Re: MT-NewsWatcher and Intel iMac

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Bruce Grubb, Apr 30, 2006.

  1. Bruce Grubb

    Bruce Grubb Guest

    In article <290420062334224690%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
    Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

    > In article <>, Michelle
    > Steiner <> wrote:
    >
    > > In article <>,
    > > Donald McDaniel <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > If you purchase an Intel Mac, you will be able to dual-boot with XP
    > > > using Apple's BootCamp software.
    > > >
    > > > I suggest that you try out Forte's Agent Newsreader for Windows XP.
    > > > It simply blows all OS X newsreaders out of the water. I much prefer
    > > > to use XP for newsreading than OS X.

    > >
    > > So you're saying that one should spend $200 for an operating system just
    > > to run one particular piece of software that costs $29?

    >
    > That is indeed what he's saying. How was it confusing for you?


    There are reasons Mac users thank WIndows users are Idiots. This is one of
    them. Another is the Windows inability to understand what "standard" means
    and allows Microsoft to write crap that has problems with standards.
    Bruce Grubb, Apr 30, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <>, Bruce Grubb
    <> wrote:

    > There are reasons Mac users thank WIndows users are Idiots.


    Hmm. What an amazingly ignorant generalization.

    I'm a Mac user, and do think "WIndows users are Idiots". I know many
    people who use Windows who are anything but idiots, and many clueless
    Mac users.
    Dave Balderstone, Apr 30, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <300420060821046336%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>, Dave
    Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

    > I'm a Mac user, and do think "WIndows users are Idiots". I know many
    > people who use Windows who are anything but idiots, and many clueless
    > Mac users.


    Argh. I should not post before coffee...

    That should read: I'm a Mac user, and do NOT think "WIndows users are
    Idiots".
    Dave Balderstone, Apr 30, 2006
    #3
  4. Bruce Grubb

    PeterMcC Guest

    Dave Balderstone wrote in
    <300420060821046336%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>

    > In article <>, Bruce Grubb
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> There are reasons Mac users thank WIndows users are Idiots.

    >
    > Hmm. What an amazingly ignorant generalization.
    >
    > I'm a Mac user, and do think "WIndows users are Idiots". I know many
    > people who use Windows who are anything but idiots, and many clueless
    > Mac users.


    Here, I've got a spare n't - with my compliments :)

    --
    PeterMcC
    If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
    inappropriate or offensive in any way,
    please ignore it and accept my apologies.
    PeterMcC, Apr 30, 2006
    #4
  5. Bruce Grubb

    mactime Guest

    On 2006-04-30 09:21:04 -0500, Dave Balderstone
    <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> said:

    > In article <>, Bruce Grubb
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> There are reasons Mac users thank WIndows users are Idiots.

    >
    > Hmm. What an amazingly ignorant generalization.
    >
    > I'm a Mac user, and do think "WIndows users are Idiots". I know many
    > people who use Windows who are anything but idiots, and many clueless
    > Mac users.


    You can't be an idiot if you're a systems tech working with XP or XP
    pro software. There are too many setup screens and too much "behind
    the screens" knowledge required to set it all up. But, the same is
    true of Mac OS X in the sense that to truly understand and tinker with
    the OS at the Terminal level requires, perhaps, more intelligence in
    the computer sense than does Windows. You can still tinker with the OS
    code in OS X and Windows shut out the average user or systems
    programmer from doing that years ago. Many average users of OS X have
    no desire to know anything about programming - just to have a simple
    and easy to use computer and software set. The same may be true of
    Windows, but more effort is required there just to be an average user.

    After using the Mac for a time, I've learned what an amazing complex OS
    it is that provides a very simple and easy to use user interface. A
    lot of Mac programs are very simple and easy to install, use and
    uninstall. But, as a non-programmer, I would say that OS X is far
    superior to Windows in terms of flexibilty and potential. One of the
    things that "burned me out" with Windows was the complexity involved in
    setting up programs and hundreds of option screens for tinkering with
    the system. The registry is a nightmare. Try completely uninstalling
    a program on Windows vs. on a Mac. XP is not actually running on
    MS-DOS anymore, although you can still run MS-DOS programs in a sort of
    virtual environment. But, Windows is still closer to an OS built on
    DOS with each successive version stacked on top of it than OS X is. OS
    X has left behind the older, classic component of its earlier OS
    versions and arrived at a state-of-the art new version. It will be
    interesting to see how "post-modern" Vista will be.

    *** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
    mactime, Apr 30, 2006
    #5
  6. Bruce Grubb

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <300420060821046336%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
    Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

    > In article <>, Bruce Grubb
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > There are reasons Mac users thank WIndows users are Idiots.

    >
    > Hmm. What an amazingly ignorant generalization.
    >
    > I'm a Mac user, and do think "WIndows users are Idiots". I know many
    > people who use Windows who are anything but idiots, and many clueless
    > Mac users.


    hear hear!

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, May 1, 2006
    #6
  7. Bruce Grubb

    Andy Dingley Guest

    Bruce Grubb wrote:

    > > > > I suggest that you try out Forte's Agent Newsreader for Windows XP.
    > > > > It simply blows all OS X newsreaders out of the water. I much prefer
    > > > > to use XP for newsreading than OS X.
    > > >
    > > > So you're saying that one should spend $200 for an operating system just
    > > > to run one particular piece of software that costs $29?


    Yes. I buy computers to run useful applications for me, not to indulge
    in OS flamewars.
    Andy Dingley, May 2, 2006
    #7
  8. In article <>,
    "Andy Dingley <>" <>
    wrote:

    > > > > > I suggest that you try out Forte's Agent Newsreader for
    > > > > > Windows XP. It simply blows all OS X newsreaders out of the
    > > > > > water. I much prefer to use XP for newsreading than OS X.
    > > > >
    > > > > So you're saying that one should spend $200 for an operating
    > > > > system just to run one particular piece of software that costs
    > > > > $29?

    >
    > Yes. I buy computers to run useful applications for me, not to
    > indulge in OS flamewars.


    That second sentence is totally unresponsive and irrelevant to my
    question.

    Getting back to the matter at hand, spending $200 in order to run a $29
    piece of software does not make financial sense to me. Sure, if the
    person needs Windows for some other reason, then buying Agent might be a
    reasonable option, but to buy Windows solely to run Agent is, to me,
    wasting money.

    I just can't see any newsreader being worth $229.

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
    Michelle Steiner, May 2, 2006
    #8
  9. In article <>, Michelle
    Steiner <> wrote:

    > Getting back to the matter at hand, spending $200 in order to run a $29
    > piece of software does not make financial sense to me. Sure, if the
    > person needs Windows for some other reason, then buying Agent might be a
    > reasonable option, but to buy Windows solely to run Agent is, to me,
    > wasting money.
    >
    > I just can't see any newsreader being worth $229.


    You don't see value in doing "A". Someone else sees value in doing "A".

    Wow. People may not share your views. Quel dommage.
    Dave Balderstone, May 2, 2006
    #9
  10. In article <020520060830143997%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
    Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

    > > Getting back to the matter at hand, spending $200 in order to run a $29
    > > piece of software does not make financial sense to me. Sure, if the
    > > person needs Windows for some other reason, then buying Agent might be a
    > > reasonable option, but to buy Windows solely to run Agent is, to me,
    > > wasting money.
    > >
    > > I just can't see any newsreader being worth $229.

    >
    > You don't see value in doing "A". Someone else sees value in doing "A".
    >
    > Wow. People may not share your views. Quel dommage.


    So, I'm not supposed to express my opinion? How about you getting off
    my case, Balderstone? I'm getting tired of your juvenile antagonism.

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
    Michelle Steiner, May 2, 2006
    #10
  11. In article <>, Michelle
    Steiner <> wrote:

    > So, I'm not supposed to express my opinion?


    I've never said that. You do have a tendency to repeat your opinion
    over and over and over again, though. Do you need to have people agree
    with you all the time? You seem to be hungry for validation.
    Dave Balderstone, May 2, 2006
    #11
  12. Bruce Grubb

    Andy Dingley Guest

    Michelle Steiner wrote:

    > Getting back to the matter at hand, spending $200 in order to run a $29
    > piece of software does not make financial sense to me.


    Why not? Total cost of $229 to do something useful, or $200 for a bare
    OS that doesn't do _anything_ useful on its own ?

    Quite possibly I _am_ running Windows solely to use Agent. There's no
    much else I do on the Windows machine - Photoshop maybe (which I do
    very rarely), but everything else happens on a Debian box.

    "Is Usenet access woth $229?" is a good question, but quite different.
    The assertion "It can never be worth 7x <foo> for an OS to merely run
    an app costing <foo>" isn't itself supportable at all.
    Andy Dingley, May 2, 2006
    #12
  13. In article <>,
    "Andy Dingley <>" <>
    wrote:

    > > Getting back to the matter at hand, spending $200 in order to run a
    > > $29 piece of software does not make financial sense to me.

    >
    > Why not? Total cost of $229 to do something useful, or $200 for a
    > bare OS that doesn't do _anything_ useful on its own ?


    Because I just cannot envision any news reader being worth so much
    money--and if all one is using Windows for is to run the newsreader,
    then the total cost of running the newsreader is the cost of Windows
    plus the cost of the news reader.

    > "Is Usenet access woth $229?" is a good question, but quite
    > different. The assertion "It can never be worth 7x <foo> for an OS to
    > merely run an app costing <foo>" isn't itself supportable at all.


    But I didn't say "an app costing <foo>"; I was talking about a specific
    app (in context), used for a specific purpose.

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
    Michelle Steiner, May 2, 2006
    #13
  14. In article <020520060851441409%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
    Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

    > > So, I'm not supposed to express my opinion?

    >
    > I've never said that. You do have a tendency to repeat your opinion
    > over and over and over again, though. Do you need to have people
    > agree with you all the time? You seem to be hungry for validation.


    You're projecting. Why don't you just killfile me and save us both time
    and trouble?

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
    Michelle Steiner, May 2, 2006
    #14
  15. Bruce Grubb

    Enough Guest

    In article <020520060851441409%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
    Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

    > In article <>, Michelle
    > Steiner <> wrote:
    >
    > > So, I'm not supposed to express my opinion?

    >
    > I've never said that. You do have a tendency to repeat your opinion
    > over and over and over again, though. Do you need to have people agree
    > with you all the time? You seem to be hungry for validation.


    Nah, Mike is just hungry for his long lost BALLS!

    --
    Enough <>
    Enough, May 2, 2006
    #15
  16. On Tue, 2 May 2006 06:57:12 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote
    (in article <>):

    > In article <>,
    > "Andy Dingley <>" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>>>>> I suggest that you try out Forte's Agent Newsreader for
    >>>>>> Windows XP. It simply blows all OS X newsreaders out of the
    >>>>>> water. I much prefer to use XP for newsreading than OS X.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> So you're saying that one should spend $200 for an operating
    >>>>> system just to run one particular piece of software that costs
    >>>>> $29?

    >>
    >> Yes. I buy computers to run useful applications for me, not to
    >> indulge in OS flamewars.


    In the first place, one does not have to "spend $200", since XP Professional
    can be purchased for much less.

    And do NOT believe the "theory" that only a "Full Retail XP Pro" will install
    and run via BootCamp on an Intel Mac. This is just FUD from ignorant
    people, or nay-sayers in the Apple camp.

    >
    > That second sentence is totally unresponsive and irrelevant to my
    > question.


    And how was his answer "totally unresponsive and irrelevant"? From my way of
    thinking, it makes perfect sense.

    Buy a knife to cut things with, buy a computer to run the software you want
    to run.

    What is a computer but a "knife"? Or is it your GOD...

    >
    > Getting back to the matter at hand, spending $200 in order to run a $29
    > piece of software does not make financial sense to me. Sure, if the
    > person needs Windows for some other reason, then buying Agent might be a
    > reasonable option, but to buy Windows solely to run Agent is, to me,
    > wasting money.


    That is, of course, your opinion. And like us, you are certainly entitled to
    your opinion.

    But from my perspective, buying an over-priced computer (great as it is) just
    to run OS X is just as "financially wasteful".

    >
    > I just can't see any newsreader being worth $229.
    >
    >


    You're right about one thing, Michelle. You just can't see another person's
    point of view. Which only means that you're completely without compassion,
    like the rest of the Mac fanatics. You're certainly in "good company",
    aren't you?.

    --

    Donald L McDaniel
    Please reply to the original thread,
    so that the thread may be kept intact.
    ========================================================
    Donald McDaniel, May 2, 2006
    #16
  17. In article <>,
    Donald McDaniel <> wrote:

    > >> Yes. I buy computers to run useful applications for me, not to
    > >> indulge in OS flamewars.

    >
    > In the first place, one does not have to "spend $200", since XP
    > Professional can be purchased for much less.


    Professional lists for $299; you can get more than a third off? Home
    edition lists for $199, and the lowest I've seen it for sale has been in
    the 190s.

    > And do NOT believe the "theory" that only a "Full Retail XP Pro" will
    > install and run via BootCamp on an Intel Mac. This is just FUD
    > from ignorant people, or nay-sayers in the Apple camp.


    Do you know this for a fact, or is just more of you're blowing smoke?

    > > That second sentence is totally unresponsive and irrelevant to my
    > > question.

    >
    > And how was his answer "totally unresponsive and irrelevant"?


    Because my question had nothing to do with OS wars.

    > From my way of thinking, it makes perfect sense.


    I'm not surprised.

    > Buy a knife to cut things with, buy a computer to run the software
    > you want to run.


    He was advocating buying a chain saw where a butter knife would do.

    > But from my perspective, buying an over-priced computer (great as it
    > is) just to run OS X is just as "financially wasteful".


    Well, fortunately, the Mac is not overpriced, and furthermore, people
    buy it to actually do things, not just to run the OS.

    > > I just can't see any newsreader being worth $229.

    >
    > You're right about one thing, Michelle. You just can't see another
    > person's point of view.


    Wrong.

    > Which only means that you're completely without compassion,


    Wrong.

    > like the rest of the Mac fanatics.


    Wrong.

    > You're certainly in "good company", aren't you?.


    Yup, I am in good company. So why don't you go back to
    <news:alt.i-am-better-than-you-because-i-am-a-eastern-orthodox-christian.
    org> and peddle your vitriol there?

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
    Michelle Steiner, May 2, 2006
    #17
  18. Bruce Grubb

    Neredbojias Guest

    To further the education of mankind, Michelle Steiner
    <> vouchsafed:

    > Getting back to the matter at hand, spending $200 in order to run a $29
    > piece of software does not make financial sense to me. Sure, if the
    > person needs Windows for some other reason, then buying Agent might be a
    > reasonable option, but to buy Windows solely to run Agent is, to me,
    > wasting money.
    >
    > I just can't see any newsreader being worth $229.


    What I can't see is setting-up a separate 'puter and/or OS just to run one
    app. Unless I _really_ wanted that app.

    One time, back when the typical 'large' hard drive was 40 meg and 80 meg a
    real giant, I spent $4200 on a Priam 750 meg HD. State-of-the-art hardware
    for a state-of-the-art price. Foolish, yes, but I really wanted it. So if
    I really wanted what I thought was a good app, say Forte, I'd might spend
    the bucks more easily than creating a second system just to run it.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Infinity has its limits.
    Neredbojias, May 2, 2006
    #18
  19. Bruce Grubb

    dorayme Guest

    This would have to be the silliest thread ever...

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, May 3, 2006
    #19
  20. Bruce Grubb

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Michelle Steiner wrote:

    > Getting back to the matter at hand, spending $200 [on an operating
    > system] in order to run a $29 piece of software does not make financial
    > sense to me.


    What if Forte Agent cost $200, and Windows only cost $29: would it then be
    financially justifiable?

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    Toby Inkster, May 3, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Peter

    iMac Java performance?

    Peter, Jan 10, 2004, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    614
    Steve W. Jackson
    Jan 12, 2004
  2. dorayme

    MT-NewsWatcher

    dorayme, Jan 7, 2006, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    53
    Views:
    1,442
    Luigi Donatello Asero
    Jan 14, 2006
  3. dorayme

    MT-Newswatcher new version

    dorayme, Jul 4, 2006, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    808
    Blinky the Shark
    Jul 7, 2006
  4. whatnext
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    417
  5. Kazik�
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,320
    Jonathan Lee
    Jul 6, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page