In article <euWdnaM2NbKfam3cRVn-gg@giganews.com>, Bill Leary wrote:
> "GreyCloud" <cumulus@mist.com> wrote in message
> news:41F0860D.2F12EDA@mist.com...
>> Gactimus wrote:
>> > If the Mac was as popular as XP then it would have its share of viruses.
>>
>> But it can't get them.
>
> Rare, but it can.
>
> http://news.com.com/Mac+users+face+r...3-5424883.html
>

Oh yes, Opener - the only 'virus' to come with a list of installation
instructions :-)

Jim
--
Find me at http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk
"Brace yourself, this might make your eyes water."

In article <41f02ac9$0$66020$abc4f4c3@news.wanadoo.nl>,
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
>Juliana L Holm <jholm@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote in
>news:csp1ld$dpf6$1@osf1.gmu.edu:
>
>> In comp.sys.mac.misc Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, but that's weak at best. It's like saying the Commodore 64 is
>>> better because I'll never get a virus.
>>
>> Consumer Reports does not agree with you; they are recommending
>> Macintoshes for people for this reason.
>>
>> They do everything that Windows PCs do, plus they are much better for
>> any complex graphics task, video editing, animation, sophisticated
>> graphics.
>
>That's probably nice for the 10 people in the world that care about that
>kind of stuff.
>
>> They are more reliable. I have a Mac and my hubby has a PC and we have
>> a PC laptop. The Macintosh stays up forever. The laptop is always
>> slowing to a crawl or defaulting to the "blue screen of death". The
>> desktop PC, fairly new, also crashes more often.
>
>You must just suck. I have never had a problem with my PC running XP now
>over a year old. I leave it on days at a time.

That's a great improvement. I bet you don't leave it on long enough
to overflow a counter field.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

In article <MPG.1c59d7637b04c92898987c@news.individual.net> ,
K Williams <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>In article <zv-dnS7p5pwJYXLcRVn-vQ@bresnan.com>,
>larrycrites@bresnan.net says...
>> What's pron?
>
>Oh, my. Mix up the letters a little.
>
>> JVC (who owned the VHS process) flooded the market and the
>> process to other manufacturers and made it real cheap. Kinda like the
way
>> General Motors builds cars. Sony's Beta format was and still is a
superior
>> process. The NFL used Sony's Super Beta 900 for their Instant Replay
reviews
>> (and may still be using them). I have two of them, and still use them.
Many
>> television stations still use the BetaCam. I have one of those, too.
Blows
>> away the VHS format.
>
>The real reason VHS won was because one could fit a whole movie on one
>(2hours) and its quality was good enough. By the time Beta could fit a
>movie, VHS was up to six hours. Remember, tapes were $20 each (and
>up).
>
It wasn't the $20 price. It had more to do with people not
wanting to get up in the middle of the night switch tapes.
The only other alternative was to buy another recorder; NOW
you're talking serious money.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

In article <i5CdnVn6l5aXmGzcRVn-qg@rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

> In article <MPG.1c59d7637b04c92898987c@news.individual.net> ,
> K Williams <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
> >In article <zv-dnS7p5pwJYXLcRVn-vQ@bresnan.com>,
> >larrycrites@bresnan.net says...
> >> What's pron?
> >
> >Oh, my. Mix up the letters a little.
> >
> >> JVC (who owned the VHS process) flooded the market and the
> >> process to other manufacturers and made it real cheap. Kinda like the
> way
> >> General Motors builds cars. Sony's Beta format was and still is a
> superior
> >> process. The NFL used Sony's Super Beta 900 for their Instant Replay
> reviews
> >> (and may still be using them). I have two of them, and still use them.
> Many
> >> television stations still use the BetaCam. I have one of those, too.
> Blows
> >> away the VHS format.
> >
> >The real reason VHS won was because one could fit a whole movie on one
> >(2hours) and its quality was good enough. By the time Beta could fit a
> >movie, VHS was up to six hours. Remember, tapes were $20 each (and
> >up).
> >
> It wasn't the $20 price. It had more to do with people not
> wanting to get up in the middle of the night switch tapes.
> The only other alternative was to buy another recorder; NOW
> you're talking serious money.
>

That wouldn't have helped in those days. I don't recall any remote
controls on VCRs back when VHS and Beta were fighting it out.

Without a remote, you'd still have to get up and turn the other VCR on.

The "triumph" of VHS over Betamax has much less to do with the supposed
superiority of the Betamax machine over VHS and more to do with the
attitude of the companies backing the standards. JVC, a small company
at the time, took a very humble attitude when approaching companies
asking if they would care to by in to this project. In contrast to
Sony, a big company, who wanted to license the technology to
manufactures but give them no chance for input. The result being Sony
was told to get stuffed and JVC was allowed to pitch their technology.

The success of VHS was sealed in the US when JVC licensed the
technology to the main media company of the time whose name I can't
currently recal. The crux of the deal being that americans wanted a
tape that could record a full football game without changing tapes.
VHS gave them that feature. Sony later tried to add this feature to
their standard but was too late.

In Europe, there was less to record on TV at the time but there were an
abundance of American movies to rent, which were now being knocked out
on VHS. Hence people rented VHS players and tapes, and later when the
price fell, bought VHS. A technical advantages of the Betamax standard
were outweighed by VHS's strategy of giving customers what they wanted.
Some say that the inferior technology won others say it is a classic
advantage of survival of hte fittest and Betamax wasn't it.

Similar examples have played out with QWERTY vs Dvorak and to a lesser
extent PC vs Mac. Technical superiority is a dubious metric for
predicting success of a product.

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message news:i5CdnVn6l5aXmGzcRVn-qg@rcn.net
> In article <MPG.1c59d7637b04c92898987c@news.individual.net> ,
> K Williams <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>> In article <zv-dnS7p5pwJYXLcRVn-vQ@bresnan.com>,
>> larrycrites@bresnan.net says...
>>> What's pron?
>>
>> Oh, my. Mix up the letters a little.
>>
>>> JVC (who owned the VHS process) flooded the market and the
>>> process to other manufacturers and made it real cheap. Kinda like
>>> the way General Motors builds cars. Sony's Beta format was and
>>> still is a superior process. The NFL used Sony's Super Beta 900 for
>>> their Instant Replay reviews (and may still be using them). I have
>>> two of them, and still use them. Many television stations still use
>>> the BetaCam. I have one of those, too. Blows away the VHS format.
>>
>> The real reason VHS won was because one could fit a whole movie on
>> one (2hours) and its quality was good enough. By the time Beta could
>> fit a movie, VHS was up to six hours. Remember, tapes were $20 each
>> (and up).
>>
> It wasn't the $20 price. It had more to do with people not
> wanting to get up in the middle of the night switch tapes.
> The only other alternative was to buy another recorder; NOW
> you're talking serious money.
>
> /BAH
>
> Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

Like this? jmfbah@aol.com

jmfbah@aol.com
jmfbah@aol.com
jmfbah@aol.com
jmfbah@aol.com
jmfbah@aol.com
jmfbah@aol.com
jmfbah@aol.com
jmfbah@aol.com
jmfbah@aol.com
jmfbah@aol.com
jmfbah@aol.com
jmfbah@aol.com

--
Gloria Goitre

In article <tq9Id.143$PB.55@okepread01>, Gactimus wrote:
> Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis@SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote in
> news:6eg1v0pahv9rrhvap6eaarcuima42m8lii@4ax.com:
>
>> On 20 Jan 2005 16:08:41 GMT in alt.folklore.computers, Gactimus
>> <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
>>
>>> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
>>> cute, but not very functional.
>>>
>>> The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.
>>
>> You gotta love the new imac, built around the LCD screen; blurs the
>> boundary between portable, desktop, and server; runs Mach/BSD/OS-X
>> Unix on a PPC with Mac GUI; offers simplicity, reliability,
>> robustness.
>
> And non-upgradable.

Not actually true. It's about as upgradable as the average laptop.

Jim
--
Find me at http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk
"Brace yourself, this might make your eyes water."

In article <tq9Id.143$PB.55@okepread01>, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

> Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis@SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote in
> news:6eg1v0pahv9rrhvap6eaarcuima42m8lii@4ax.com:
>
> > On 20 Jan 2005 16:08:41 GMT in alt.folklore.computers, Gactimus
> > <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
> >
> >> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
> >> cute, but not very functional.
> >>
> >> The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.
> >
> > You gotta love the new imac, built around the LCD screen; blurs the
> > boundary between portable, desktop, and server; runs Mach/BSD/OS-X
> > Unix on a PPC with Mac GUI; offers simplicity, reliability,
> > robustness.
>
> And non-upgradable.

Exactly, it's one cool package.

--
Sandman[.net]

> And it's amusing that the Mac Fanatics tend to consider themselves the
> "elite" of computer users, yet they sing Apple's praises for making the Mac
> so "user-friendly". I guess that makes Mac users stupid, since they use
> Macs because they can't figure out Windows even though 90% of the planet
> does without any problem.

You're right that 90% of computer users are using Windows (probably).
But "without problem"? Come on, every computer in the world has
problems, and Windows most of all.

There are 3 types of computer users: 1) home users who only want to
browse the internet and do basic tasks, 2) business users who have to
have one to run a software suite necessary to do their job, and 3)
gamers, hobbyists, and technophiles. Arguably there is a 4th - students
- but they tend to be a mix of all 3.

There are reasons why each group might choose one computer over another,
and any platform is not necessarily a bad choice when weighing all the
options.

Also, I call shenanigans on your whole attitude. There's no way a
person can be that angry over what other people choose to do with their
money.

> Just in case you haven't fuckin' noticed, you useless, dense fuck on
> a stick, this is Usenet. So just how the fuck do you propose doing
> what your faggot brain craves, eh? <shakes head>
> [Dumb Mac cunts] <{tempter}
>
> And even it if it wasn't Usenet, I would smash your fucked up head
> into the concrete paving, then dragging it through to the underside
> leaving your shattered psyche in bits and crumpled carcass draped
> over your headstone, I'd take you "mac" and ram it up your shitter
> in front of all your bum buddies. Faggot.

Nope, no overcompensating here. Really, just admit to yourself that you
are what you are, then it will be much easier to tell your parents and
friends. After you finally stop living a lie, you'll have much less rage.