twiddle with your registries and other stuff, we Mac users are > getting things accomplished with our computers. That's one of the reasons I switched. I'd had enough dinking around with Windows. I just wanted to get stuff done. When I put a recording studio in what used to be my photo studio, I went with Mac. I knew that if I did Windows, there would come a time when I was working on something important and Windows would die. Never had that problem with the Mac. >>>> In article >>>> <47504097$0$47151$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>, Dozzer [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > that's why YOU have to use a f.cking mac; YOU're not good enough to get > Windows to work. I have had Windows working on many machines over the years, but I figure that life's too short to spend it fighting with a recalcitrant operating system. The Mac is muuuuuccccchhhhhh better, more intuitive, more logical, easier to use and way more fun. SignatureThe only reason that the air we breath is free, is because the corporate world has been unable to figure out a practical way to meter it. >>>>> In article >>>>> <47504097$0$47151$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>, Dozzer [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > operating system. The Mac is muuuuuccccchhhhhh better, more > intuitive, more logical, easier to use and way more fun. Another one. > >>> In article > >>> <47504097$0$47151$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>, Dozzer [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > that's why YOU have to use a f.cking mac; YOU're not good enough to get > Windows to work. IOW, a user is *supposed* to have to make his/her computer work first, just to get to the real work that needs to be done. IOW, this is another spin on the old saw that "...if it isn't hard to do or make work, it isn't any good." SignatureJim >>>>> In article >>>>> <47504097$0$47151$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>, Dozzer [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > IOW, a user is *supposed* to have to make his/her computer work first, > just to get to the real work that needs to be done. More like, Macs are for dummies that _can't_ resolve problems caused by new, untested hardware. > IOW, this is another spin on the old saw that "...if it isn't hard to > do or make work, it isn't any good." Do you also jump from bridges? > More like, Macs are for dummies that _can't_ resolve problems caused > by new, untested hardware. Apple knows better than to foist new, untested hardware on the public; they actually pay people to test their hardware before its offered for sale, instead of charging fools like you to test it for them. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. > > More like, Macs are for dummies that _can't_ resolve problems caused > > by new, untested hardware. > > Apple knows better than to foist new, untested hardware on the public; > they actually pay people to test their hardware before its offered for > sale, instead of charging fools like you to test it for them. Apple knows better? Then maybe it will extend the warranty on G4 iBook logic boards. Untested hardware indeed!!! > >>>>> In article > >>>>> <47504097$0$47151$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>, Dozzer [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > More like, Macs are for dummies that _can't_ resolve problems caused by new, > untested hardware. Macs don't have the plethora of issues foisted on the users because Apple makes the whole widget, unlike M$ who has an OS that can't work on all the zillions of cheap hardware and peripheral add-on's. It's just the lay of the Windows land. > > IOW, this is another spin on the old saw that "...if it isn't hard to > > do or make work, it isn't any good." > > Do you also jump from bridges? SignatureJim > > Why aren't YOU up to the challenge? YOU seem to think an OS that runs on > > _any_ hardware YOU throw at it should run out-of-the-box. It doesn't, so [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > IOW, this is another spin on the old saw that "...if it isn't hard to do > or make work, it isn't any good." Very right; why is it that people think having to overcome the OS as an obstacle means that OS is _better_? Isn't it quite obviously proof that it is _NOT_ better? If there is an OS that does NOT require the user to navigate obstacles, learn a new paradigm, and fight conflicts, isn't it automatically and obviously superior? This isn't reciprocal; having to work harder to make something work does not mean it is going to work harder for you. It suggests that it is _not_ going to work as hard for you, because there are things in the way -- not least of which is having to be shepherded by the user! "Not good enough to get Windows to work." ! Oh, my GOD has Microsoft pulled a trick on that guy! He actually feels like it proves him _better_ and _smarter_ because he has been forced to work with those problems! >>> Why aren't YOU up to the challenge? YOU seem to think an OS that >>> runs on _any_ hardware YOU throw at it should run out-of-the-box. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > He actually feels like it proves him _better_ and _smarter_ because he > has been forced to work with those problems! He's _better_ and _smarter_ because he *CAN* work with those problems! You, obviously, can't. > > "Not good enough to get Windows to work." ! > > Oh, my GOD has Microsoft pulled a trick on that guy! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > He's _better_ and _smarter_ because he *CAN* work with those > problems! You, obviously, can't. Many of us can, but we choose not to have to because we're more interested in getting the job done than in fixing the tools with which to do it. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. >>> "Not good enough to get Windows to work." ! >>> Oh, my GOD has Microsoft pulled a trick on that guy! [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > interested in getting the job done than in fixing the tools with which > to do it. Your 'saying it' has no credence. You chose mac because you couldn't get Windows to work; it's okay, most mac users couldn't do it either. > >>> "Not good enough to get Windows to work." ! Oh, my GOD has > >>> Microsoft pulled a trick on that guy! He actually feels like it [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Your 'saying it' has no credence. You chose mac because you couldn't > get Windows to work; it's okay, most mac users couldn't do it either. You are full of sh.t. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. >>>> "Not good enough to get Windows to work." ! >>>> Oh, my GOD has Microsoft pulled a trick on that guy! [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Your 'saying it' has no credence. You chose mac because you couldn't get >Windows to work; it's okay, most mac users couldn't do it either. she's completely full of sh.t. I know boatloads of Mac snobs and half of them are just like her, snobby arts liberlist elitist a.sholes. these pricks wouldnt use a windows machine even if it was given to them and smoked their beloved Mac, because of their retarded political holier-than-thou principles. I have noticed a serious trend in ubber liberals in the Mac market. Even their advertising reflects it as they position "Windows man" as a suited republican type. This is part of Michelle's bias and idiocy. we use both platforms in our design business and one's just as good, and as flawed, as the other. Both have advantages and disadvantages and anybody who says you cant blow up a Mac is lying their a.s off. > she's completely full of sh.t. I know boatloads of Mac snobs and half > of them are just like her, snobby arts liberlist elitist a.sholes. > these pricks wouldnt use a windows machine even if it was given to > them and smoked their beloved Mac, because of their retarded > political holier-than-thou principles. Wow! Cow pie managed to mix his right-wing assholery with his anti-Macintosh bigotry. > I have noticed a serious trend in ubber liberals in the Mac market. > Even their advertising reflects it as they position "Windows man" as > a suited republican type. Only Republicans wear suits, fruitcake? You are one sick turd, cow pie. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. >> she's completely full of sh.t. I know boatloads of Mac snobs and half >> of them are just like her, snobby arts liberlist elitist a.sholes. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > You are one sick turd, cow pie. Predictably, she resorts to name calling. >>> she's completely full of sh.t. I know boatloads of Mac snobs and half >>> of them are just like her, snobby arts liberlist elitist a.sholes. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Predictably, she resorts to name calling. its what they do when they get nailed right in the forehead. she cant deny its true so she has to resort to insults. anit-macintosh bigotry is a pretty funny attempt at an insult, i worked on one all last night to finish a job in Quark. Never anywhere on any message have i once said anything anti-Mac... except maybe thats its possible to blow them up and they like to cater to liberals. > Predictably, she resorts to name calling. Just trying to get down to your level, but no matter how hard I try, I just can't sink that low. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. >> Predictably, she resorts to name calling. > > Just trying to get down to your level, but no matter how hard I try, I > just can't sink that low. Of course you can't get _down_ to his level, try going _up_ instead. He's above you. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > >> Predictably, she resorts to name calling. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Of course you can't get _down_ to his level, try going _up_ instead. > He's above you. Well that proves you don't know up from down. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. >>>>> "Not good enough to get Windows to work." ! >>>>> Oh, my GOD has Microsoft pulled a trick on that guy! [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > and as flawed, as the other. Both have advantages and disadvantages > and anybody who says you cant blow up a Mac is lying their a.s off. Diogenes would have been satisfied with you. >>>>>> "Not good enough to get Windows to work." ! >>>>>> Oh, my GOD has Microsoft pulled a trick on that guy! [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >Diogenes would have been satisfied with you. now, thats that guy Howldog and i heard he died. > she's completely full of sh.t. I know boatloads of Mac snobs and half > of them are just like her, snobby arts liberlist elitist a.sholes. > these pricks wouldnt use a windows machine even if it was given to > them and smoked their beloved Mac, because of their retarded political > holier-than-thou principles. I am far from a liberal, and I use Macintosh even though I have several Windows certs. I just want to get the job done without worrying when (not if) the OS will die; without looking at ugly screens and being constantly nagged to press this button or that; without having to have my computer bogged down by AV/anti-spyware software because the company that created the OS can't make the damned thing secure. >I am far from a liberal, and I use Macintosh even though I have several >Windows certs. OK, thats groovy. Calm down and notice I didnt say every mac user on earth was like that. I simply said i know a bunch who are. > I just want to get the job done without worrying when >(not if) the OS will die; My Macs, on the other hand, have all been just as reliable, or less than that, as my PCs. I don tsee much difference. XP windows machines dont lock up with some alarming regularity, unless they're bug infected or something. > without looking at ugly screens ugly is entirely subjective; i've got thousands of background wallpaper jpgs that change every five minutes and i think windows has a nice screen... i'll say that my sony vaio has a nicer screen display than any Mac I've ever seen. Altho my Mac is nice too. > and being >constantly nagged to press this button or that; well, i certainly cant imagine working on my mac without pressing any buttons either >without having to have >my computer bogged down by AV/anti-spyware software because the company >that created the OS can't make the damned thing secure. thats one drawback to windows, sure. not going to deny it. as i said, there are advantages and disadvantages to both platforms. >> she's completely full of sh.t. I know boatloads of Mac snobs and half >> of them are just like her, snobby arts liberlist elitist a.sholes. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Windows certs. I just want to get the job done without worrying when > (not if) the OS will die; Never saw that - neither has anyone I know. > without looking at ugly screens Beauty - is in the eye of the beholder. >and being > constantly nagged to press this button or that; Never saw that either. >without having to have > my computer bogged down by AV/anti-spyware software "Bogged down" - no, never. > because the company > that created the OS can't make the damned thing secure. On WINDOWS, viruses are a thing of the past. On OSX - they exist and will more prevalent, in the near future. >>without having to have >> my computer bogged down by AV/anti-spyware software > >"Bogged down" - no, never. thats not exactly true for me anyway when i run a very processor intensive program, like SONAR and recording 8 simulatenous live microphones along with live midi input, its best if i turn off the anti-virus. thats one example of a disadvantage toward a PC. the anti-virus software can occassionally disrupt or crash a program, depending on a lot of factors >> because the company >> that created the OS can't make the damned thing secure. > >On WINDOWS, viruses are a thing of the past. On OSX - they exist and will >more prevalent, in the near future. i was told once, altho this may have been un-true, that the only reason there were not so many viruses and hoaxes and phishing scams for Macs, was simply because the ownership wasnt a very high percentage of the population. Not because the operating system was immune. That may be incorrect, I dont know. Altho i'd take any response from a few of these groups with a planet sized grain of salt ;-) >>> without having to have >>> my computer bogged down by AV/anti-spyware software [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > recording 8 simulatenous live microphones along with live midi input, > its best if i turn off the anti-virus. I tried a Mac several years ago and found it ran like molasses on Photoshop (It was one of the early PowerPC models). My 133MHz P1 ran circles around it. > thats one example of a disadvantage toward a PC. > > the anti-virus software can occassionally disrupt or crash a program, > depending on a lot of factors Norton and McAfee are a couple of the worst at taking over. Just use something that doesn't; NOD32 is good. >I tried a Mac several years ago and found it ran like molasses on Photoshop >(It was one of the early PowerPC models). My 133MHz P1 ran circles around >it. thats a thing the mac-snobs will always debate... but for me, once i'm inside the program, they pretty much behave exactly the same. You get into Photoshop and theres nothing I can do on my Mac that I cannot do on my PC, and just as easily. altho quark is still heavily mac-centric and some plug ins were never made for PC lots of print designers prefer Macs but the days of incompatibility are over. A high resolution pdf is a pdf is a pdf and it dont matter what platform created it or what platform is gonna read it, its gonna work. There's still some stone-age publications that refuse them tho, probly because of some ancient technology on their end, and they demand Mac Quark files with live type.. but those are few and far between. I prefer to design for web using a PC.. after all, thats the platform the majority of viewers are gonna be looking at the final product on. >> thats one example of a disadvantage toward a PC. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Norton and McAfee are a couple of the worst at taking over. Just use >something that doesn't; NOD32 is good. gotta agree with both of those, especially Norton... thats a resource-sucking pig AVG from gris-soft is good and theres still places where you can find a free version >> I tried a Mac several years ago and found it ran like molasses on Photoshop >> (It was one of the early PowerPC models). My 133MHz P1 ran circles around [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > into Photoshop and theres nothing I can do on my Mac that I cannot do > on my PC, and just as easily. Output your document as a PDF without resorting to a third-party app.. > altho quark is still heavily mac-centric and some plug ins were never > made for PC [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > demand Mac Quark files with live type.. but those are few and far > between. Agreed. Mac still beats Windows for WYSIWYG though . The screen PDF format and the resultant PDF file are identical. > I prefer to design for web using a PC.. after all, thats the platform > the majority of viewers are gonna be looking at the final product on. If you don't use MS' authoring tools, it doesn't matter. --- The only reason that the air we breathe is free, is because the corporate world has been unable to figure out a practical way to meter it. >Agreed. Mac still beats Windows for WYSIWYG though . The screen PDF format >and the resultant PDF file are identical. I dont know what software you're using to generate your PDFs with, but when I use Adobe Illustrator, InDesign or Photoshop, Mac or PC, the screen PDF looks exactly like the print one. >> Agreed. Mac still beats Windows for WYSIWYG though . The screen PDF format >> and the resultant PDF file are identical. > > I dont know what software you're using to generate your PDFs with, but > when I use Adobe Illustrator, InDesign or Photoshop, Mac or PC, the > screen PDF looks exactly like the print one. I don't use any software to generate PDFs. The Mac's screen "language" is Display PDF. Just save print it to disk and its already a PDF. BTW, on Windows, placed PostScript images show up as bitmap "placeholders" (or grayed-out bounding boxes) because Windows can't rasterize PostScript on the fly. It requires a third-party rasterizer to do that. OSX does by converting the PostScript file to Display PDF. That's what I mean when I say that the Mac beats Windows for WYSIWYG. SignatureThe only reason that the air we breathe is free, is because the corporate world has been unable to figure out a practical way to meter it. >>> Agreed. Mac still beats Windows for WYSIWYG though . The screen PDF >>> format and the resultant PDF file are identical. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > PDF. That's what I mean when I say that the Mac beats Windows for > WYSIWYG. Big whoop! >>>> Agreed. Mac still beats Windows for WYSIWYG though . The screen PDF >>>> format and the resultant PDF file are identical. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Big whoop! If you're trying to place something on top of it, and it has to line up directly, yeah, its an issue but i'd probly end up doing that in photshop anyway >>>>> Agreed. Mac still beats Windows for WYSIWYG though . The screen PDF >>>>> format and the resultant PDF file are identical. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > but i'd probly end up doing that in photshop anyway So, you'd take two steps on Windows that you could do in one on the Mac. That's certainly efficient, alright. Good for you :-> SignatureThe only reason that the air we breathe is free, is because the corporate world has been unable to figure out a practical way to meter it. >>>>>> Agreed. Mac still beats Windows for WYSIWYG though . The screen PDF >>>>>> format and the resultant PDF file are identical. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >So, you'd take two steps on Windows that you could do in one on the Mac. >That's certainly efficient, alright. Good for you :-> (rolls eyes) some things will never change, mac snobs still think they're superior. > some things will never change, mac snobs still think they're superior. Compared to tards like you, we are. > >So, you'd take two steps on Windows that you could do in one on the Mac. > >That's certainly efficient, alright. Good for you :-> > > (rolls eyes) > > some things will never change, mac snobs still think they're superior. Roll your eyes all around if you must, but that is a specific problem that has specific consequences for every user. If you ignore even the concrete and specific issues, you prove only that you have no idea what the topic is. Whichever system makes the users do fewer steps to get work done, with the most focused and pleasing results, is the better system. If you can't contradict the evidence, you simply have to accept that Mac is superior in that. If you cannot accept evidence against your argument, then all of your arguments also have to be ignored -- because you have shown you have no ability to use reason. And no, it isn't about the _users_ thinking they are superior. After all, they are only trying to tell you there is another way, so that you can also be happy. If you look back at those threads, you'll find out how little Mac users are talking about themselves at all! >>> So, you'd take two steps on Windows that you could do in one on the >>> Mac. That's certainly efficient, alright. Good for you :-> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > you can also be happy. If you look back at those threads, you'll find > out how little Mac users are talking about themselves at all! Using a shotgun doesn't guarantee you a kill. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>> So, you'd take two steps on Windows that you could do in one on the >>>> Mac. That's certainly efficient, alright. Good for you :-> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Using a shotgun doesn't guarantee you a kill. He seems so desperate, doesn't he. >>>>> So, you'd take two steps on Windows that you could do in one on the >>>>> Mac. That's certainly efficient, alright. Good for you :-> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >He seems so desperate, doesn't he. what they dont seem to realize, is that its all a tradeoff. All they do is continually blather on and on about how "their system" is better and makes certain tasks easier. as if thats all there is to owning a computer and there are no other issues. The two issues they continally dodge are A) Macs are a LOT more expensive B) theres a LOT more software available for PC those two reasons alone, make both platforms about equal in my opinion. Ultimately, neither is better. I use both and i like both. > A) Macs are a LOT more expensive Not if you compare the same things. > B) theres a LOT more software available for PC Go ahead...keep your mediocre duplications of popular software. "Mr. Strat" <rag@nospam.techline.com> stated in post 171220070920256226%rag@nospam.techline.com on 12/17/07 10:20 AM: >> A) Macs are a LOT more expensive > > Not if you compare the same things. Which has been shown over and over with non-CSMA initiated comparisons: <http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/prices/> SignatureI am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic. >>>>>> snip > A) Macs are a LOT more expensive > > B) theres a LOT more software available for PC > > those two reasons alone, make both platforms about equal in my > opinion. Ultimately, neither is better. I use both and i like both. This is a mac group, according to the macShitheads here, you are not allowed the choice of using both platforms. If you are not 100% mac, you are not welcome here. Those are the rules as contrived by macShitheads. > >>>>>> snip > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the choice of using both platforms. If you are not 100% mac, you are not > welcome here. Those are the rules as contrived by macShitheads. No, it's the fake rules imagined by c.nts like you. >> >>>>>> snip >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > No, it's the fake rules imagined by c.nts like you. Don't mistake me for your wife. > >>>>>> snip > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the choice of using both platforms. If you are not 100% Mac, you are not > welcome here. Those are the rules as contrived by Mac shitheads. Leave Mac users out of your coprophilia. Save it for the Wintrolls. SignaturePosted from my 1999 Apple G4 Sawtooth A 450 MHz G4 running OS X 10.4.11 > This is a mac group, according to the macShitheads here, you are not allowed > the choice of using both platforms. If you are not 100% mac, you are not > welcome here. Those are the rules as contrived by macShitheads. I have a PC sitting behind me. I turn it on every couple weeks just update the AV and anti-spyware software. On 12/17/07 5:20 PM, in article 171220071520278072%rag@nospam.techline.com, >> This is a mac group, according to the macShitheads here, you are not allowed >> the choice of using both platforms. If you are not 100% mac, you are not >> welcome here. Those are the rules as contrived by macShitheads. > > I have a PC sitting behind me. I turn it on every couple weeks just > update the AV and anti-spyware software. What else would one do with a machine that can be turned off only by hitting the "start" button? Oh, I forgot the most reliable method when they freeze up, which happens most of the time: P.T.P. (no Zero, that isn't "pull the 'pud") > What else would one do with a machine that can be turned off only by hitting > the "start" button? > > Oh, I forgot the most reliable method when they freeze up, which happens > most of the time: P.T.P. I can lock up XP quite easily. >> What else would one do with a machine that can be turned off only by >> hitting the "start" button? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I can lock up XP quite easily. That's never been in doubt. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> What else would one do with a machine that can be turned off only by >> hitting [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I can lock up XP quite easily. Is that supposed to be a big accomplishment? Any ten year old can lock up any system. And Leopard can lock itself up, with no outside help. > > I can lock up XP quite easily. > > Is that supposed to be a big accomplishment? Any ten year old can lock up > any system. And Leopard can lock itself up, with no outside help. Uh-huh. I can't speak for Leopard, because I haven't seen it or used it. But the only kernel panic I've gotten from OS X was back in 2001 with the initial release. OS X is far more resistant to locking up than any version of Windows. >> > I can lock up XP quite easily. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > initial release. OS X is far more resistant to locking up than any > version of Windows. Things have changed. Welcome to the present. >>> > I can lock up XP quite easily. >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Things have changed. Welcome to the present. why do these people continually act like Macs never have any OS or software issues? Heres just ONE example from the graphics forums, which are FULL of people having problems on their macs..,, the funniest thing is the reply..... just as bad as people having Vista problems and being told to go back to XP ------------- "I haven't found any mention of this exact problem in the forums but since upgrading to Leopard, one of my Macs has problems with any Photoshop (CS3 extended) file that has a text layer. The file opens fine and I can work with it for maybe a minute before a pop-up appears that reads, "could not complete your request because of a program error". The pop-up comes back again and again after clicking the "okay" button and I have to force quit. I don't seem to have this problem on my laptop - just my G5 tower. Both computers have the most current version of Leopard and CS3. Any ideas what I can do about this?" ---------------- "Either go back to Tiger or wait until the Adobe and Apple patches are released next year" >>>>> I can lock up XP quite easily. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > why do these people continually act like Macs never have any OS or > software issues? Because many of us NEVER HAVE HAD any such problems. I've been running OSX since 2001 and have NEVER had a kernel panic or a freeze or a crash. I've only had a few instances where I had to force-quit an application because it became non-responsive and that's using the computer 8-1o hrs/day every day. Why is that Windroids don't believe us? Can't they conceive of an OS that is THAT reliable? I guess not. > Heres just ONE example from the graphics forums, > which are FULL of people having problems on their macs..,, the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > "Either go back to Tiger or wait until the Adobe and Apple patches are > released next year" And yet I have CS3 and Leopard installed and I use lots of Photoshop files with text layers, yet my G5 Tower does not exhibit this problem. SignatureThe only reason that the air we breathe is free, is because the corporate world has been unable to figure out a practical way to meter it. >>>>>> I can lock up XP quite easily. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >Why is that Windroids don't believe us? Can't they conceive of an OS that is >THAT reliable? I guess not. Actually its got a lot more to do with your nonstop lying in almost all areas that come under discussion. Your lies about Wi |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message