 |
| |
|
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
What's also interesting to note is that Windows XP will remain the sole Windows OS for consumers for sale until 2005 when Longhorn comes out.
2001->2005 == 4 years without forcing consumers to pay to upgrade their OS.
And MS has released many free updates already (.NET Framework 1.0 and 1.1, USB 2.0 support, Bluetooth support, Windows Media 9, Windows Movie Maker 2, DirectX 9, SP1, etc). And they're planning to continue updating this stuff for free until the release.
How often does Apple release a new OS X for sale? Every year almost? |
hi ,
bluetooth , well if anything at all regarding this , bluetooth is a free open source standard , .... the only thing MS did was to make some programs work with it , ...
not an upgrade , .... bluetooth aint owned by ms , ..... 
framework for usb , .....  
at least if you where to read whats posted ones in a while at www.apple.com you would know something about upgrades and our os , .....
have a nice day 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by panag
hi ,
bluetooth , well if anything at all regarding this , bluetooth is a free open source standard , .... the only thing MS did was to make some programs work with it , ... |
MS was one of the developers in the consortium of companies who made Bluetooth.
And Bluetooth is a "free open source standard"?
I can tell this is not your field. 
That's like me describing a Lexus as a free four-laned highway.
The Bluetooth consortium is: 3Com, Agere, Ericsson, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Motorola, Nokia and Toshiba. Now where in that list is Apple?
quote:
not an upgrade , .... bluetooth aint owned by ms , ..... |
Huh?
quote:
framework for usb , ..... |
Huh?
quote:
at least if you where to read whats posted ones in a while at www.apple.com you would know something about upgrades and our os , ..... |
The stuff that's posted at Apple.com is biased crap, just like **** you'd see on Microsoft.com or Intel.com, only Apple is about 4x as worse as any of the above.
I know that OS X 10.2 wasn't free, and I know that SP1 was free. I know MS isn't planning on releasing another consumer OS before 2005, and I know Apple is.
So what is that, 3 interim releases for $100+ from Apple, and 0 from MS between 2001-2005?
Meanwhile MS will have 2 interim releases, plus a steady stream of individual updates, for free... 
Last edited by Asher on 16-05-2003 at 03:56
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
I have always appreciated the difference between PCs and Macs as... cost.
Macs are aimed at creative people who don't want to know the gory details of computers - they just want to use them.
PCs are for everybody else. Their raw power is greater than a Mac, but most of them have the handicap of an MS OS. The upside of the MS OS is a greater choice of software.
You get what you pay for. With Macs, you pay through the nose.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
MS was one of the developers in the consortium of companies who made Bluetooth.
And Bluetooth is a "free open source standard"?
I can tell this is not your field.
That's like me describing a Lexus as a free four-laned highway.
Huh?
Huh?
The stuff that's posted at Apple.com is biased crap, just like **** you'd see on Microsoft.com or Intel.com, only Apple is about 4x as worse as any of the above.
I know that OS X 10.2 wasn't free, and I know that SP1 was free. I know MS isn't planning on releasing another consumer OS before 2005, and I know Apple is.
So what is that, 3 interim releases for $100+ from Apple, and 0 from MS between 2001-2005?
Meanwhile MS will have 2 interim releases, plus a steady stream of individual updates, for free... |
hi ,
ms one of the first developers , .....
not even in a thousand years , .....
you dont even know when the next ' CAT ' from apple hits the market , ..... tsk , tsk , .....
are you sure you know what bluetooth is and what it stands for , ......
oh , btw , panag was one of the first 100 "sig" users , ....
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by panag
hi ,
ms one of the first developers , ..... |
Look, man, here's the list of developers from the Bluetooth website: 3Com, Agere, Ericsson, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Motorola, Nokia and Toshiba.
Now if you look really close, you'll see that Microsoft is on there, and Apple is not on there.
Give it up, you've no idea what you're talking about, you're an Apple PR machine...
quote:
are you sure you know what bluetooth is and what it stands for , ...... |
You're questioning my knowledge about computer technology?
www.bluetooth.com
click the "All Members" button in the bottom right.
You'll see there are different levels:
Promoter Members
The Bluetooth SIG promoter members include: 3Com, Agere, Ericsson, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Motorola, Nokia, and Toshiba. Promoter companies are highly engaged in the strategic and [b]technical development of Bluetooth wireless technology[b]. In addition to sitting on the Board of Directors, Promoter members sit on the Bluetooth Qualification Review Board (BQRB), and dedicate hundreds of individuals to the Committees and Working Groups that guide the ongoing development and promotion of the technology.
Apple is a "second class" member, an "Associate Member", along with about 1000 other companies that don't do much but use the technology...not to mention they have to pay an annual fee.
I thought you said bluetooth was "free" and "open-source"
It's also interesting to point out Apple didn't play a role in Bluetooth's development, while MS did. Seems you got that backwards, too.
Cut your losses, man.
Last edited by Asher on 16-05-2003 at 04:08
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Look, man, here's the list of developers from the Bluetooth website: 3Com, Agere, Ericsson, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Motorola, Nokia and Toshiba.
Now if you look really close, you'll see that Microsoft is on there, and Apple is not on there.
Give it up, you've no idea what you're talking about, you're an Apple PR machine...
You're questioning my knowledge about computer technology? |
hi ,
ms was not even near when bluettoth was born , ....
check the older statements from the wall street journal , cnn , etc , ....
and huh , where does any of the above posts say that apple was there from the start , ....
being registerd member no 96 from the special intrest group has its benefits , ....
MS came way later , .... when they saw the light of it , ......
after they had been saying for years that there was no future what so ever in it , ....
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Look, man, here's the list of developers from the Bluetooth website: 3Com, Agere, Ericsson, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Motorola, Nokia and Toshiba.
Now if you look really close, you'll see that Microsoft is on there, and Apple is not on there.
Give it up, you've no idea what you're talking about, you're an Apple PR machine...
You're questioning my knowledge about computer technology? |
hi ,
oh yes , if you where to know about bluetooth then you would know that bluetooth .com came way later , after this > www.bluetooth.org , ......
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by panag
hi ,
ms was not even near when bluettoth was born , ....
check the older statements from the wall street journal , cnn , etc , ....
and huh , where does any of the above posts say that apple was there from the start , ....
being registerd member no 96 from the special intrest group has its benefits , ....
MS came way later , .... when they saw the light of it , ......
after they had been saying for years that there was no future what so ever in it , ....
have a nice day |
You're pulling this all out of your ass.
www.bluetooth.com
click the "All Members" button in the bottom right.
You'll see there are different levels:
Promoter Members being the highest
The Bluetooth SIG promoter members include: 3Com, Agere, Ericsson, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Motorola, Nokia, and Toshiba. Promoter companies are highly engaged in the strategic and technical development of Bluetooth wireless technology. In addition to sitting on the Board of Directors, Promoter members sit on the Bluetooth Qualification Review Board (BQRB), and dedicate hundreds of individuals to the Committees and Working Groups that guide the ongoing development and promotion of the technology.
Apple is a "second class" member, an "Associate Member", along with about 1000 other companies that don't do much but use the technology...not to mention they have to pay an annual fee.
I thought you said bluetooth was "free" and "open-source"
It's also interesting to point out Apple didn't play a role in Bluetooth's development, while MS did. Seems you got that backwards, too.
Cut your losses, man.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
You're pulling this all out of your ass.
www.bluetooth.com
click the "All Members" button in the bottom right.
You'll see there are different levels:
Promoter Members being the highest
The Bluetooth SIG promoter members include: 3Com, Agere, Ericsson, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Motorola, Nokia, and Toshiba. Promoter companies are highly engaged in the strategic and technical development of Bluetooth wireless technology. In addition to sitting on the Board of Directors, Promoter members sit on the Bluetooth Qualification Review Board (BQRB), and dedicate hundreds of individuals to the Committees and Working Groups that guide the ongoing development and promotion of the technology.
Apple is a "second class" member, an "Associate Member", along with about 1000 other companies that don't do much but use the technology...not to mention they have to pay an annual fee.
I thought you said bluetooth was "free" and "open-source"
It's also interesting to point out Apple didn't play a role in Bluetooth's development, while MS did. Seems you got that backwards, too.
Cut your losses, man. |
hi ,
if i where to pull it from my behind , then how com i happen to be one of the speakers at the conference in holland in june , ....
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
I am.
I asked around about OS X and defragging. It's basically a non-issue for most users (although it's a matter of minor debate). Apparently it has to do with the fact that UNIX has a much better file system than Windows which results in defragmentation being not much of an issue. I suppose that explains the fact that I've never defragged my disk and never been subject to slowdowns.
Of course you could defrag your hard disk every couple of years or so (which is about all it'd need at the most), but it's cheaper (and probably not much more time intensive) to burn all your files onto CD and reinstall the system.
So much for your vaunted infallible computer knowledge Asher. |
That post is filled with so much bullshit, that I don't know where to begin.
First of all, there are MANY filesystems for UNIX, and only a few of them are remotely comparable to NTFS in terms of technology, speed, and stability. And no, Mac OS X doesn't use any of them. Linux does, though.
Second of all, every filesystem needas a defragger for optimal performance. There is no question, whatsoever, about that. Mac zealots and morons in general will tell you you don't need one, which is only true if you don't give a damn about speed, but I think it's ridiculous Apple refuses to include one because they're too inept to code one.
Quite frankly, you and panag are demonstrating quite clearly why people buy Macs -- it's because they clearly don't have a f*cking idea how computers work, and what they're buying.
And if you seriously talked to people who you claim are more knowledgable about it than me and said MacOS X doesn't need a defragger because it "has a better filesystem", you're either being fed bullshit intentionally, or the guy obviously isn't as bright as you think he is because he doesn't understand how hard drives work.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
My system has never been defragged and doesn't seem to have lost any speed at all. |
quote:
That's going on three years now. Am I witness to a miracle? I don't think so: I don't believe in miracles. |
What you're witnessing is the slow degradation over time, of course you don't suddenly realize it.
quote:
You can't fight the facts. |
How could I? You brought forth such indisputable facts about Fitts' law (which was blatantly wrong), you claimed it's "cheaper" to burn your files to a CD and reinstall everything instead of using the FREE defragger (which was blatantly wrong), you claimed that MacOS X's lack of a defragger is a nonissue (which is fine, because Mac users obviously don't care about speed), but then you went on to imply that the reason it's a nonissue is because it really doesn't need one (which is blatantly wrong).
Let's really face facts, Agathon, and those are simply that you don't know what you're talking about (consistently in this thread, and in general), you have yet to provide any facts to refute the age-old knowledge about hard-drives and defraggers you'll find in any elementary storage textbook or course, and you also refuse to back anything up that you say aside from anecdotal evidence.
As far as arguments are considered, yours are non-existant, and you're out of your league.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
I'm sorry I don't believe you. Up until this debate I considered you pretty well informed about computers, now I don't. All I see is a zealot who will stick up for MS come what may.
For the record. I bothered to ask around and look. The answer I got was either it's a non-issue or it's still a matter of debate. I don't care either way.
My system has never been defragged and doesn't seem to have lost any speed at all. That's going on three years now. Am I witness to a miracle? I don't think so: I don't believe in miracles.
You can't fight the facts. |
hi ,
well for what its worth , having two comps ( identical ) with a different OS ( win98 ) just to play PTW , the games are faster after a defrag , every day 
as compared to the cat series , ... they dont loose any speed , .....
so it has to be the OS , .....
yes the games are same size , level , etc , ....
and guess what needs to be done under windows , ...... burn backups
have a nice night apple , ibm , compac , dell , ... whatever user you might be
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
What you're witnessing is the slow degradation over time, of course you don't suddenly realize it. |
That's the best you can do? I suppose I should have noticed a difference in performance between mine and the systems I set up for colleagues this year. Hey I didn't? Wow....
quote:
How could I? You brought forth such indisputable facts about Fitts' law (which was blatantly wrong) |
Hardly, you just interpreted that to suit yourself. A corollary of Fitt's law is that areas at the edge of the screen (esp the corners) are easier to capture than those at the centre. That's why the Apple menu bar is at the top. (Of course it is a criticism of the Dock that it doesn't take advantage of the corners - but hey, look I can accept just criticism of the Dock without going over the deep end, like some people do).
quote:
you claimed it's "cheaper" to burn your files to a CD and reinstall everything instead of using the FREE defragger (which was blatantly wrong) |
A standard piece of advice for home computer owners is that it is worth reinstalling everything every two or three years. Why bother defragging if you are going to do this anyway? It would be a waste of time.
quote:
you claimed that MacOS X's lack of a defragger is a nonissue (which is fine, because Mac users obviously don't care about speed), but then you went on to imply that the reason it's a nonissue is because it really doesn't need one (which is blatantly wrong). |
So far no proof forthcoming from you, is there?
quote:
Let's really face facts, Agathon, and those are simply that you don't know what you're talking about |
I have enough of an idea to know when you are resorting to sophistry and fanaticism. And, frankly, that's all I need to see through you.
quote:
you have yet to provide any facts to refute the age-old knowledge about hard-drives and defraggers you'll find in any elementary storage textbook or course, and you also refuse to back anything up that you say aside from anecdotal evidence. |
Go look for yourself. Don't take my word for it - I'm certainly not taking yours.
quote:
As far as arguments are considered, yours are non-existant, and you're out of your league. |
If the league is, as I suspect, the 4th division spotty Microsoft worshippers after-school league, then I suppose I'm not in it.
Well I think I've laughed enough....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
That's the best you can do? I suppose I should have noticed a difference in performance between mine and the systems I set up for colleagues this year. Hey I didn't? Wow.... |
If you understood how harddrives work, even mechanically (ignoring the filesystems), you'd see how obvious and how undeniable it is that fragmentation occurs. You also would realize how undeniable it is that when fragmentation occurs, access times become higher. And you would also realize how undeniable it is that when access times are higher, performance is lower.
quote:
Hardly, you just interpreted that to suit yourself. A corollary of Fitt's law is that areas at the edge of the screen (esp the corners) are easier to capture than those at the centre. That's why the Apple menu bar is at the top. |
Again, this is complete bull and completely unrelated to Fitts' Law. Read the damn law for yourself, it simply gives the average time to move the cursor to an area on the screen. And seeing as the mouse cursor is most frequently near the MIDDLE of the screen, Fitts' law states that having it far-and-away at the very top of the screen will have higher access times.
quote:
A standard piece of advice for home computer owners is that it is worth reinstalling everything every two or three years. Why bother defragging if you are going to do this anyway? It would be a waste of time. |
Why don't we just rebuild our car engines every two to three years, too? 
Who cares if all it needs is a free tune-up??
quote:
So far no proof forthcoming from you, is there? |
No proof? How can I prove it?
It's so blatantly obvious to anyone who understands how harddrive works, that it's hard to find links which prove that defragmentation is needed on OS X.
I'm telling you, point blank, that the OS X file system is neither advanced, nor is it very special. It requires defragging like every other filesystem out there in order to have optimum performance. It's a very simple fact with computer storage, much like having an oil-change every X miles is a good idea for your car. It's hard to "prove" online, but it's a "duh" thing to most people.
quote:
I have enough of an idea to know when you are resorting to sophistry and fanaticism. And, frankly, that's all I need to see through you. |
Wait, aren't you the one that tried to resort to Fitts' law (sophistry, even though you made an ass out of yourself because you still clearly don't understand it), and aren't you the one trying to argue against common sense, using only anecdotal evidence, that MacOS X needs no defragger (fanaticism)?
That's rich...
quote:
Go look for yourself. |
I haven't found anything. Maybe that's cause it's bull?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-05-2003 09:16
|