Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #87280 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201601.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-20 15:33 +0100 |
| Last post | 2016-01-27 06:40 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 92 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201601.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2016-01-20 15:33 +0100
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2016-01-20 14:22 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Bod <bodron57@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-20 20:02 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-20 15:04 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Bod <bodron57@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-20 20:23 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day android <here@there.was> - 2016-01-20 21:15 +0100
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2016-01-20 19:52 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-21 01:56 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2016-01-20 22:24 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-21 03:49 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2016-01-20 23:07 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-21 04:16 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-01-21 04:45 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-21 04:52 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2016-01-21 11:43 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-21 01:17 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> - 2016-01-21 08:57 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-21 09:59 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> - 2016-01-21 10:22 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-21 14:30 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-01-21 11:42 -0800
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-21 14:50 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-01-21 20:28 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-21 11:33 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> - 2016-01-21 12:05 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-21 11:35 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-01-21 11:41 -0800
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-02-21 22:19 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2016-01-21 11:46 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-21 14:30 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2016-01-20 23:38 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> - 2016-01-21 08:52 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2016-01-21 11:48 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-21 14:30 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-02-21 21:49 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-02-21 16:50 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-02-21 22:18 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-02-21 21:48 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> - 2016-02-21 19:09 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-02-22 00:18 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> - 2016-02-21 20:08 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-02-21 20:09 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> - 2016-02-21 20:34 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-02-22 13:06 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-02-22 17:34 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-21 01:08 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Ed Mullen <ejEMOVER@edmullen.net> - 2016-01-20 22:08 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-21 09:45 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2016-01-21 13:36 -0200
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> - 2016-01-21 11:31 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-21 11:39 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2016-01-21 02:37 -0800
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-01-27 06:43 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-27 07:26 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-01-27 13:15 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-01-27 11:27 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-01-27 16:41 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Bod <bodron57@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-27 17:01 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-01-27 17:23 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Bod <bodron57@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-27 17:58 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-01-27 18:22 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Bod <bodron57@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-27 18:44 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-01-27 19:21 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Bod <bodron57@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-27 20:06 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-01-28 03:17 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Bod <bodron57@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-28 08:25 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Bod <bodron57@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-28 10:42 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-01-28 16:33 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Bod <bodron57@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-28 16:55 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2016-01-29 18:47 -0800
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-01-30 03:28 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2016-01-31 12:03 -0800
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-01-31 21:27 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2016-02-01 07:01 -0800
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-02-01 17:16 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2016-02-02 17:05 -0800
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-31 23:02 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-02-01 02:04 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-31 01:02 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-01-31 04:35 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day "Jake" <jakethesnake@aol.com> - 2016-02-20 17:47 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-02-21 00:06 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2016-02-20 19:48 -0800
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2016-01-31 03:59 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-02-26 19:42 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2016-02-26 17:17 -0300
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-02-26 20:22 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2016-02-26 20:15 -0300
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-02-26 23:27 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-02-21 21:45 +0000
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-01-27 06:28 -0500
Re: 'Get Windows 10' Turns Itself On and Nags Win 7 and 8.1 Users Twice a Day nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-27 06:40 -0500
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-21 20:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nadmte$p03$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89072 |
On 02/21/2016 07:18 PM, Mr Macaw wrote: > On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 00:09:28 -0000, Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote: > >> On 02/21/2016 04:48 PM, Mr Macaw wrote: >>> On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 04:07:39 -0000, Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@spam.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On 01-20-2016 22:49, Roger Blake wrote: >>>>> On 2016-01-21, Happy.Hobo<Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> That number is plausible, but most of the sources in that wikitable are >>>>>>> not — IOS at 20-25% ? >>>>> That's actually a pretty good showing for a single vendor - Android >>>>> devices are marketed by quite a few companies, IOS by a single company. >>>> >>>> It's not plausible to me because of the quantity of iPads and iPhones >>>> I see in use. It's no longer the overwhelming majority, but it's still >>>> WAY more than 25% >>> >>> Funny, I'd say that only 1 in 15 phones and tablets I see are Apples. The rest are Samsung or cheap Tesco things. >>> >> >> The iPhones are only 15% of market. > > So why is that idiot above saying 25% isn't enough? > He really has no idea. How often do you notice how many of what kind of phone/tablet are walking around when you are walking around? -- Caver1
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-21 20:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <210220162009505239%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #89074 |
In article <nadmte$p03$1@dont-email.me>, Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote: > He really has no idea. How often do you notice how many of > what kind of phone/tablet are walking around when you are > walking around? it's not hard to tell what kind of phone someone has.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-21 20:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nadoe9$suu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89075 |
On 02/21/2016 08:09 PM, nospam wrote: > In article <nadmte$p03$1@dont-email.me>, Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> > wrote: > >> He really has no idea. How often do you notice how many of >> what kind of phone/tablet are walking around when you are >> walking around? > > it's not hard to tell what kind of phone someone has. > So you pay attention to everyone's phone. How about all those who don't have them out. How do you count them. -- Caver1
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 13:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnncm23s.2tft.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #89074 |
In message <nadmte$p03$1@dont-email.me> Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote: > On 02/21/2016 07:18 PM, Mr Macaw wrote: >> On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 00:09:28 -0000, Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote: >> >>> On 02/21/2016 04:48 PM, Mr Macaw wrote: >>>> On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 04:07:39 -0000, Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@spam.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 01-20-2016 22:49, Roger Blake wrote: >>>>>> On 2016-01-21, Happy.Hobo<Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>> That number is plausible, but most of the sources in that wikitable are >>>>>>>> not — IOS at 20-25% ? >>>>>> That's actually a pretty good showing for a single vendor - Android >>>>>> devices are marketed by quite a few companies, IOS by a single company. >>>>> >>>>> It's not plausible to me because of the quantity of iPads and iPhones >>>>> I see in use. It's no longer the overwhelming majority, but it's still >>>>> WAY more than 25% >>>> >>>> Funny, I'd say that only 1 in 15 phones and tablets I see are Apples. The rest are Samsung or cheap Tesco things. >>>> >>> >>> The iPhones are only 15% of market. >> >> So why is that idiot above saying 25% isn't enough? >> > He really has no idea. How often do you notice how many of > what kind of phone/tablet are walking around when you are > walking around? I count laptops when I go to the coffee shop if there are more than about 10 people there. Saturday was busy, there were 10 Macs, 4 Windows machines, and 1 undetermined, possibly a cheapo chromebook, but I didn't get a good look at it. There's one guy who is often at the coffee shop with a new Blackberry, but otherwise iPhones dominate. A few Samsung Galaxy phones and then quite a lot of super cheap pieces of crap, including two people who have early 2000s era flip phones, but they are both quite elderly. -- "Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go.." - Oscar Wilde
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 17:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <op.yc8wgjmx86ebyl@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #89084 |
On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 13:06:18 -0000, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > In message <nadmte$p03$1@dont-email.me> > Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote: >> On 02/21/2016 07:18 PM, Mr Macaw wrote: >>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 00:09:28 -0000, Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On 02/21/2016 04:48 PM, Mr Macaw wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 04:07:39 -0000, Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@spam.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 01-20-2016 22:49, Roger Blake wrote: >>>>>>> On 2016-01-21, Happy.Hobo<Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>> That number is plausible, but most of the sources in that wikitable are >>>>>>>>> not — IOS at 20-25% ? >>>>>>> That's actually a pretty good showing for a single vendor - Android >>>>>>> devices are marketed by quite a few companies, IOS by a single company. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's not plausible to me because of the quantity of iPads and iPhones >>>>>> I see in use. It's no longer the overwhelming majority, but it's still >>>>>> WAY more than 25% >>>>> >>>>> Funny, I'd say that only 1 in 15 phones and tablets I see are Apples. The rest are Samsung or cheap Tesco things. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The iPhones are only 15% of market. >>> >>> So why is that idiot above saying 25% isn't enough? >>> > >> He really has no idea. How often do you notice how many of >> what kind of phone/tablet are walking around when you are >> walking around? > > I count laptops when I go to the coffee shop if there are more than about > 10 people there. > > Saturday was busy, there were 10 Macs, 4 Windows machines, and 1 > undetermined, possibly a cheapo chromebook, but I didn't get a good look > at it. > > There's one guy who is often at the coffee shop with a new Blackberry, > but otherwise iPhones dominate. A few Samsung Galaxy phones and then > quite a lot of super cheap pieces of crap, including two people who have > early 2000s era flip phones, but they are both quite elderly. Some people in here need to take a course in statistics. -- Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-21 01:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <210120160108150453%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #87301 |
In article <20160120203236@news.eternal-september.org>, Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote: > > A lot of people? Linux has a steady lock on about 1.5% of OS usage, > > Only on traditional desktop and laptop PCs. Market share in servers as > well as embedded and mobile devices is much more more significant. that's the whole point. linux is for servers, *not* the desktop. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems > > In particular, Android ships on more than 48% of mobile devices, and > identifiable Linux servers make up nearly 36% of web servers, with Unix > systems of some type running on nearly 68%. This does not count embedded > electronics such as TV sets, Blu-Ray players, printers, copiers, etc., > most of which run Linux internally. although android has linux at its core, it's not a linux system and can't run linux apps. it runs android os, with apps written to the android apis. embedded devices might be linux-based, but as with android, they do not count since users only interact with it via the buttons on the device, not the os, nor can they install *anything*. > > wife is a writer and a children's book critic. Publishers will accept > > only genuine MSWord documents; proper formatting is the responsibility > > of the submitter and they're not going to spend their time reformatting > > the material they receive. > > A quick web search shows at least some publishers accept PDF files, which > are platform-agnostic. the format may be agnostic, but the tools to create pdf definitely are not. the tools to create pdfs on linux are at best crappy, but mostly non-existent. > Of course it depends on the publisher. IEEE, for > example, prefers TeX, LaTex, or Troff submissions for technical manuscripts. there's always an exception. > This makes sense since word processing is not the same > thing as typesetting: > > http://www.thebookdesigner.com/2010/01/the-trouble-with-word-processors/ note that the author used adobe indesign, which does not exist for linux.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Mullen <ejEMOVER@edmullen.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-20 22:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <93m7ks.f3p.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #87296 |
Davoud wrote on 1/20/2016 7:52 PM: > Someone wrote: >>>>> Linux will never be a viable windows alternative because the linux >>>>> community does not have that as a goal and viciously attacks >>>>> anyone who does. > > Davoud: >>> True, but I don't think that Linux was meant to compete with Windows or >>> Mac OS. Like Mac OS, it was intended to occupy a certain niche, and it >>> does its job in that niche. It would be my go-to system if I were >>> running only servers. But for productivity, I'll stick with my Macs. >>> No, GIMP is not a Photoshop substitute, and the free office suites are >>> not MS Office substitutes. > > Bod: >> Maybe not for you, but they are for a lot of people. It depends on >> an individuals requirements. I have used Microsoft Office for years, >> but Open Office supplies my basic requirements now. >> My demands do not warrant M$ Office. > > A lot of people? Linux has a steady lock on about 1.5% of OS usage, 1.5%??? In what world is that a noticeable market share? -- Ed Mullen http://edmullen.net/ Do unto others, then run like hell.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-21 09:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n7qqoi$g8v$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87305 |
On 2016-01-20 10:08 PM, Ed Mullen wrote: > Davoud wrote on 1/20/2016 7:52 PM: >> Someone wrote: >>>>>> Linux will never be a viable windows alternative because the linux >>>>>> community does not have that as a goal and viciously attacks >>>>>> anyone who does. >> >> Davoud: >>>> True, but I don't think that Linux was meant to compete with Windows or >>>> Mac OS. Like Mac OS, it was intended to occupy a certain niche, and it >>>> does its job in that niche. It would be my go-to system if I were >>>> running only servers. But for productivity, I'll stick with my Macs. >>>> No, GIMP is not a Photoshop substitute, and the free office suites are >>>> not MS Office substitutes. >> >> Bod: >>> Maybe not for you, but they are for a lot of people. It depends on >>> an individuals requirements. I have used Microsoft Office for years, >>> but Open Office supplies my basic requirements now. >>> My demands do not warrant M$ Office. >> >> A lot of people? Linux has a steady lock on about 1.5% of OS usage, > > 1.5%??? > > In what world is that a noticeable market share? The world of delusion most GNU/Linux users reside in. -- Slimer EFF & OpenMedia member / IFAW, Mozilla & PETA supporter "Everything seems to work fine, except that occasionally everything freezes." - Another one of GNU/Linux's many victims "Sound wasn't even a gauranteed thing on a PC in the 90s." - Linux apologist JEDIDIAH explaining why sound never worked/works right in Linux
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Shadow <Sh@dow.br> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-21 13:36 -0200 |
| Message-ID | <nbu1abdpa1djdhkihu1jg55arehuvjl6gs@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #87305 |
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 22:08:25 -0500, Ed Mullen <ejEMOVER@edmullen.net> wrote: >Davoud wrote on 1/20/2016 7:52 PM: ...................... >> >> A lot of people? Linux has a steady lock on about 1.5% of OS usage, > >1.5%??? > >In what world is that a noticeable market share? That would be Desktop users browsing the net, as the stats come from supposedly unbiased webpage-monitoring trackers. Of course, the stats vary with the size of the bribes, as there is a BIG difference between the stats from the main trackers. It does NOT cover servers. Linux probably has > 65% of them. Again, 65% is probably not a "noticeable market share", so lets just kill Linux off. It's worthless. []'s -- Don't be evil - Google 2004 We have a new policy - Google 2012
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-21 11:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n7r0va$9b8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87347 |
On 01/21/2016 10:36 AM, Shadow wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 22:08:25 -0500, Ed Mullen <ejEMOVER@edmullen.net> > wrote: > >> Davoud wrote on 1/20/2016 7:52 PM: > > ...................... >>> >>> A lot of people? Linux has a steady lock on about 1.5% of OS usage, >> >> 1.5%??? >> >> In what world is that a noticeable market share? > > That would be Desktop users browsing the net, as the stats > come from supposedly unbiased webpage-monitoring trackers. Of course, > the stats vary with the size of the bribes, as there is a BIG > difference between the stats from the main trackers. > It does NOT cover servers. Linux probably has > 65% of them. > Again, 65% is probably not a "noticeable market share", so > lets just kill Linux off. It's worthless. > []'s > Also doesn't count schools, businesses, military, governments that are using the Linux desktop, which is growing. -- Caver1
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-21 11:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n7r1fe$cf4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87347 |
On 2016-01-21 10:36 AM, Shadow wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 22:08:25 -0500, Ed Mullen <ejEMOVER@edmullen.net> > wrote: > >> Davoud wrote on 1/20/2016 7:52 PM: > > ...................... >>> >>> A lot of people? Linux has a steady lock on about 1.5% of OS usage, >> >> 1.5%??? >> >> In what world is that a noticeable market share? > > That would be Desktop users browsing the net, as the stats > come from supposedly unbiased webpage-monitoring trackers. Of course, > the stats vary with the size of the bribes, as there is a BIG > difference between the stats from the main trackers. > It does NOT cover servers. Linux probably has > 65% of them. Had. Now, the numbers are neck and neck. According to Wikipedia, Linux has about 35% and Windows has about 33%. > Again, 65% is probably not a "noticeable market share", so > lets just kill Linux off. It's worthless. > []'s Linux IS worthless unless you need to run a web server and are too cheap to buy a decent OS license. -- Slimer EFF & OpenMedia member / IFAW, Mozilla & PETA supporter "Everything seems to work fine, except that occasionally everything freezes." - Another one of GNU/Linux's many victims "Sound wasn't even a gauranteed thing on a PC in the 90s." - Linux apologist JEDIDIAH explaining why sound never worked/works right in Linux
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-21 02:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vilain-ADA2BC.02371021012016@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #87296 |
In article <200120161952134050%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote: > Someone wrote: > > >>> Linux will never be a viable windows alternative because the linux > > >>> community does not have that as a goal and viciously attacks > > >>> anyone who does. > > Davoud: > > > True, but I don't think that Linux was meant to compete with Windows or > > > Mac OS. Like Mac OS, it was intended to occupy a certain niche, and it > > > does its job in that niche. It would be my go-to system if I were > > > running only servers. But for productivity, I'll stick with my Macs. > > > No, GIMP is not a Photoshop substitute, and the free office suites are > > > not MS Office substitutes. > > Bod: > > Maybe not for you, but they are for a lot of people. It depends on > > an individuals requirements. I have used Microsoft Office for years, > > but Open Office supplies my basic requirements now. > > My demands do not warrant M$ Office. > > A lot of people? Linux has a steady lock on about 1.5% of OS usage, > with the majority of that in server applications. As a desktop > productivity OS it's numbers remain steady in the tenths of a percent. > The world collaborates with software that does not run on Linux. My > wife is a writer and a children's book critic. Publishers will accept > only genuine MSWord documents; proper formatting is the responsibility > of the submitter and they're not going to spend their time reformatting > the material they receive. But, once again, if one needs cheap servers > and cheap parallel rendering, Linux seems to be the answer for "a lot" > of industries. Cory Doctorow has been writing his novels on IBM laptop running Ubuntu desktop for quite a while. He has no problems getting publishers to accept his manuscripts using whatever editor he uses (most likely OpenOffice or LibreOffice). He'll go on and on and on about how he's had HW disasters happen on the road, popped into a MicroCenter or other hole-in-the-wall computer store in Butthole Montana and get off the shelf parts to fix his machine (or replace it entirely by just popping the disk out and sliding it into the new laptop). I get that your wive's publish has better things to do that deal with an author who won't submit manuscripts in their required format. But, as a counter argument, there are editors and publishers that have joined the 21st century and don't care. -- DeeDee, don't press that button! DeeDee! NO! Dee... [I filter all Goggle Groups posts, so any reply may be automatically ignored]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 06:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <68KdnV-lOs7MMDXLnZ2dnUU7-N-dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #87296 |
Davoud <star@sky.net> writes: > > A lot of people? Linux has a steady lock on about 1.5% of OS usage, > with the majority of that in server applications. As a desktop I guess you forgot all of the embedded applications and the mobile devices that use Linux. They far outnumber desktop usage of any OS. > productivity OS it's numbers remain steady in the tenths of a percent. Given that nobody can show overall sales figures for Linux on the desktop since it's freely available and isn't tied to any one brand of hardware, how do you come up with your figure?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 07:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <270120160726011327%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #87853 |
In article <68KdnV-lOs7MMDXLnZ2dnUU7-N-dnZ2d@supernews.com>, Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote: > > A lot of people? Linux has a steady lock on about 1.5% of OS usage, > > with the majority of that in server applications. As a desktop > > I guess you forgot all of the embedded applications and the mobile > devices that use Linux. They far outnumber desktop usage of any OS. embedded devices do not count. people don't choose a thermostat or set top box or whatever else because it's running linux, nor can anyone install linux apps on it. it's also not a full linux either. > > productivity OS it's numbers remain steady in the tenths of a percent. > > Given that nobody can show overall sales figures for Linux on the > desktop since it's freely available and isn't tied to any one brand of > hardware, how do you come up with your figure? it's not hard to determine that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 13:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnahgsr.2e2v.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #87853 |
In message <68KdnV-lOs7MMDXLnZ2dnUU7-N-dnZ2d@supernews.com> Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote: > Davoud <star@sky.net> writes: >> >> A lot of people? Linux has a steady lock on about 1.5% of OS usage, >> with the majority of that in server applications. As a desktop > I guess you forgot all of the embedded applications and the mobile > devices that use Linux. They far outnumber desktop usage of any OS. Oh, are you one of those "Android is Linux" morons? Android is not linux. Android is Java. -- Hi, I'm Gary Cooper, but not the Gary Cooper that's dead.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 11:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <_5idnVmwCcSMbTXLnZ2dnUU7-SGdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #87857 |
Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes: > In message <68KdnV-lOs7MMDXLnZ2dnUU7-N-dnZ2d@supernews.com> > Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote: >> Davoud <star@sky.net> writes: > >>> >>> A lot of people? Linux has a steady lock on about 1.5% of OS usage, >>> with the majority of that in server applications. As a desktop > >> I guess you forgot all of the embedded applications and the mobile >> devices that use Linux. They far outnumber desktop usage of any OS. > > Oh, are you one of those "Android is Linux" morons? Oh, are you one of those trolls?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 16:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dgsa8uFefvvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #87857 |
Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > In message <68KdnV-lOs7MMDXLnZ2dnUU7-N-dnZ2d@supernews.com> > Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote: >> Davoud <star@sky.net> writes: > >>> >>> A lot of people? Linux has a steady lock on about 1.5% of OS usage, >>> with the majority of that in server applications. As a desktop > >> I guess you forgot all of the embedded applications and the mobile >> devices that use Linux. They far outnumber desktop usage of any OS. > > Oh, are you one of those "Android is Linux" morons? > > Android is not linux. Android is Java. Sounds similar to dimwits who proclaim Android is WINNING the smartphone "wars" because Android is used on so many phones while ignore the fact that most of those Android phones are actually feature phones rather than smart phones. ; ) -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bod <bodron57@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 17:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dgsbetFepboU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #87878 |
On 27/01/2016 16:41, Jolly Roger wrote: > Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: >> In message <68KdnV-lOs7MMDXLnZ2dnUU7-N-dnZ2d@supernews.com> >> Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote: >>> Davoud <star@sky.net> writes: >> >>>> >>>> A lot of people? Linux has a steady lock on about 1.5% of OS usage, >>>> with the majority of that in server applications. As a desktop >> >>> I guess you forgot all of the embedded applications and the mobile >>> devices that use Linux. They far outnumber desktop usage of any OS. >> >> Oh, are you one of those "Android is Linux" morons? >> >> Android is not linux. Android is Java. > > Sounds similar to dimwits who proclaim Android is WINNING the smartphone > "wars" because Android is used on so many phones while ignore the fact that > most of those Android phones are actually feature phones rather than smart > phones. ; ) > smartphone - definition of smartphone in English from the ... www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/smartphone noun. A mobile phone that performs many of the functions of a computer, typically having a touchscreen interface, Internet access, and an operating system capable of running downloaded apps. -- Bod --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 17:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dgscosFf4kgU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #87883 |
Bod <bodron57@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On 27/01/2016 16:41, Jolly Roger wrote: >> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: >>> In message <68KdnV-lOs7MMDXLnZ2dnUU7-N-dnZ2d@supernews.com> >>> Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote: >>>> Davoud <star@sky.net> writes: >>> >>>>> >>>>> A lot of people? Linux has a steady lock on about 1.5% of OS usage, >>>>> with the majority of that in server applications. As a desktop >>> >>>> I guess you forgot all of the embedded applications and the mobile >>>> devices that use Linux. They far outnumber desktop usage of any OS. >>> >>> Oh, are you one of those "Android is Linux" morons? >>> >>> Android is not linux. Android is Java. >> >> Sounds similar to dimwits who proclaim Android is WINNING the smartphone >> "wars" because Android is used on so many phones while ignore the fact that >> most of those Android phones are actually feature phones rather than smart >> phones. ; ) >> > smartphone - definition of smartphone We all know what smart phones are, silly. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bod <bodron57@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 17:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dgseqnFflggU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #87892 |
On 27/01/2016 17:23, Jolly Roger wrote: > Bod <bodron57@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> On 27/01/2016 16:41, Jolly Roger wrote: >>> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: >>>> In message <68KdnV-lOs7MMDXLnZ2dnUU7-N-dnZ2d@supernews.com> >>>> Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote: >>>>> Davoud <star@sky.net> writes: >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> A lot of people? Linux has a steady lock on about 1.5% of OS usage, >>>>>> with the majority of that in server applications. As a desktop >>>> >>>>> I guess you forgot all of the embedded applications and the mobile >>>>> devices that use Linux. They far outnumber desktop usage of any OS. >>>> >>>> Oh, are you one of those "Android is Linux" morons? >>>> >>>> Android is not linux. Android is Java. >>> >>> Sounds similar to dimwits who proclaim Android is WINNING the smartphone >>> "wars" because Android is used on so many phones while ignore the fact that >>> most of those Android phones are actually feature phones rather than smart >>> phones. ; ) >>> >> smartphone - definition of smartphone > > We all know what smart phones are, silly. > Just checking ;-) -- Bod --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web