I've Moved To Mac

[RayG]

Yes, Windows users are arrogant.

This machine had windows, though it wasn't an OS.

Anyone else ever use one?

RayG

 

[JeffJo]

... This forum is for opened-minded individuals, ...

You've put too much faith in a mere saying, Starstinker, and your brain has fallen out. It's too late for you, of course, but let your sad fate be a warning to others.

Starstinker, you're obviously dishonest, and too ignorant to talk about computers, of any kind, in a factual way. You just jumped in to fight, you liar. ROFL! Heck, that's alright with me, but be honest about it, for goodness sakes.

... Continue to post, you are only proving my point.

Notice the psychological symptoms of the Windows user. The mind of the Windows user is damaged, and he can't tell who's who, or what's what. All that the Windows user does is spout arrogant rants, in the course of which he whines about arrogance. The habitual Windows user is psychologically unwell. Continue to post, Starstinker, to display to everyone the typical psychological maladies of the habitual Windows user. You're a valuable datum. Your psychological symptoms are similar, in some ways, to those of a religious cultist.

... Again, until you can hold an intelligent debate without hurling insults, you are just a troll.

Again, notice the abnormal psychology of the habitual Windows user. Projection is the salient symptom in this instance, as he accuses others of what he, himself, is doing, but other symptoms are apparent, as well. His essential problem is that the Windows interface to which he's constantly exposed is so unpleasant that he has learned to display an emotional, negative reaction to anything that appears on the screen. He now displays that negative emotionalism as virtually a reflex response, albeit intermixed with lip service to a rationality he can no longer realize in stable form, or properly express.

Post another rant, please, Starstinker, you're psychologically interesting. (I'm calling you "Starstinker" to motivate your emotional responses, of course, and there's no harm in telling you that, because it will work whether you want it to, or not.) Especially, talk more about your "computer childhood," so to speak. I take it you were happy in your computer childhood, with that old Apple, is that correct? And now you're not happy? And do you now realize that your mention of "14 years old" simply reveals to everyone that you wish you were 14, again?

Then, after we get your psychology sorted out, we can proceed to talk about computers in an objective, factual way. But, first things first.

Stop the name calling.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: tim

 

[Starthinker]

You've put too much faith in a mere saying, Starstinker, and your brain has fallen out. It's too late for you, of course, but let your sad fate be a warning to others.

Starstinker, you're obviously dishonest, and too ignorant to talk about computers, of any kind, in a factual way. You just jumped in to fight, you liar. ROFL! Heck, that's alright with me, but be honest about it, for goodness sakes.



Notice the psychological symptoms of the Windows user. The mind of the Windows user is damaged, and he can't tell who's who, or what's what. All that the Windows user does is spout arrogant rants, in the course of which he whines about arrogance. The habitual Windows user is psychologically unwell. Continue to post, Starstinker, to display to everyone the typical psychological maladies of the habitual Windows user. You're a valuable datum. Your psychological symptoms are similar, in some ways, to those of a religious cultist.



Again, notice the abnormal psychology of the habitual Windows user. Projection is the salient symptom in this instance, as he accuses others of what he, himself, is doing, but other symptoms are apparent, as well. His essential problem is that the Windows interface to which he's constantly exposed is so unpleasant that he has learned to display an emotional, negative reaction to anything that appears on the screen. He now displays that negative emotionalism as virtually a reflex response, albeit intermixed with lip service to a rationality he can no longer realize in stable form, or properly express.

Post another rant, please, Starstinker, you're psychologically interesting. (I'm calling you "Starstinker" to motivate your emotional responses, of course, and there's no harm in telling you that, because it will work whether you want it to, or not.) Especially, talk more about your "computer childhood," so to speak. I take it you were happy in your computer childhood, with that old Apple, is that correct? And now you're not happy? And do you now realize that your mention of "14 years old" simply reveals to everyone that you wish you were 14, again?

Then, after we get your psychology sorted out, we can proceed to talk about computers in an objective, factual way. But, first things first.

Notice the complete lack of answering any question put to him and continuing trying to insult. Not worth the bandwidth. Not, 14, you must be 8.

 

[Powa]

Poor JeffJo's parents. They have to put up with this brat every day.

 

[Zep]

Has the merry-go-round slowed down much yet? I may need to give it another spin...

 

[chillzero]

Everyone, remember the Membership Agreement. Be civil with each other. Do not attack the member, respond to the arguments.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

 

[Powa]

I apologize.

But he deserved it.

 

[Zep]

OK, here we go again!

Have you noticed that Mac users can now run native Windows (and Windows apps) on their Macs? And that you can get OS-X for Intel that works just fine? And that Vista looks more and more like OS-X than any Windows before it?

Also...

1) I still haven't had an answer as to why Kubuntu on a 1GHz 256MB P3 runs slower than frozen treacle (i.e. XP); and...

2) Can someone please find for me a really TINY version of UNIX/Linux, suitable to be run on a low-power Pentium with limited memory (say, under 64MB) and plain networking, with a simple & fast desktop and capable of running Firefox and perhaps OpenOffice. Kubuntu was getting there, but I'm looking much smaller if I can get it.

 

[jimlintott]

Zep

I'm not sure what you mean by slower. KDE is so feature rich and therefore pretty demanding on hardware. (I really have no idea. )

If I was to set up an old slow box I would just try Tiny Linux. The real issue is running X and a desktop manager. If you don't run a GUI any distro should be fine.

ETA: On your machine with Kubuntu you might search in the Synaptic package manager for Blackbox. Blackbox is a very minimal light weight desktop manager that might run better. (Windows and Mac users: what options do you have to tailor your OS to an old slow machine?)

 

[cyborg]

I think it's pretty unrealistic to expect any OS to be able to run a modern browser on a system with 64mb of memory and expect any sort of performance - they're just not tuned to such systems any more.

Having said that there are some really nice text-based browsers (Lynx, Links) so that may be adequate for your needs. Don't know if there are any projects concentrating on minimalist graphical browsers that aren't for mobile platforms.

 

[illogical]

a lot of distros use KDE or Gnome by default. that has *absolutely* nothing to do with linux, it is the choice of desktop environment and window manager. i believe XP, VIsta, KDE, and Gnome all need more than 256 meg to function properly.

i thought Apple would want to keep Mac OS running on Mac only. otherwise it dilutes the value of the "system": OS plus applications plus machine. however Sun has chosen (a long time ago) to make both x86 and Sparc versions.

Win 2000 will run on older boxes, but i suspect MS will stop support for it soon.

 

[illogical]

Zep: you might try one of the live distros that can be installed to hard drive. Damn Small Linux (my choice), Slax, Puppy, etc. or Deli linux. Debian might do well on an older machine.

Windows 3.11 is lightweight, but no support for my video or sound cards.

 

[illogical]

Yes, some Windows users do that. Some also do other stupid things. Is this about the users or the OS? Anyone with a whit of common sense shouldn't even need antivirus, but I am running it anyway (I have no sense), and it's taking a total of 30MiB of memory; not really that bulky. If I run something like Clamware, it takes far less memory. So Windows users don't 'have to buy' bulky on-access scanners at all.

ClamAV does not have an on-access scanner, although there are ways to turn it into one. it also has primitive heuristics which don't match those of KAV. in fact, for years it had no heuristics at all!

in addition it lacks of the features of the antivirus/firewall/IPS offerings which you directly compared it to.

(but Vista doesn't, and the short manual for XP advised you not to do so). (We've been on IE7 for a while now, but I use Firefox anyway. There's also Opera, and various others). (Yes, an OS from over half a decade ago has a vulnerability in it. Well done).

there are whole wikis devoted to running XP at user level. for the average user, it's more difficult than you imply.

you obviously don't know anything about how Windows works. just because *you* are logged in a user account, there are still services and other code running as admin. the GDI+ bug being a perfect example.

Apparently it takes you a month. It takes me as long as it takes to install, plus a little time (how little depends on definition of 'workable') to set to my preferences. One to two hours, maybe, if I'm sat at it the whole time.

i call ******** on this one. apps have to be loaded, registry tweaks, garbage turned off, etc. the only way to do that in an hour is with scripts, which are much harder to do on WIndows than linux.

 

[Rat]

ClamAV does not have an on-access scanner, although there are ways to turn it into one. it also has primitive heuristics which don't match those of KAV. in fact, for years it had no heuristics at all!

in addition it lacks of the features of the antivirus/firewall/IPS offerings which you directly compared it to.

Yes it does. And, as I said, no one should really need AV anyway. If you're not doing anything stupid, you won't get a virus. If you are doing something stupid, then Clamware may help. I am running McAfee purely because I got it free. There are times it has annoyed me, but so far not enough to uninstall it. That said, in a couple of decades of using PCs, and over ten years of using Windows, I have so far not seen a virus on my own machine.

there are whole wikis devoted to running XP at user level. for the average user, it's more difficult than you imply.

you obviously don't know anything about how Windows works. just because *you* are logged in a user account, there are still services and other code running as admin. the GDI+ bug being a perfect example.

Yup, you've got me. Promise not to tell my employers?

i call ******** on this one. apps have to be loaded, registry tweaks, garbage turned off, etc. the only way to do that in an hour is with scripts, which are much harder to do on WIndows than linux.

You can call whatever you like on this one. It really depends what you mean by 'workable', and you're clearly using a different definition to mine. I load up, on average, about one Windows machine a week.

It's up to about an hour from first booting from the install disk to having a working, but basic, machine, not including any disk formatting that may be necessary. A couple of minutes to set desktop and explorer preferences, which I can only assume is what you mean by 'garbage turned off'. Then I'll usually download updates; this can take some time, as it's often around 100MiB, but that's down to network speed. Something like half an hour to install and set up Office, including Outlook setup for Exchange mail. A similar time to install other the other odds and ends that we put on by default - Java, Quicktime, IrfanView, and so on. I imagine you also have to install apps on other OSes, don't you? If not, then MS can hardly be blamed for that, as various legal rulings make it difficult for them to bundle stuff with Windows. I can't imagine what registry tweaks you consider necessary for a workable machine. Some that are useful, perhaps, in some situations, but not necessary. So, as I said, a total of a couple of hours, of which I am free to do other tasks (while Windows installs &c) for about half.

I have installed hundreds of such machines over the years. Apart from hardware failure and problems with particular apps (notably AutoCAD), none of these machines has suffered any problems that can be laid at the door of Windows. We have had exactly one virus problem, which was caused by a coincidence of my laxity in rolling out AV updates on time and a user running an exe file in his personal webmail from someone he'd never heard of, which was against company rules, and for which, effectively, he was sacked.

 

[Dan O.]

I load up, on average, about one Windows machine a week.

It's up to about an hour from first booting from the install disk to having a working, but basic, machine, not including any disk formatting that may be necessary. A couple of minutes to set desktop and explorer preferences, which I can only assume is what you mean by 'garbage turned off'. Then I'll usually download updates; this can take some time, as it's often around 100MiB, but that's down to network speed. Something like half an hour to install and set up Office, including Outlook setup for Exchange mail. A similar time to install other the other odds and ends that we put on by default - Java, Quicktime, IrfanView, and so on. I imagine you also have to install apps on other OSes, don't you?...I have installed hundreds of such machines over the years.

I've asked this at work and assume they just don't know what they are doing. But why can't you just create a master configured system disk and clone it for each system you need to install.

 

[illogical]

I've asked this at work and assume they just don't know what they are doing. But why can't you just create a master configured system disk and clone it for each system you need to install.

Dan, they do that at larger companies which are deploying many workstations with similar hardware and configurations.

while Rat is correct that most OS require extra apps, many win applications are not made for unattended install.

 

[Schneibster]

I've got SuSE 10.2 running pretty nicely on a 233MHz 128MB 40GB machine, an old Dell Latitude. You do have to go turn off a bunch of zen and powermanagement and other crap daemons that you don't need, and slim X down some, but while I wouldn't call it snappy, it's better than XP was, and as far as I can remember better than '95 and '98 were, too. It's running KDE, if you can stand KDE. I've never minded it personally, but I liked FVWM2, so never mind. I basically skipped 2000, since a) '98 did what I wanted and b) I was too busy playing with Linux.

 

[/\/\arko]

does Mac have GTK, etc?

I use Debian-based fink to install KDE and Gnome apps on my Mac OS X.3, haven't tried darwinports yet. (So yes, illogical, Macs can have GTK.)

Today, I finished installing Debian 4.0 (off a regular bootable Netinstall CD) on a fresh partiton on my Mac mini (10.4-based); I created that partition via resizing the original main partition using Boot Camp. I use refit as a boot loader.

Life is good.

 

[rockoon]

You could make a case that bundling Safari would be anti-competitive if Apple controlled 90% or more of the OS market, which Apple does not.

Until recently, Apple held almost 100% of the OS market on its hardware.

However since Safari has no proprietary widgets I am aware of, in theory anyone could write a browser that does everything Safari does and more to compete with Safari. IE contained proprietary systems, which made competing with it directly problematic.

You were going so well with this paragraph until you said "and more" - AND MORE is proprietary. What you are saying is that things are good to go as long as Apple developed it. It is precisely this "AND MORE" which you are claiming Microsoft is some how breaking the law with.

The one you want is "§ 14. Sale, etc., on agreement not to use goods of competitor". The letter of that passage forbids making a sale conditional on the purchaser not using rival products, if doing so would tend to harm competition or lead to a monopoly.

Microsoft does not make sales to Windows users with this condition, and never has. Further, it makes no mention of standards. Your original vent against Microsoft while citing these laws was about browser standards.

Forcing customers to buy IE along with Windows fits the making-a-sale-conditional-etc part and IE's use of unique proprietary systems for rendering web pages combined with Microsoft's dominance of the OS market fits the bit about harming competition and threatening to establish a monopoly.

How dare Microsoft prevent 3rd parties from SELLING a browser by making theirs FREE. When a user buys Windows, they are not also buying IE. IE is free.

If the situation fits both parts of the equation, forced sale and threat to competition, it's illegal.

Since it doesnt fit either, then its legal?

There is scope to question whether making the customer purchase Y along with X should count as forcing the customer to agree not to buy other products which compete with Y, and so be illegal by the letter of that law.

IE is free.

Since the Clayton act is generally referred to as forbidding such acts I strongly suspect that case law has held it to be so, although not having access to a on-line law library I can't verify that.

No need to go that far, since IE is free.

This is a creatively sleazy combination of ad hominem attacks and an attempt to shift the burden of proof, to be sure. Are you by any chance a Politics forum regular? This is the sort of thing I expect to see there more than here.

Attempt to shift the burden of proof? Yawn. I am still waiting for you to cite where the word "standard" arises in the laws under question. The burden of proof is on you since you made the claim that the laws were specifically intended to force companies like Microsoft to follow someone elses standard.

As I said, if you're curious about the technical reasons why IE was dangerous and why IE deliberately made it difficult to write web pages that worked for both IE and everyone else you can go check the details out for yourself.

I know the details. What you dont get is that they are moot. You can bring up irrelevant details all you want, just realize that they do not substantiate your lies.

You can't be "guilty of tying", you can only be "guilty of tying in such a way as to substantially limit competition or create a monopoly". It's a personal judgement call as to whether bundling Safari with the OS substantially limits competition from browsers like Opera, Firefox, iCab and Omniweb. I don't see it as substantial, but you are entitled to your own opinion on the matter. My guess is that if there was a case to be made somebody would have taken Apple to court by now, but that's just a guess.

Apple is well known for substantialy limiting competition on its platform, among these tactics has been forcing developers to use Apples own proprietary development tools.

You're missing the point a bit. It's not illegal to write a buggy browser that is incompatible with existing standards in annoying ways. It's illegal to use an existing monopoly to force such a browser on people, if doing so is going to substantially suppress competition and/or lead to them monopolising the broswer market.

Earlier you claimed that the problem was that they SOLD the browser bundled with the OS (tying.)

Prior to that you claimed the problem was that IE didnt conform to standards.

Now you say that they forced users to use IE. Please make up your mind. You are presenting a moving target.

The software bundled with the Mac OS fails the test for illegality under Clayton on both points. There is no pre-existing monopoly, which is the end of that whole argument, and in addition there is no substantial threat to competition.

Apple doesnt have a monopoly on iTunes?

In this particular case, Microsoft had already agreed not to bundle any software at all, as part of the agreement they signed the last time they were hauled into court on antitrust charges.

Yes. The real case. Not the imaginary one you keep lying about.

Much as convicted child molesters in some jurisdictions are not allowed to go near a school, Microsoft at the time was not allowed to go near non-OS markets with their OS. That was a result of a specific punishment directed at Microsoft, but you seem to have gotten the idea that it represented the law for everybody.

No, you represented this as under the perview of the Clayton act. Its not. Its under the perview of a specific prior judgement against Microsoft. You admit this, so why do you go on defending all that other nonsense (lies) you made up?

Lastly, I'm tired of being called a liar by someone who is clearly not very well informed

Personal attacks.

Please show where, when I have called you a liar, you did not lie. Quite simple, really.

not inclined to do any of their own legwork

I did the legwork and found out that you were lying.

not inclined to be civil and either not inclined to understand what I write or not able to do so.

If you continualy mean something other than what you wrote, then all is lost with you.

 

[JonnyFive]

Heh.

22 54 68 69 73 20 6D 75 73 74 20 62 65 20 77 68 65 72 65 20 70 69 65 73 20 67 6F 20 77 68 65 6E 20 74 68 65 79 20 64 69 65 2E 22 20 2D 20 44 61 6C 65 20 43 6F 6F 70 65 72

Ain't that the truth!

41 20 70 69 74 79 20 74 68 61 74 20 57 69 6e 64 6f 77 73 20 68 61 73 6e 27 74 20 72 6f 74 74 65 64 20 6d 79 20 62 72 61 69 6e 20 79 65 74 2e 20 41 70 70 61 72 65 6e 74 6c 79 20 69 74 27 73 20 6f 6e 6c 79 20 61 20 6d 61 74 74 65 72 20 6f 66 20 74 69 6d 65 2e

You've put too much faith in a mere saying, Starstinker, and your brain has fallen out. It's too late for you, of course, but let your sad fate be a warning to others.

(snip)

I still don't get the nastiness and name-calling, JeffJo, it's quite childish.

If you can't argue for something you're passionate about without resorting to such immature methods, I fear you won't win many friends here - even amongst the most ardent Mac fans.