Mac-zealotry at its worst. Very comedic.

Ignatz · Mar 9, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by MrCatbert: Sorry, Ignatz, but ya gotta love some of PeterB's comments<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh, but I do. I didnÂ´t write that drivel up there to smack him or anything. I think thatÂ´s pretty obvious if you read it. I find his commentary and punchlines to be a good read, but IÂ´d like him to address adversaries that are not obvious idiots. That is his choice however.

FXWizard · Mar 9, 2000

All I can say is, as someone who works with both platforms but prefers Macs, that Schultz rant (can't call it an article) is one big honkin' embarrassment...

Silicon · Mar 9, 2000

The "stolen" stuff is the GUI. Since Windows has a GUI after MacOS had a GUI then it is stolen. Yet if all PC OSes were command line only then Mac zealots would attack the PC for not having a GUI OS. So which shall it be? Attack for not having a modern OS, or attack for "stealing" their innovation?

MrCatbert · Mar 9, 2000

Except neither Apple nor Microsoft invented the GUI... And how many claims do you see that any of the *nix GUI's or Be's GUI was ripped off from Apple? Even though Be's GUI is much closer to that of the MacOS than Win9x's or NT4's or Win2k's. The whole argument is like saying carmaker x ripped off carmaker y because they both make vehicles that have four wheels and an engine. Seems kinda silly to keep dredging up crap that happened in the days of Windows 1.0 anyway, doesn't it?

Roostahman · Mar 9, 2000

The silhouetted soldier at the beginning of that 'article' has a blank adapter on his weapon. Like that soldier, this clown is shooting blanks.*Whap* "What was that? Oh, just a Mac fanatic trying to annoy me. So what was that you were saying about GHz processors?"PeterB: HIGHLY amusing retort. Good work.[This message has been edited by Roostahman (edited March 09, 2000).]

Mondo · Mar 9, 2000

deleted[This message has been edited by Mondo (edited March 09, 2000).]

Roostahman · Mar 9, 2000

AAAACK. Sorry, don't know what happened here.[This message has been edited by Roostahman (edited March 09, 2000).]

Mondo · Mar 9, 2000

Sure, Apple may be trading at $120, but it's market cap is about $20 billion. Meanwhile, here's the current performance of other stocks:Dell stock price: $49 market cap: $126 BCompaq stock price: $27 market cap: $45 BGateway stock price: $63 market cap: $20 BIt's amazing that, for giving away free software, Red Hat's at half the size of Apple already View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

webslacker · Mar 9, 2000

Is Red Hat even turning a profit? Or is their stock just based on hype like Amazon/Yahoo? Just curious.

UncaMilty · Mar 9, 2000

He didn't apply the "rules of war" very well, either. He forgets that a war is often a series of battles, and that strategy and tactics must suit the occasion and situation. He seems to feel that there's a PC/Mac Armaggedon coming, an all-encompassing, winner-take-all bloodbath.He blurs the line between "we" (Mac supporters) and "we" (Apple). You shouldn't scatter your tanks all over the battlefield. View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifHe offers little in the way of real ammunition. "Tell them how much Windows sucks!" isn't really going to quiet your opponent in a flame-fest, methinks.In other words, he grossly underestimates his enemy. In particular, he assumes that PC users the world over are marching into chat rooms just to flame -him-. Someone should explain that it's the same guy using six different screen names. View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifMilton Teruel www.uncamilty.com

Willim · Mar 10, 2000

Actually Ignatz, I thought PeterB's whole post had a very definite point.The article he was responding to was not based in a factual manner. Peter addressed this in a specific manner adding many facts to points he made. While you concider this nitpicking, I consider it educational. I am a pc user and as I mentioned in a earlier post, I don't really care about mac's one way or another, but I would appreciate a more objective way to present the mac than to draw lines in the sand and call names. For me, this type of posting(PeterB's post)shows that he was more interested in what the reader might learn. This is why I come to Ars technica.

SuperTech68 · Mar 10, 2000

You know that David Schultz's "article" does serve a purpose to irritate, and that's about it.Any knowledgable, factual computer user, like most people, will see a whining child looking for attention and just ignore it.Me? I just *shrug* and move on to something better and newer.Gee, ya think X-Box (Microsoft product) will beat an iMac (Apple product) in gaming performance? View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifSuperTech68 Gamer@Heart

Laen · Mar 10, 2000

Supertech68......that is just plain mean. View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Of course it may beat a PC too, so we shall see.

Ignatz · Mar 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Willim: Actually Ignatz, I thought PeterB's whole post had a very definite point.The article he was responding to was not based in a factual manner. Peter addressed this in a specific manner adding many facts to points he made. While you concider this nitpicking, I consider it educational. I am a pc user and as I mentioned in a earlier post, I don't really care about mac's one way or another, but I would appreciate a more objective way to present the mac than to draw lines in the sand and call names. For me, this type of posting(PeterB's post)shows that he was more interested in what the reader might learn. This is why I come to Ars technica. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>OMFG. OMFG. OMFG.PeterB please stop posting, you are corrupting the PC-jugend. View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifCouldnÂ´t resist. No offense Willim, really.

tl · Mar 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Willim: Actually Ignatz, I thought PeterB's whole post had a very definite point.The article he was responding to was not based in a factual manner. Peter addressed this in a specific manner adding many facts to points he made. While you concider this nitpicking, I consider it educational. I am a pc user and as I mentioned in a earlier post, I don't really care about mac's one way or another, but I would appreciate a more objective way to present the mac than to draw lines in the sand and call names. For me, this type of posting(PeterB's post)shows that he was more interested in what the reader might learn. This is why I come to Ars technica. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>YAYYYYYY!!!! PeterB's nuts!!! Can I hop on too??

NuVector · Mar 10, 2000

Ignatz, (Ya shouldna thwron da brick...)I loved your point-by-point reply to PeterB's p-b-p. View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifBut, now onto more serious matters.As a Mac user I feel I should apologize for Mr. Schultz's diatribe. As previously noted here, it was long on attitude and short on fact. I can only attribute it to the syndrome experienced by many who have faced the trauma of unreasoning prejudice and belittlement simply because the company that manufactures the platform of their choice was nearly mis-managed into the ground.This syndrome is characterized by a paranoid tendency to defensively lash out where there is no threat of injury offered. To marshal defenses for attacks that never come. It is acerbated by the incredibly vituperative response that any defense of the Macintosh platform seems to engender among the PC cognoscenti. This syndrome is inculcated over decades and is very difficult to overcome. I should know -- IÂ’m a recovering victim.I am saddened that Mr. Shultz has been reduced to this state, but I am even more saddened by the number of negative and unthinking posts that dismiss his article as a product of fanaticism or zealotry. Mr. Schultz did make one or two salient points about how the platform debate is (all too often) conducted.We can all learn from his example. Mostly, we can learn how NOT to win friends and influence people. I suggest that first place to start, is to not see it as a battle to be won or lost. The more tools in my tool chest the better (even if some of them are rather dullÂ…).

Ignatz · Mar 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by NuVector: Ignatz, (Ya shouldna thwron da brick...) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hello NuVector, if it gives you any pleasure to know this, you are actually the first to demonstrate a knowledge of my choice of nick. Brick-totinÂ´-rat. Oh yahh. On my personal network, the PC is called Krazy, the Mac Ignatz, and the hub is, well, "Brickz" of course.

Evil_Merlin · Mar 10, 2000

It just got a lot funnier...The "author" had the write up removed from OS Opinion.

patSPLAT · Mar 10, 2000

Anybody notice our favorite zealot has taken down his article? I assume he is now flanking me as I type....Personally, I like zealots. They're good tank fodder, they handle zerglings all right. The important thing is make sure you've got some thing else to do the actual work, you know. By themselves, Hydras will just eat them up.oh, and another thing re: colored cases; my box prefers to freeball View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

treatment · Mar 10, 2000

lol!Yup. Verified. The duhhrticle has been removed from oSo. Maybe it should've been titled the fArt of War in the first place. I should've made a copy. Dang it. --treatment--

tl · Mar 10, 2000

well theres a copy (practically) in peterb's last post if you really want one...

PaoloM · Mar 10, 2000

Heh, no fear... the article is here-Paolo

underthumb · Mar 10, 2000

Am I the only one who is tempted to think that "David K. Schultz" is the same as "David K. Every"? Every's "Mac Holocaust" analogies seem like they are born of the same pedantic and over-wrought mind possesed by David K. Shultz.

AliceWonder · Mar 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Easy Rhino: Ah yes, the insidious plague of Mac User Confirmation Bias. "Hey, I know, let's sit around and continuously tell each other we're right and we're better!"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>How ironic- that seems to be exactly what y'all are doing View image: /infopop/emoticons\icon_wink.gif

Paul Hill · Mar 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by NuVector: As a Mac user I feel I should apologize for Mr. Schultz's diatribe. As previously noted here, it was long on attitude and short on fact. I can only attribute it to the syndrome experienced by many who have faced the trauma of unreasoning prejudice and belittlement simply because the company that manufactures the platform of their choice was nearly mis-managed into the ground. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Apologise? Nah. Every platform is inhabited by zealots. Except the Windows 2000 one, of course. View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifThe funny thing is, the "War" is already over. PCs won. The Macintosh uses so much PC architecture now that if a PC user pops one open (angle-grinders work quite well on iMacs) you feel right at home. PCI, ATA, DIMMs, even friendly names like ATI are all present and correct.

DrPizza · Mar 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Ignatz: Not too ignorant to be ignored obviously.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But of course! Ignoring it would be no fun! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Well, if that is the case, he has accessories in his infringement of the complete-waste-of-time trademark.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I have an excuse -- I'm a student. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Battle-weariness?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Possibly. But I could go on like this for days, weeks, years, even, without stopping. View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>ditto the nitpicking<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> At least it's accurate nitpicking. View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>units shipped=succesful company? market share=succesful company? Damn, I wish they had told me *that* in biz class. I should trade my Apple stock for Compaq any day then I guess.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Let me get this straight? You can be a successful company if you have no market share and ship no machines? That's interesting. Perhaps you can in the short-term (a la Redhat), but in the long run? I can't imagine it's conducive to 'success'. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Oh, NOW he?s talking ?bout market share. Where are those sales figures anyway?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> All over the place. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No matter the reasons for it, I guess a chemical analysis of your post would reveal a rather decent amount of vitriol.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Naaah. I ain't fannying about with no sulphuric acid. I'm not sure if I'm plumping for a 36 mol dm^-3 solution of HCl, or just some HF. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I?d take a ride with Jobs any day, in that glitzy private jet of his View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, yeah, I guess that's one advantage he has. Surely Gates has a plane, though? I mean, they're only $40 million each. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Funny, "experts" doesn?t quite go with "Sun" in my vocabulary.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> At being abusive to MS, Sun are second to none. Whilst it's true that Sun are experts only in the sense that "ex" means you've had it, and a "spurt" is a drip, under pressure, they do so enjoy having a go at MS, I'm sure they've learned something by now. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>My nephew loves Packard-Bell I guess, anyway he hasn?t exchanged their preinstalled desktop wallpaper. Much like most employee-buy PCs I see over here. Makes one wonder.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> "Use", "rebuy", "not fiddle with" != "love". <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I agree. I like Macs, therefore I do not think. Or like facts. Whatever.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, by and large, they don't like 'em much. I mean, they were quite happy to believe that the G4 really is ten times faster (or however much it is _this_ week) than the PIII. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>My PC-using nephew never cites that. And I for one like protected memory. But then again, I use Macs 50% of my computing time so I must per definition be a moron.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Possibly. There are people on this very message board who criticize Windows for catching protected memory violations. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Actually, I think a box that resembled a cow would be absolutely marvelous. And very very lickable (ouch).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I forgot to mention that. Most people don't buy Gateways. Though their cow-boxes are quite funny. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Correct me if I?m wrong but: 1 such attack = ad hominum ; 2 such attacks = ad homina.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, that's not correct. "ad hominem" is an adjective, used to describe the attacks. English doesn't pluralize adjectives. You have "one ad hominem attack", "two ad hominem attacks". <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Of course. The next time I meet a person who doesn?t immidiately understand the facts I appoint him with, I will certainly insult him instead of explaining them again. I just hope it isn?t my boss, for as all of his species he seems incapable of comprehending anything whatsoever.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ain't that the truth. IMO bosses need some abuse. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>He didn?t say "a Mac", he said "the Mac", which as we all know resides deep within the crust of the earth, from where it controls the brainwaves of a certain but not too large percentage of the populace. You need to get a shovel, not a sledgehammer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh, the RDF machine? Is that where they put it? Well I never. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Actually, no, Sculley killed Jobs (with a little help from Mulder or was that Markkula?), and NeXT did a cybernetic job. All those "Steps" was just nacht und nebel. The truth is out there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Interesting argument.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh? It's quite simple. "The PC is better than the Mac, because it doesn't have Aqua", "The PC is better than the Mac, because it doesn't have co-operative multitasking", "The PC is better than the Mac, because it doesn't have MacOS", etc.. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Oh, a list. Damn, got me there. I mean, all these things are written-in-stone, not-subject-to-opinion, objective constants.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Uhhhh, yes, actually they are. Which of those features would you like to dispute? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Oh well, I use Macs so I don?t understand the concept of a "list" anyway.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Since it isn?t out yet I fail to comprehend how it can be clunky and inefficient.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Read reviews of OS X DP3. That (or at least, its version of the dock) is what Jobs was describing when he made that retarded "lick" comment. OS X DP3 is out, in a limited way. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>So, your computer is a *chameleont*? And it does your bidding? Cool. I guess DNA-computing took a giant leap while I slept.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I wish. But I can get a computer any colour that I'd want. Except for unpainted metal, which seems to be quite hard to get. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If someone proposed what Schultz does to me I would just smack him. Sounds really, really dirty. And this coming from a person that just stated that "No, you may not lick it". Scary, really.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, but I bet he's got some really twisted pornography. Yummy! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>a) Not really. In a twisted way perhaps. b) Not really. Why should I? c) Last time I checked it wasn?t out. d) Absolutely-none-you-mac-eating-pc-bigot. e) ??? (or see c) f) That is one funny way to look at the QA of software.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Of course. We *are* the Mothership you know.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I know. I just keep forgetting. Macs really _are_ better, despite appearances to the contrary. How silly of me. Gah. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Precisely in the way that the number of units Dell shipped affects anything.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It affects Dell's market valuation, I'd suggest. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Because you can lick it and it won?t taste like platsics obviously. *God* some people really don?t "get it".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Can you tell S "B" J to turn up the RDF? I'm just not getting any reception over here. I keep thinking, well, I keep thinking that PCs just kick Mac's asses. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Which is of course part of our diabolic masterplan.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, but dammit, us PC users don't have any diabolical masterplan. We're insanely jealous. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Or maybe because the last organization (the Military Headquarters in Stockholm actually) I heard of that tried to standardize with Compaqs had a 30% return rate due to hardware failures within a month of the onsite installation. Had a friend there that mopped up the mess, he?s never been the same after it. But then of course, I have seen him around a Mac once so I guess that explains it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Wow. That's, like, six or seven (maybe more) Compaq's average return-rate-due-to-hardware-failure. That's incredible. I mean, I wouldn't buy Compaqs anyway ('cept for their server clusters which look rather nice), but I'm surprised that even they performed that badly. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>IMO the iToaster is a fraud. Naturally, the first thing I tried was to insert a piece of sliced bread into the cd-rom tray and guess what? It gave me a hardware failure. *Damn* those inconsistent PCs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You're missing the point *entirely*. It looks cute. What the fuck has functionality got to do with anything? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Well, I second that emotion. He obviously is genetically challenged.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Heh. I just wonder, how many Mac zealots like him there are. The worrything thing is, they seem to be breeding quite rapidly. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Are you not giving people like this guy too much credit?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> David K. Schu^H^H^H^H Every is remarkably influential, amongst Mac Zealots, at any rate. So I think that he probably does deserve this dubious "credit".

DrPizza · Mar 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Ignatz: Not too ignorant to be ignored obviously.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But of course! Ignoring it would be no fun! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Well, if that is the case, he has accessories in his infringement of the complete-waste-of-time trademark.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I have an excuse -- I'm a student. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Battle-weariness?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Possibly. But I could go on like this for days, weeks, years, even, without stopping. View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>ditto the nitpicking<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> At least it's accurate nitpicking. View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>units shipped=succesful company? market share=succesful company? Damn, I wish they had told me *that* in biz class. I should trade my Apple stock for Compaq any day then I guess.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Let me get this straight? You can be a successful company if you have no market share and ship no machines? That's interesting. Perhaps you can in the short-term (a la Redhat), but in the long run? I can't imagine it's conducive to 'success'. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Oh, NOW he?s talking ?bout market share. Where are those sales figures anyway?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> All over the place. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No matter the reasons for it, I guess a chemical analysis of your post would reveal a rather decent amount of vitriol.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Naaah. I ain't fannying about with no sulphuric acid. I'm not sure if I'm plumping for a 36 mol dm^-3 solution of HCl, or just some HF. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I?d take a ride with Jobs any day, in that glitzy private jet of his View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, yeah, I guess that's one advantage he has. Surely Gates has a plane, though? I mean, they're only $40 million each. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Funny, "experts" doesn?t quite go with "Sun" in my vocabulary.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> At being abusive to MS, Sun are second to none. Whilst it's true that Sun are experts only in the sense that "ex" means you've had it, and a "spurt" is a drip, under pressure, they do so enjoy having a go at MS, I'm sure they've learned something by now. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>My nephew loves Packard-Bell I guess, anyway he hasn?t exchanged their preinstalled desktop wallpaper. Much like most employee-buy PCs I see over here. Makes one wonder.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> "Use", "rebuy", "not fiddle with" != "love". <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I agree. I like Macs, therefore I do not think. Or like facts. Whatever.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, by and large, they don't like 'em much. I mean, they were quite happy to believe that the G4 really is ten times faster (or however much it is _this_ week) than the PIII. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>My PC-using nephew never cites that. And I for one like protected memory. But then again, I use Macs 50% of my computing time so I must per definition be a moron.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Possibly. There are people on this very message board who criticize Windows for catching protected memory violations. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Actually, I think a box that resembled a cow would be absolutely marvelous. And very very lickable (ouch).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I forgot to mention that. Most people don't buy Gateways. Though their cow-boxes are quite funny. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Correct me if I?m wrong but: 1 such attack = ad hominum ; 2 such attacks = ad homina.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, that's not correct. "ad hominem" is an adjective, used to describe the attacks. English doesn't pluralize adjectives. You have "one ad hominem attack", "two ad hominem attacks". <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Of course. The next time I meet a person who doesn?t immidiately understand the facts I appoint him with, I will certainly insult him instead of explaining them again. I just hope it isn?t my boss, for as all of his species he seems incapable of comprehending anything whatsoever.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ain't that the truth. IMO bosses need some abuse. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>He didn?t say "a Mac", he said "the Mac", which as we all know resides deep within the crust of the earth, from where it controls the brainwaves of a certain but not too large percentage of the populace. You need to get a shovel, not a sledgehammer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh, the RDF machine? Is that where they put it? Well I never. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Actually, no, Sculley killed Jobs (with a little help from Mulder or was that Markkula?), and NeXT did a cybernetic job. All those "Steps" was just nacht und nebel. The truth is out there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Interesting argument.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh? It's quite simple. "The PC is better than the Mac, because it doesn't have Aqua", "The PC is better than the Mac, because it doesn't have co-operative multitasking", "The PC is better than the Mac, because it doesn't have MacOS", etc.. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Oh, a list. Damn, got me there. I mean, all these things are written-in-stone, not-subject-to-opinion, objective constants.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Uhhhh, yes, actually they are. Which of those features would you like to dispute? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Oh well, I use Macs so I don?t understand the concept of a "list" anyway.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Since it isn?t out yet I fail to comprehend how it can be clunky and inefficient.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Read reviews of OS X DP3. That (or at least, its version of the dock) is what Jobs was describing when he made that retarded "lick" comment. OS X DP3 is out, in a limited way. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>So, your computer is a *chameleont*? And it does your bidding? Cool. I guess DNA-computing took a giant leap while I slept.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I wish. But I can get a computer any colour that I'd want. Except for unpainted metal, which seems to be quite hard to get. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If someone proposed what Schultz does to me I would just smack him. Sounds really, really dirty. And this coming from a person that just stated that "No, you may not lick it". Scary, really.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, but I bet he's got some really twisted pornography. Yummy! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>a) Not really. In a twisted way perhaps. b) Not really. Why should I? c) Last time I checked it wasn?t out. d) Absolutely-none-you-mac-eating-pc-bigot. e) ??? (or see c) f) That is one funny way to look at the QA of software.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Of course. We *are* the Mothership you know.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I know. I just keep forgetting. Macs really _are_ better, despite appearances to the contrary. How silly of me. Gah. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Precisely in the way that the number of units Dell shipped affects anything.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It affects Dell's market valuation, I'd suggest. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Because you can lick it and it won?t taste like platsics obviously. *God* some people really don?t "get it".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Can you tell S "B" J to turn up the RDF? I'm just not getting any reception over here. I keep thinking, well, I keep thinking that PCs just kick Mac's asses. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Which is of course part of our diabolic masterplan.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, but dammit, us PC users don't have any diabolical masterplan. We're insanely jealous. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Or maybe because the last organization (the Military Headquarters in Stockholm actually) I heard of that tried to standardize with Compaqs had a 30% return rate due to hardware failures within a month of the onsite installation. Had a friend there that mopped up the mess, he?s never been the same after it. But then of course, I have seen him around a Mac once so I guess that explains it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Wow. That's, like, six or seven (maybe more) Compaq's average return-rate-due-to-hardware-failure. That's incredible. I mean, I wouldn't buy Compaqs anyway ('cept for their server clusters which look rather nice), but I'm surprised that even they performed that badly. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>IMO the iToaster is a fraud. Naturally, the first thing I tried was to insert a piece of sliced bread into the cd-rom tray and guess what? It gave me a hardware failure. *Damn* those inconsistent PCs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You're missing the point *entirely*. It looks cute. What the fuck has functionality got to do with anything? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Well, I second that emotion. He obviously is genetically challenged.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Heh. I just wonder, how many Mac zealots like him there are. The worrything thing is, they seem to be breeding quite rapidly. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Are you not giving people like this guy too much credit?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> David K. Schu^H^H^H^H Every is remarkably influential, amongst Mac Zealots, at any rate. So I think that he probably does deserve this dubious "credit".

Paul Hill · Mar 10, 2000

DrPizza · Mar 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Paul Hill: even friendly names like ATI are all present and correct. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> IMO that's just another reason to hate Macs.

Evil_Merlin · Mar 10, 2000

Why is it that when hard cold facts are presented to a Mac-Zealot, they still insist that you are wrong?And then defend themselves to the point of looking like asses?

DrPizza · Mar 10, 2000

This guy is quite the webmaster.All his other "infinite loop" (I'd just say, "infinitely loopy") articles give me 404:Not Founds.

Paul Hill · Mar 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Evil_Merlin: Why is it that when hard cold facts are presented to a Mac-Zealot, they still insist that you are wrong? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Because the Mac isn't about cold hard facts. It's about fuzzy lurve and licking things. Although the way Mac OS X spits in the hurt, confused face of every person who's defended the MAC GUI over the years might be a test of that lurve.Yes, and I know Explorer did the same in Windows, but if you loved that Program Manager/File Manager combo, you deserved everything you got, because it was shite.[This message has been edited by Paul Hill (edited March 10, 2000).]

DrPizza · Mar 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Ignatz: Anyway, here is a piece that I *really* would like PeterB to nitpick, and no, itÂ´s not a "challenge" of any sort. I donÂ´t really know W2K or NT X well enough to judge the credit of the author, but at least it could prove to be interesting and not just hilarious (altough that is also approved of).Here it is: http://www.osopinion.com/Opinions/AnthonyAwtrey/AnthonyAwtrey1.html <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, a few points stand out from that article. I could quote it and dissect it, but I can't right now, as I'm about to have lunch. It'd also probably deserve a new thread.Most of the criticisms the author makes of NT are true of NT 3.1. I don't see how they're relevent to the supposed topic of the article, Windows 2000.The author appears to be comparing WINS to DNS. I don't believe that they're comparable, or designed to be comparable. Perhaps they might have been, once, but I don't believe that they are now. I don't believe that MS cite WINS as an alternative to DNS -- indeed, DNS is one of the mainstays underpinning Active Directory. As far as I can tell, WINS is designed to complement (or is that compliment? I can never remember which is which) LanManager networking of old, that's still the standard mechanism for Windows File and Print sharing. (This is from my own usage of it; perhaps I'm missing its point. We have DHCP allocated IP addresses; the machines register their names with the WINS server, and the DNS server then uses the WINS server to perform name lookups. If we provided static addresses, we wouldn't need it. If the server, or server+clients, used Windows 2000, we wouldn't need it. Essentially, we use WINS to tie LanManager naming scheme to TCP/IP friendly systems (namely, DNS)).If a large company wants a single large WINS namespace containing all their computers, I think they're doing it wrong; AFAIK NetBIOS _does_ allow for subdivisions (what are they called -- schemas?), and IIRC you can have duplicate computer names if they're in different schemas.MS ship their own NFS server/client software. It doesn't require 3rd party stuff.It's no big surprise that GID/UID mappings to NT's own security are kludgey, yes, because NT's own mappings go much deeper than GID/UID mappings.Exchange isn't really (as far as I can tell) MS's alternative to sendmail/qmail/whatever. As far as I can tell, the MCIS is the closest alternative, but its role is rather different. I would argue that MS don't have a direct competitor to sendmail.SMB wasn't standard? Heh. It was standard, insofar as it was a commonly used filesharing mechanism. It's what Windows for Workgroups spoke, IIRC, it's what LanManager spoke -- and IMO, the names disclose the purpose of SMB; it's for workgroup filesharing, for LANs, that kind of thing. It works simply, and fairly well.I'd also argue that he's very wrong about what engineers are like. Whilst you might not pull a satellite out of orbit to mend it, you might send a spaceship up with some little men in it to mend it (if the satellite's worth it) or else you'll just bring down the satellite and replace it.

DrPizza · Mar 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Paul Hill: Yes, and I know Explorer did the same in Windows, but if you loved that Program Manager/File Manager combo, you deserved everything you got, because it was shite. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And, of course, MS didn't get rid of it. If you wanted to use it, you could. IIRC, you still can.

Paul Hill · Mar 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by PeterB: And, of course, MS didn't get rid of it. If you wanted to use it, you could. IIRC, you still can.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>(skeptically) Yeah, right, I'll just run PROGMAN under Windows 2000 right now, yeah?(tapity-tap tap tap)Fuck me, it's still there. That's me told!

Paul Hill · Mar 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by PeterB: Originally posted by Ignatz: well enough to judge the credit of the author, but at least it could prove to be interesting and not just hilarious (altough that is also approved of). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well the thing I noticed was he called it "Windows NT 2000" througout the article. That, and he's under the impression you have to scrap your domain architecture and start again, which is bollocks.Still, the article did make me think. It made me think of hitting this guy with my car and dragging him five hundred yards.

NuVector · Mar 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by PeterB: Well, a few points stand out from that article. I could quote it and dissect it, but I can't right now, as I'm about to have lunch. It'd also probably deserve a new thread.Most of the criticisms the author makes of NT are true of NT 3.1. I don't see how they're relevent to the supposed topic of the article, Windows 2000.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Try re-reading the article. The point is that when Windows first shipped, it ignored sound engineering principles such as supporting existing standards. Theses criticisms, (proprietary technology, lack of scalability, poor implementation design) apply to all versions of Windows from 1.0 up to 2k IMNSHO. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The author appears to be comparing WINS to DNS. I don't believe that they're comparable, or designed to be comparable. Perhaps they might have been, once, but I don't believe that they are now. I don't believe that MS cite WINS as an alternative to DNS -- indeed, DNS is one of the mainstays underpinning Active Directory. As far as I can tell, WINS is designed to complement (or is that compliment? I can never remember which is which) LanManager networking of old, that's still the standard mechanism for Windows File and Print sharing. (This is from my own usage of it; perhaps I'm missing its point. We have DHCP allocated IP addresses; the machines register their names with the WINS server, and the DNS server then uses the WINS server to perform name lookups. If we provided static addresses, we wouldn't need it. If the server, or server+clients, used Windows 2000, we wouldn't need it. Essentially, we use WINS to tie LanManager naming scheme to TCP/IP friendly systems (namely, DNS)).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thank you for this largely useless rehash of how WINS works. The point of the article is that when MS cast about for a networking schema for their product, they skipped over a roubust and scalable solution (DNS, NFS, etc.) in favor of trying to scale LanManager up to being an Enterprise capable networking system. The result was WINS, which MS NOW recommends you dump in favor of Active Directory because WINS is too much of a kludge to scale up to address the enterprise's needs. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If a large company wants a single large WINS namespace containing all their computers, I think they're doing it wrong; AFAIK NetBIOS _does_ allow for subdivisions (what are they called -- schemas?), and IIRC you can have duplicate computer names if they're in different schemas.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>They are called NetBIOS Scopes, and even Microsoft recommends you NOT use them as any computer assigned to a NetBIOS Scope can only communicate with other comupters in the same scope regardless of your network config. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>MS ship their own NFS server/client software. It doesn't require 3rd party stuff.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True, late in the game MS added support for these technologies. They even added DNS lookups to WINS. But they should have supported all this at the outset. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>It's no big surprise that GID/UID mappings to NT's own security are kludgey, yes, because NT's own mappings go much deeper than GID/UID mappings.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Huh? Are you saying that because Microsoft's concept of security is about as elegant as an elephant in a tutu, that its not surprising they don't integrate well with defacto standards? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Exchange isn't really (as far as I can tell) MS's alternative to sendmail/qmail/whatever. As far as I can tell, the MCIS is the closest alternative, but its role is rather different. I would argue that MS don't have a direct competitor to sendmail.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree with the last sentence, at least. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>SMB wasn't standard? Heh. It was standard, insofar as it was a commonly used filesharing mechanism. It's what Windows for Workgroups spoke, IIRC, it's what LanManager spoke -- and IMO, the names disclose the purpose of SMB; it's for workgroup filesharing, for LANs, that kind of thing. It works simply, and fairly well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>SMB is what WFW use's because (in true inimitable MS fashion) Microsoft bought the company that owned LanManager in order to acquire the networking technology expertise they lacked. NDIS (of which SMB is a part) has NEVER been a standard on any platform/OS but Windows. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I'd also argue that he's very wrong about what engineers are like. Whilst you might not pull a satellite out of orbit to mend it, you might send a spaceship up with some little men in it to mend it (if the satellite's worth it) or else you'll just bring down the satellite and replace it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hah! Remind me not to buy any satellite systems from any company that you work for.

Kubernetes · Mar 10, 2000

Holy cow, Progman is still there! Man, the things you learn every day.

Paul Hill · Mar 10, 2000

WTF is wrong with NuVector? Is it his time of the month?

PaoloM · Mar 10, 2000

NuVector:I'm looking at the topic's title. And then I look at your reply. And then I wonder which kind of technologies the Mac used that were more *standard* than those Windows used in its infancy...BTW, talking about defacto standard is not a healthy way to attack Microsoft. 95% of PC market would be enough to define *whatever* you want as the defacto standard.

Mac-zealotry at its worst. Very comedic.

Wise, Aged Ars Veteran

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Tribunus Militum

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius

Ars Scholae Palatinae

Ars Scholae Palatinae

Ars Scholae Palatinae

Ars Scholae Palatinae

Ars Praefectus

Seniorius Lurkius

Seniorius Lurkius

Seniorius Lurkius

Ars Scholae Palatinae

Wise, Aged Ars Veteran

Ars Tribunus Militum

Ars Legatus Legionis

Wise, Aged Ars Veteran

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Centurion

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Tribunus Militum

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius

Ars Praefectus

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Legatus Legionis

Well-known member

Well-known member

Ars Legatus Legionis

Well-known member

Ars Legatus Legionis

Well-known member

Ars Legatus Legionis

Well-known member

Well-known member

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Legatus Legionis

Seniorius Lurkius

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius

nproxy.org