iPhone is major hit in the UK, DE! See Video!

gomez <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Nokia is toast at the high end.
>
> That may well be the case if Apple ever get round to making a phone
> for that sector of the market.

what? not sure what you mean?

it's a no brainer that Apple will come out with many cell phone models
that hit lower price points for the less sophisticated buyer.

don't you understand how Steve Jobs operates... he ALWAYS starts at the
high end, then releases models below it.

deep insight into how SJ works is located here. It's how he wipes out
competitors in every case.

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/3533.html

-

---

› See More: iPhone is major hit in the UK, DE! See Video!

Snit wrote:

> "Bob Campbell" <[email protected]> stated in post
> [email protected] on 11/11/07 11:35 AM:
>
>
>>In article
>><[email protected]>,
>> Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bob Campbell is a total fool on this subject. He is completely out of
>>>touch on how a computer needs to work for BOTH developers and users.
>>
>>Sure, Oxford, sure. Since I forced you to admit that OS X is NOT open
>>source, that makes ME the fool!
>
>
> How was this "admission" worded? Was it merely a clarification of a past
> point?
>
>>Uh huh, OK, sure. Whatever you say! How DOES that crow taste?
>
>
> Like chicken... or so I hear.
>
>
>

In his case it tastes like shoe polish. :-))

Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:

> > nope, i'm not confused on anything, the difference is i'm ahead of the
> > curve on somethings, so what i say won't quite make sense to people not
> > in the industry.
>
> What industry is that? While you seem to have a passing familiarity with
> Apple products, it's hard to believe anyone in the computer or wireless
> industry wouldn't know, for example, what a Nokia N-series web-tablet is.
> At least a cursory knowledge of competitive products is important to
> success in any industry.

The computer industry silly. Basically what is happening is the Computer
Industry (Apple) which is much more well funded and competitive, has now
entered the Cell Industry which is floundering, poorly funded and lacks
any design or competitive spirit. The N series is an embarrassment to
the User. It's poorly made, bulky, HORRIBLE interface, expensive still
requires old school Cell Networks, etc. Apple can solve all that for the
User.

> > the density of 802.11 access points is increasing at an extreme rate
>
> Agreed. Unfortunately, for your view of the future, so is knowledge of
> security even to home users. The number of open APs is shrinking as
> consmers get better educated.

Well, let's just imagine for a moment that "every" internet connection
people pay for is suddenly "wireless", then allowing the extra 25x nodes
that are sitting idle to be "Free". Security is mainly a Windows issue,
not a UNIX one, so for Apple to release a $49 255 node router... that
people simply attach to their network and boom, you have the end of the
Cell Industry. Free VoIP would be the norm, not the costly Cell
Monopoly. People would switch over in droves since $49 is less than most
people's 1 month BILL!

I'm realistic and don't think this will happen overnight, but it is the
trend and will be the STANDARD within 10-20 years for the simple reason
that all this Internet connectivity sits idle MOST of the day/night and
really doesn't need to. Apple will change this in a major way, just sit
back and watch.

> It's much rarer to find an open AP today than just a couple of years ago
> in my experience. Heck, two or three years ago, I was amazed at how many
> retail stores ran open APs! You could find free WiFi at almost any good
> sized mall then!

You just don't know how to do it... On the Mac you just use Leopard
which automatically shows the open networks or use something like
Coconut WiFi or FindWiFi to easily connect wherever you are to an open
and free network.

Yes, I understand you are still using Windows, but Mac users are far
ahead of you on this... You'll see what I'm talking about fairly soon.

Remember that Apple and Lucent started the whole 802.11 trend way back
in 2001, so they set the rules, not the old world Cell companies.

> Today the vast majority of business and residential APs are closed.

But look at the FON example, it is FREE to all FON users... So if Apple
did the same, all Apple connections would be free to Apple and Windows
users. Pretty sweet.

> > and
> > is much faster than 3G,
>
> So is wired Ethernet, but carrying that 100' Cat5 cable around is such a
> pain. What's your point?

It is that the range of 802.11 is reaching further, faster than Cell
Towers can be built. SJ knows that, and since timing is everything his
interview of the FON founder is VERY telling of the shape of things to
come.

http://www.seesmic.com/Standalone.html?video=c7BW1pm3l8

> > so having a phone that works with data faster
> > than 3G is the future...
>
> Of course. However, that "future" won't be 801.11g. Currently the
> fastest ubiquitous data solution is high-speed cellular. Future, as yet
> undeployed, technologies, like WiMax, will be built into future devices.

Yes, but you have to PAY for that... Nobody would need to pay for free
wireless.

> > as seen here...
> >
> > watch this...
> >
> > http://www.seesmic.com/Standalone.html?video=c7BW1pm3l8
> >
> > then see this...
> >
> > http://www.fon.com/en/
>
> Hypocrisy, thy name is Oxford. First you tell us "free" WiFi will kill
> cellular, then you think we'll just all buy WiFi from each other through
> brokers like Fon. Which is it? Free or paid? (Forgetting, for the
> moment, that using Fon violates the TOS of every major ISP in the
> country!)

Ah, it's called "communal" look up that word and you'll see the future.

It's exactly how Radio and TV works today... THINK about it.

---

> > add iChatIP then total them all up and it *****s the end of the cell
> > industry as we knew it.
>
> Here we go again! Again, you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of
> anything existing outside of Apple. VoIP has been around for years, as
> well as easy-to-use, dedicated WiFi VoIP phones. This hasn't made a dent
> in cellular yet, because cellular is more ubiquitous and convenient.
> WiFi drops VoIP calls when switching between APs, while cellular
> maintains connections when switching between towers. A mobile phone
> isn't much good if you can't be mobile!

Well, and you demonstrate only the existing market, Apple users look
beyond that, and create the future, while you just live in the "present".

We don't care about the PRESENT since it won't matter going forward. We
create the structure of the future and have done these large societal
changes many times before. We are experts, you are not.

> > nah, open 802.11 is everywhere in europe and BT will be opening
> 10,000's
> > of free hotspots so coverage will be ubiquitous in less than a decade.
>
> More backpeddling? Your time table for cellular's demise keeps getting
> pushed furher into the future. IIRC, it was about 18 months when the
> iPhone launched, then a couple of years, now over a decade?
>
> Existing industries adapt to changing market conditions. If the future
> truly is VoIP, then cellular carriers will adapt by becoming "VWANs"
> (Very Wide Area Networks) and offer the necessary internet access, as
> Sprint seems to be attempting with WiMax.

Yes, VWAN's are possible IF you want to be locked into a Cell companies
poor view of the future.

WWAN's is Apple speak, and it is free.

-

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Hypocrisy, thy name is Oxford. First you tell us "free" WiFi will kill
> > cellular, then you think we'll just all buy WiFi from each other through
> > brokers like Fon. Which is it? Free or paid? (Forgetting, for the
> > moment, that using Fon violates the TOS of every major ISP in the
> > country!)
>
> Has everyone forgotten that Oxford doesn't even USE a cell phone? He
> doesn't need to! He carries around his Macintosh and uses some software
> to make and receive phone calls.
>
> Why he's here talking about the iPhone is a mystery.

Actually, I have 2 iPhones now. Please try and keep up Elmo.

The PowerBook is still the more advanced device, but yes the iPhone is
lighter.

Bob Campbell <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Yes, but you have to PAY for that... Nobody would need to pay for free
> > wireless.
>
> So who is paying to maintain this "free" wireless?

ah, earth to Bob, the User is already paying the bill for bandwidth, so
getting free access from this amount is how it is going to work. Thus,
no extra fees incurred.

Look at the FON model, it's perfect for everyone!

http://www.fon.com/en/info/whatsNew

Bob, please quit being such an idiot!

> > Ah, it's called "communal" look up that word and you'll see the future.
> >
> > It's exactly how Radio and TV works today... THINK about it.
>
> Oh great. So we'll have commercials on our phones? Yeah, that's
> something I want!

No, Apple will not allow commercials, it goes totally against Apple and
their User's values.

> I'm so clueless it is astounding!
>
> Bob Campbell

Correct!

-

Oxford wrote:
> DTC <[email protected]> wrote:
>> You don't seem to understand back-hauls very much.

Ahh...a typical Oxford reply. Using nebulous terminology (that has no
definable metrics to qualify it) to obfuscate the issue and avoid
directly answering the question.

> and you don't seem to understand distributed wireless very much.
>
> the entire trend is to flaten out the wireless signal, make it free,
> then everyone wins.

Hmmm..."distributed wireless"? That still doesn't address the backhaul
question.

"Flatten out the wireless signal"?? Do you mean "distributing" the cost
for the backhauls and AP infrastructures? Oh wait...there is no cost,
its going to be free.

> you'll see what i'm saying in time... an Apple branded version of this
> would be massively disruptive to the old school cable/dsl networks, cell
> carriers, phone companies, etc...

And how will the access points get their internet connection if those
"old school" services close down?

And don't even suggested they will all be homed to just a few backbone
connections.


..

DTC <[email protected]> wrote:

> >> You don't seem to understand back-hauls very much.
>
> Ahh...a typical Oxford reply. Using nebulous terminology (that has no
> definable metrics to qualify it) to obfuscate the issue and avoid
> directly answering the question.

translation: you aren't able to comprehend what i'm saying.

> > and you don't seem to understand distributed wireless very much.
> >
> > the entire trend is to flatten out the wireless signal, make it free,
> > then everyone wins.
>
> Hmmm..."distributed wireless"? That still doesn't address the backhaul
> question.

the "haul" of audio is miniscule if everyone switched over to free
wireless overnight. total cell audio traffic is tiny. it's not an issue,
and further proof cell towers are obsolete.

> "Flatten out the wireless signal"?? Do you mean "distributing" the cost
> for the backhauls and AP infrastructures? Oh wait...there is no cost,
> its going to be free.
>
> > you'll see what i'm saying in time... an Apple branded version of this
> > would be massively disruptive to the old school cable/dsl networks, cell
> > carriers, phone companies, etc...
>
> And how will the access points get their internet connection if those
> "old school" services close down?

plenty of new school vendors will come into play. if we had one huge
grid of wireless mesh, nobody would be needed. like it should be.

> And don't even suggested they will all be homed to just a few backbone
> connections.

think distributed... just like what apple did to the mainframe in the
late 70's...

Bob Campbell <[email protected]> wrote:

> > ah, earth to Bob, the User is already paying the bill for bandwidth, so
> > getting free access from this amount is how it is going to work. Thus,
> > no extra fees incurred.
>
> So then nothing is free. Everyone will need to maintain their own
> cable/dsl connection.

as they currently do... thus free wireless at no extra cost...

> Uh huh, OK. So now I have to open my wireless connection and let
> everyone use their phone thru it, right? There goes MY bandwidth for
> when I want to download something, right?

no, Bob, i thought for a moment you might have some clue about wireless
technology, but you obviously don't.

You can control the bandwidth of your router, the range of your router,
the number of users connected, etc. You can also segment it so none of
the traffic comes onto your network. Please Bob, learn about what is
happening in the modern world.

> Yeah, that's a GREAT model!

once you learn what I'm talking about you'll say. Damn, that's COOL!

Oxford wrote:
> don't you understand how Steve Jobs operates... he ALWAYS starts at the
> high end, then releases models below it.

Well if that's the case with the iFlop being the high end model the
whole lot will flop because the iFlop is a piece of ****. Now **** OFF
and WANK over your iFlop in private!

--
The views I present are that of my own and NOT of any organisation I may
belong to.

73 de Simon, VK3XEM.
<http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/client_search.client_lookup?pCLIENT_NO=157452>

At 12 Nov 2007 10:54:56 -0700 Oxford wrote:

> The computer industry silly. Basically what is happening is the
Computer
> Industry (Apple) which is much more well funded and competitive, has
now
> entered the Cell Industry which is floundering, poorly funded and lacks
> any design or competitive spirit.

Um, ok. So essentially, you, who admitted to never owning a cellular
phone before the iPhone, and who demonstrates no knowledge of the
wireless industry, claims to know what's "wrong" with it?

> The N series is an embarrassment to
> the User.

Harsh worrds from a guy who didn't know what one was la t night...

> It's poorly made, bulky, HORRIBLE interface, expensive still
> requires old school Cell Networks, etc.

Again, the N800 isn't a phone, and doesn't directly connect to "old
school" cell networks. It's a web tablet.

> Apple can solve all that for the
> User.

Really? When will they release a product that does?


> Well, let's just imagine for a moment that "every" internet connection
> people pay for is suddenly "wireless", then allowing the extra 25x
nodes
> that are sitting idle to be "Free". Security is mainly a Windows issue,
> not a UNIX one, so for Apple to release a $49 255 node router... that
> people simply attach to their network and boom, you have the end of the
> Cell Industry.

Unless you ever leave residential areas. Many times I've flipped the wi-
fi on my phone on to find ZERO APs available- secure or unsecure.

> Free VoIP would be the norm, not the costly Cell
> Monopoly.

"Costly cell monopoly?" VoIP runs about 2-cents/min (unless you're
content to call only people on your VoIP network.) and requires internet
access ("sold separately") whereas cellular runs about 4 or 5-cents a
minute and includes all necessary infrastructure.

> People would switch over in droves since $49 is less than most
> people's 1 month BILL!

Plus the cost of your VoIP provider's charges to connect to the PSTN,
(again, unless you only want to talk to fellow iChatters, and not "real"
phones, businesses, Skypers, Gizmoers, etc.) AND have the spottiest
"mobile" service ever.

> I'm realistic and don't think this will happen overnight, but it is the
> trend and will be the STANDARD within 10-20 years for the simple reason
> that all this Internet connectivity sits idle MOST of the day/night and
> really doesn't need to. Apple will change this in a major way, just sit
> back and watch.

Again, WiFi is too short range. Come out to Denver and Visit Rocky
Mountain National Park. Half of the cell providers don't even work
there, and the nearest open access point is 20 miles away.


> You just don't know how to do it... On the Mac you just use Leopard
> which automatically shows the open networks or use something like
> Coconut WiFi or FindWiFi to easily connect wherever you are to an open
> and free network.

You can't find an open AP if there aren't any! "Coconut" doesn't
automatically open a closed AP. But you know that.

> Yes, I understand you are still using Windows, but Mac users are far
> ahead of you on this...
> You'll see what I'm talking about fairly soon.
>
> Remember that Apple and Lucent started the whole 802.11 trend way back
> in 2001, so they set the rules, not the old world Cell companies.

All brought about by the same SJ who threw a floppy disk at a reporter
and screamed "there's your f---ing network!"?
> > Today the vast majority of business and residential APs are closed.
>
> But look at the FON example, it is FREE to all FON users... So if Apple
> did the same, all Apple connections would be free to Apple and Windows
> users. Pretty sweet.

As long as I never leave residential areas, yes. Equally conveniently, I
could just carry a $5 landline phone and plug into my neighbors' network
interfaces and make free local calls "borrowing" their POTS providers'
service instead of their ISPs'.

> > So is wired Ethernet, but carrying that 100' Cat5 cable around is
such a
> > pain. What's your point?
>
> It is that the range of 802.11 is reaching further, faster than Cell
> Towers can be built. SJ knows that, and since timing is everything his
> interview of the FON founder is VERY telling of the shape of things to
> come.
>
> http://www.seesmic.com/Standalone.html?video=c7BW1pm3l8

Yep- he'll probably buy the company, stamp a half-eaten fruit on their La
Fonera routers and sell them for $99 instead of $49 and rename the FON
'network' "The Orchard."



> Yes, but you have to PAY for that... Nobody would need to pay for free
> wireless.

Ah, yes, the question you never answer: who pays the ISP for the
connection we are all sharing with everyone else? Time Warner cable
hasn't partnered with FON so they can be put out of business! The shared
access has to come from somewhere.


> Ah, it's called "communal" look up that word and you'll see the future.
>
> It's exactly how Radio and TV works today... THINK about it.

Yes- giant congloms making a profit from selling advertising on licensed
bandwidth- not communal sharing of the VHF and UHF bands. THINK about it!

> Well, and you demonstrate only the existing market, Apple users look
> beyond that,

Future markets are Created with future technology. Not hoping the rest
of the world akwardly tries to adapt five year old technology into
replacing a system that already works.

> and create the future, while you just live in the "present".


I've been using wireless services for decades, and mobile internet back
when you had to jack analog models into analog cellphones and hope for a
4800 or 7200bps connection. I saw the "future" then, and kept up with
technology as it improves.


> We don't care about the PRESENT since it won't matter going forward.

Agreed. We'll all ditch our current technology with We
> create the structure of the future and have done these large societal
> changes many times before. We are experts, you are not.
>
> > > nah, open 802.11 is everywhere in europe and BT will be opening
> > 10,000's
> > > of free hotspots so coverage will be ubiquitous in less than a
decade.
> >
> > More backpeddling? Your time table for cellular's demise keeps
getting
> > pushed furher into the future. IIRC, it was about 18 months when the
> > iPhone launched, then a couple of years, now over a decade?
> >
> > Existing industries adapt to changing market conditions. If the
future
> > truly is VoIP, then cellular carriers will adapt by becoming "VWANs"
> > (Very Wide Area Networks) and offer the necessary internet access, as
> > Sprint seems to be attempting with WiMax.
>
> Yes, VWAN's are possible IF you want to be locked into a Cell companies
> poor view of the future.
>
> WWAN's is Apple speak, and it is free.
>
> -

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 12 Nov 2007 00:17:52 -0700 Oxford wrote:
>
>> nope, i'm not confused on anything, the difference is i'm ahead of the
>> curve on somethings, so what i say won't quite make sense to people not
>> in the industry.
>
> What industry is that? While you seem to have a passing familiarity with
> Apple products, it's hard to believe anyone in the computer or wireless
> industry wouldn't know, for example, what a Nokia N-series web-tablet is.
> At least a cursory knowledge of competitive products is important to
> success in any industry.
>
>> the density of 802.11 access points is increasing at an extreme rate
>
> Agreed. Unfortunately, for your view of the future, so is knowledge of
> security even to home users. The number of open APs is shrinking as
> consmers get better educated.
>
> It's much rarer to find an open AP today than just a couple of years ago
> in my experience. Heck, two or three years ago, I was amazed at how many
> retail stores ran open APs! You could find free WiFi at almost any good
> sized mall then!

Exactly. I live on the 6th floor of a 13 story very dense apartment
complex. The number of APs has increased dramatically the last couple
of years. But, as you say, so has security, and the number of open
APs has gone way down. When I check in public areas, like malls,
the same thing.

Steve

At 12 Nov 2007 10:54:56 -0700 Oxford wrote:

> The computer industry silly. Basically what is happening is the
> Computer Industry (Apple) which is much more well funded and
> competitive, has now entered the Cell Industry which is floundering,
> poorly funded and lacks any design or competitive spirit.

Um, ok. So essentially, you, who admitted to never owning a cellular
phone before the iPhone, and who demonstrates no knowledge of the
wireless industry, claims to know what's "wrong" with it?

> The N series is an embarrassment to
> the User.

Harsh words from a guy who didn't know what one was last night...

> It's poorly made, bulky, HORRIBLE interface, expensive still
> requires old school Cell Networks, etc.

Again, the N800 isn't a phone, and doesn't directly connect to "old
school" cell networks. It's a web tablet. People "in the computer
industry" know this.

> Apple can solve all that for the
> User.

Really? They have a new phone product coming out?


> Well, let's just imagine for a moment that "every" internet connection
> people pay for is suddenly "wireless", then allowing the extra 25x
> nodes that are sitting idle to be "Free". Security is mainly a Windows
> issue, not a UNIX one, so for Apple to release a $49 255 node
> router... that people simply attach to their network and boom, you
> have the end of the Cell Industry.

Unless you ever leave residential areas. Many times I've flipped the wi-
fi on my phone on to find ZERO APs available- secure or unsecure.

> Free VoIP would be the norm, not the costly Cell
> Monopoly.

"Costly cell monopoly?" VoIP runs about 2-cents/min (unless you're
content to call only people on your VoIP network.) and requires internet
access ("sold separately") whereas cellular runs about 4 or 5-cents a
minute and includes all necessary infrastructure.

> People would switch over in droves since $49 is less than most
> people's 1 month BILL!

Plus the cost of your VoIP provider's charges to connect to the PSTN,
(again, unless you only want to talk to fellow iChatters, and not "real"
phones, businesses, Skypers, Gizmoers, etc.) AND have the spottiest
"mobile" service ever.

> I'm realistic and don't think this will happen overnight, but it is the
> trend and will be the STANDARD within 10-20 years for the simple reason
> that all this Internet connectivity sits idle MOST of the day/night and
> really doesn't need to. Apple will change this in a major way, just sit
> back and watch.

Again, WiFi is too short range. Come out to Denver and Visit Rocky
Mountain National Park. Half of the cell providers don't even work
there, and the nearest open access point is 20 miles away.

> You just don't know how to do it... On the Mac you just use Leopard
> which automatically shows the open networks or use something like
> Coconut WiFi or FindWiFi to easily connect wherever you are to an open
> and free network.

You can't find an open AP if there aren't any! "Coconut" doesn't
automatically open a closed AP. But you know that. (And Windows already
includes a Zero Config utility - why do you need another fruit-monikered
app to connect your Mac to an open AP?)

> Yes, I understand you are still using Windows, but Mac users are far
> ahead of you on this...
> You'll see what I'm talking about fairly soon.
>
> Remember that Apple and Lucent started the whole 802.11 trend way back
> in 2001, so they set the rules, not the old world Cell companies.

All brought about by the same SJ who threw a floppy disk at a reporter
and screamed "there's your f---ing network!"?

> > Today the vast majority of business and residential APs are closed.
>
> But look at the FON example, it is FREE to all FON users... So if Apple
> did the same, all Apple connections would be free to Apple and Windows
> users. Pretty sweet.

As long as I never leave residential areas, yes. Equally conveniently, I
could just carry a $5 landline phone and plug into my neighbors' network
interfaces and make free local calls "borrowing" their POTS providers'
service instead of their ISPs'.

> > So is wired Ethernet, but carrying that 100' Cat5 cable around is
> > such a pain. What's your point?
>
> It is that the range of 802.11 is reaching further, faster than Cell
> Towers can be built.

Cell towers cover areas WiFi can't due to population density, son.

> SJ knows that,

So his major product launch in 2007 was...

....a cellphone?

Why notjust release the iPod Touch with an included VoIP client built-in?
Because even SJ "knows" that's ridiculous to expect such a device to
compete with cell phones.

> and since timing is everything his
> interview of the FON founder is VERY telling of the shape of things to
> come.


Why didn't he talk to them BEFORE the iPhone launch?>


Either way, he'll probably buy the company, stamp a half-eaten fruit on
their La Fonera routers and sell them for $99 instead of $49 and rename
the FON 'network' the Apple "Orchard."

> Yes, but you have to PAY for that... Nobody would need to pay for free
> wireless.

Ah, yes, the question you never answer: who pays the ISP for the
connection we are all sharing with everyone else? Time Warner cable
hasn't partnered with FON so they can be put out of business! The shared
access has to come from somewhere.


> Ah, it's called "communal" look up that word and you'll see the future.
>
> It's exactly how Radio and TV works today... THINK about it.

Yes- giant congloms making a profit from selling advertising on licensed
bandwidth- not communal sharing of the VHF and UHF bands. THINK about it!

> Well, and you demonstrate only the existing market, Apple users look
> beyond that,

Future markets are created with future technology. Not hoping the rest
of the world akwardly tries to adapt five year old technology into
replacing a system that already works.

> and create the future, while you just live in the "present".


I've been using wireless services for decades, and mobile internet back
when you had to jack analog models into analog cellphones and hope for a
4800 or 7200bps connection. I saw the "future" then, and kept up with
technology as it improves.


> We don't care about the PRESENT since it won't matter going forward.

Agreed. We'll all ditch our current technology with better tech when
available.

> We
> create the structure of the future and have done these large societal
> changes many times before. We are experts, you are not.

You adapt existing tech with a slick UI and glitzy commercials and sell
it with a 40% margin- I get it.

On Nov 11, 11:38 pm, Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jesus <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Are you Crazy? You are missing the larger point. The Finder remains
> > > consistent or the USER base bans the company that makes the "said"
> > > enhancement.
>
> > That doesn't make sense. If it's not all exactly the same, the user
> > "bans" that company? You're retarded.
>
> you missed the word "base"... the "user base". the mac community has a
> long established protocol for not allowing poorly written programs to
> survive within the mac space. that's why all of osx's 18,000 apps are
> tightly written and well done, except for a few ports from windows or
> linux.

That's not a Mac thing. If a program sucks and there's a better
alternative, people use it. Again, free market, not some special Mac
user trait. If you hadn't SNIPPED THE REST OF MY POST, you would've
seen that.

> within in windows and linux realms they will put up with stuff that just
> doesn't work correctly like IE or GIMP. the mac "user base" would never
> put up with those and quickly bans them from the community.

You're a ****wit. The GIMP works fine.

> it's a mac thing

No, it's not.

> that goes back almost 24 years... but you wouldn't
> understand.

....and there Oxford snipped the rest of my post. You ****ing
dumb****! Couldn't come up with enough lies to counter the rest?

On Nov 11, 11:43 pm, Snit <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Oxford" <[email protected]> stated in post
> [email protected] on 11/11/07
> 9:38 PM:
>
>
>
> > Jesus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> Are you Crazy? You are missing the larger point. The Finder remains
> >>> consistent or the USER base bans the company that makes the "said"
> >>> enhancement.
>
> >> That doesn't make sense. If it's not all exactly the same, the user
> >> "bans" that company? You're retarded.
>
> > you missed the word "base"... the "user base". the mac community has a
> > long established protocol for not allowing poorly written programs to
> > survive within the mac space. that's why all of osx's 18,000 apps are
> > tightly written and well done, except for a few ports from windows or
> > linux.
>
> > within in windows and linux realms they will put up with stuff that just
> > doesn't work correctly like IE or GIMP. the mac "user base" would never
> > put up with those and quickly bans them from the community.
>
> I just had my first Kernel Panic on Leopard... it was tied to GIMP.

That doesn't say much for Leopard if The GIMP can cause a kernel
panic... maybe some underlying part of the UNIX subsystem has a bug.

*snip*

On Nov 12, 3:22 am, Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mark Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 Nov 2007, Jesus wrote:
> > > So all humans work in exactly the same way and only one way of doing
> > > things is correct. Well, Oxtard, if there's only one way, why has
> > > NeXT/Apple gone through *five* different kinds of Finders? Didn't
> > > their research find that *one* way the first time?
>
> The Mac still uses the original Finder.

Bull****.

> But yes, the LISA, IIgs had
> slightly different Finders.

I wasn't even factoring those in. NeXTSTEP/OS X have had at least
five different Finders on their own.

> But when NeXT bought Apple they adopted
> the Mac Finder, not the NeXTSTEP one.

No, they didn't. They used the NeXTSTEP file browser and all the OS 9
fanboys *****ed and moaned about how they lost spacial navigation.

> > NeXT was too busy learning why it is a bad idea to build a system where
> > you can't do an ls because a DNS server doesn't respond. [In fairness to
> > Apple, Mac OS X has largely defanged the abomination called NetInfo.]
>
> Yes, Netinfo is gone in Leopard.

It took until 10.5 to ditch that POS?

> > >> Apple lets you move the Dock to the Left (for legal reasons that MS got
> > >> stuck in) the bottom which I think is non-functional, the right, the
> > >> correct choice for western thinking nations, or the top if you want.
> > > That was so incredibly lame that I'm not going to comment any further
> > > on it, Mr. O'Reilly.
>
> > That's actually an insult to O'Reilly. Oxford establishes a new low.
>
> ???

LOL!

> > >> and nobody in the Mac world will even get close to it.
> > > Yet tons of Mac users still use it... strange.
>
> > Perhaps it's because, unlike Safari, Firefox doesn't lose the ability to
> > render forms because some obscure file in ~/Library/FontCollections went
> > missing.
>
> > Perhaps it's because, unlike Safari, Firefox is Open Source and its code
> > can be audited for security by the general community.
>
> Yes, Safari is a poor Browser, I only use Camino which is the more
> advanced version of FireFox.

Bull****, and it's still "Firefox," dip****. Camino development
continually lags behind Firefox development.

BTW, Snit's now saying controls in Gecko within Camino don't render
properly either. Suck on that one, dumbass.