Gactimus wrote:
> "Keyser Soze" <chrisv@BadgirlsRule.com> wrote in
> news:2g35c2-b6p.nsi$h1t@usenet.dk:
>
>
>>"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
>>news:41efd786$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl
>>
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>Mac is for faggots
>
>
> That's why their computers have all those pretty colors.

oh, shame...
but its not your fault guys...
nature can be so weird, mean and cruel.
i am so sorry...

i wish you more luck in next life,
and all best in this one

vladimir

"o-chan" <poda@REMOVEmac.com> wrote in message
news:csopj5$7fba$1@netnews.upenn.edu
> Keyser Soze wrote:
>> "Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
>> news:41efd786$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Mac is for faggots like linux is for faggot cunts.
>
> Thinking that your choice of computer is what makes you a man is why
> you'll never be one.

Are you saying that whilst admitting to being a faggot
yourself, you cannot see yourself as a man, regardless
what computer you have?

--
Some Big Cunt

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

Actually, a Mac is more like a modern day TiVo.

It's "God's machine"...

PC's are like VHS: slow, poor quality, bulky, and found in the so called
$1 bargain bin... so only white trash still buy them...

Oxford <csma@mac.com> wrote in
news:csma-3FC542.10434620012005@news.uswest.net:

> Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
>
> Actually, a Mac is more like a modern day TiVo.
>
> It's "God's machine"...
>
> PC's are like VHS: slow, poor quality, bulky, and found in the so called
> $1 bargain bin...

So now Macs are better because they cost more? <snicker>

> so only white trash still buy them...

Actually, everybody buys them except for the religious Mac fanatics.

While stranded on the hard shoulder of the information super highway gactimus@xrs.net typed:
> 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.

The Betamax was a much better system than VHS; higher tape to
head speed meant better picture quality. The VHS manufacturers
just had better spin doctors

--
Trog Woolley | trog at trogwoolley dot com
(A Croweater back residing in Pommie Land with Linux)
Isis Astarte Diana Hecate Demeter Kali Inanna

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:22:55 +0000 (UTC), Trog Woolley
<trog@email.fake> wrote:

>While stranded on the hard shoulder of the information super highway gactimus@xrs.net typed:
>> 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.
>
>The Betamax was a much better system than VHS; higher tape to
>head speed meant better picture quality. The VHS manufacturers
>just had better spin doctors

Thats not true. VHS won because of pron.

Trog Woolley <trog@email.fake> wrote in
news:csostv$efa$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk:

> While stranded on the hard shoulder of the information super highway
> gactimus@xrs.net typed:
>
>> 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.
>
> The Betamax was a much better system than VHS; higher tape to
> head speed meant better picture quality. The VHS manufacturers
> just had better spin doctors

Sounds a lot like Apple's iPod. An inferior product that gained an early
lead due to great marketing. Although I think that a lot of people are
catching on to the iPod scam.

In article <41efe552$0$73866$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>,
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
>Jim <Jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote in
>news:slrncuvp33.1gob.Jim@odin.magrathea.local:

>> In article <41efe2fa$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus wrote:

>>> Jim <Jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote in
>>> news:slrncuvo3p.1ggb.Jim@odin.magrathea.local:

>>>> In article <41efd786$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus
>>>> wrote:

>>>>> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
>>>>> cute, but not very functional.

>>>> Please describe how it is 'not very functional', otherwise people may
>>>> just think you're a troll.

>>> So, what can a Mac do that a PC can't?

>> Stay connected to the internet without getting infected?

>Sorry, but that's weak at best. It's like saying the Commodore 64 is better
>because I'll never get a virus.

No, it's actually a *very* strong argument, at least for home users.

Reason it through. You have two systems, both of which can do
everything the average user needs to do. But one of those systems
(Windows) is subject to a hideous and chronic problem, and people
who use that system are at a high risk of having it hijacked by
malicious outsiders, with all sort of really nasty potential
consequences. The other system (the Mac), for whatever reason,
has proven to be almost totally immune to this problem. Now, which
system is the better choice for the average home user? Do you
really need any more information than this?

The fact is that as things stand today, for most home users the
virus argument (all by its self -- never mind the technical
superiority of the Mac) is a game winning home run for Apple. It
is totally foolish right now for the average home user to chose a
Windows machine over a Mac, unless he is a gamer, or needs to run
some Windows specific program, or unless he really can't afford
the extra hundred bucks or so (amortized over several years) that
a Mac will cost him. Most home users don't fall into any of those
categories, and the only thing that keeps them buying Windows
machines is ignorance and inertia.

And you know, this is the sort of thing that can change suddenly.
I wouldn't bet a lot of money on it, but I think there is a
non-trivial chance that sometime in the next two or three years we
could reach a "tipping point," where the buying public suddenly
catches on about security, and the result is a huge spike in Apple's
market share. Remember, you read it here first! :-)
--
John Brock
jbrock@panix.com

What's pron? 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.

Larry
Behold Beware Believe

<jfizer> wrote in message news:1stvu01k52g7ddi6188fkm08av96rar6ij@4ax.com...
| On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:22:55 +0000 (UTC), Trog Woolley
| <trog@email.fake> wrote:
|
| >While stranded on the hard shoulder of the information super highway
gactimus@xrs.net typed:
| >> 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.
| >
| >The Betamax was a much better system than VHS; higher tape to
| >head speed meant better picture quality. The VHS manufacturers
| >just had better spin doctors
|
| Thats not true. VHS won because of pron.

Maybe because people who write viruses and worms don't want to spend the
extra money for Apples because there's not very many to infect and thus get
their jollies?

Larry
Behold Beware Believe

"John Brock" <jbrock@panix.com> wrote in message
news:csou4n$6g5$1@panix3.panix.com...
| In article <41efe552$0$73866$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>,
| Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
| >Jim <Jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote in
| >news:slrncuvp33.1gob.Jim@odin.magrathea.local:
|
| >> In article <41efe2fa$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus wrote:
|
| >>> Jim <Jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote in
| >>> news:slrncuvo3p.1ggb.Jim@odin.magrathea.local:
|
| >>>> In article <41efd786$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus
| >>>> wrote:
|
| >> Stay connected to the internet without getting infected?
|
| No, it's actually a *very* strong argument, at least for home users.
|
| Reason it through. You have two systems, both of which can do
| everything the average user needs to do. But one of those systems
| (Windows) is subject to a hideous and chronic problem, and people
| who use that system are at a high risk of having it hijacked by
| malicious outsiders, with all sort of really nasty potential
| consequences. The other system (the Mac), for whatever reason,
| has proven to be almost totally immune to this problem. Now, which
| system is the better choice for the average home user? Do you
| really need any more information than this?
| --
| John Brock
| jbrock@panix.com
|