Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.comp.microsoft.windows > #1181 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-02-20 16:33 +0000 |
| Last post | 2022-02-22 10:30 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 166 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.microsoft.windows
If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-20 16:33 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2022-02-20 16:38 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-20 16:58 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-20 12:09 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> - 2022-02-20 13:05 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-20 20:37 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> - 2022-02-20 21:38 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-21 04:16 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-21 04:38 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-21 08:05 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-21 08:38 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-21 08:55 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Wolffan <akwolffan@zoho.com> - 2022-02-21 09:27 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-21 11:32 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-21 13:25 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-21 15:16 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-22 02:30 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-22 10:29 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-28 05:44 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-21 15:14 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> - 2022-02-21 21:16 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-22 05:27 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-22 10:09 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-22 12:43 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-22 13:37 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-22 15:01 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> - 2022-02-22 16:44 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-22 19:36 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> - 2022-02-22 21:14 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-23 07:58 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-23 09:01 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-23 09:27 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@R04.CH> - 2022-02-23 03:26 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-22 02:30 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-22 10:22 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-22 12:43 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-21 15:11 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-21 15:23 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-22 05:32 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2022-02-22 09:37 -0600
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-22 11:12 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> - 2022-02-21 21:14 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-22 05:44 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-22 10:15 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-22 12:43 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-22 13:39 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-22 15:01 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> - 2022-02-22 16:31 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-22 19:36 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> - 2022-02-22 21:05 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-23 07:58 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-23 08:53 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-21 08:38 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-21 15:20 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> - 2022-02-21 21:17 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-22 05:56 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-22 10:18 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-22 02:30 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-22 10:25 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-22 12:43 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-22 13:53 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-22 15:01 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> - 2022-02-22 16:31 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-08-13 19:47 +0100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-08-13 15:08 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-08-13 22:25 +0100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-08-13 18:07 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-08-14 04:32 +0100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-08-14 06:41 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-08-14 14:50 +0100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2022-08-14 10:25 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-08-14 16:08 +0100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2022-08-14 12:45 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Sail Fisherman <sailfisherman@sailfisherman.com> - 2022-08-15 02:07 +0900
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-08-14 12:05 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2022-08-14 10:30 -0600
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-08-14 12:39 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? "Rick" <rick@nospam.com> - 2022-08-14 10:26 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2022-08-14 11:04 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-08-14 16:28 +0100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Silvano <Silvano@noncisonopernessuno.it> - 2022-08-14 17:31 +0200
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-08-14 12:05 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2022-08-14 11:47 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-08-14 17:22 +0100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2022-08-14 13:01 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-08-14 18:26 +0100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> - 2022-08-14 13:31 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Arlen Holder <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-08-14 22:15 +0100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2022-08-15 15:07 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2022-08-15 13:09 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2022-08-15 17:14 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2022-08-16 18:59 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2022-08-16 18:57 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? YK <youkidding@yahoo.com> - 2022-08-15 11:14 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2022-08-15 13:18 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2022-08-15 13:34 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? YK <youkidding@yahoo.com> - 2022-08-16 17:04 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-08-14 16:19 +0100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Arlen Holder <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-08-14 22:16 +0100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? "Rick" <rick@nospam.com> - 2022-08-17 11:41 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-08-14 12:05 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-08-14 17:49 +0100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@R04.CH> - 2022-08-14 10:31 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-08-14 12:05 -0400
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2022-08-14 11:09 -0600
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Wolffan <akwolffan@zoho.com> - 2022-02-21 09:23 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-21 11:12 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-21 11:32 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-21 15:26 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> - 2022-02-21 21:19 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-20 20:54 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-20 16:06 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2022-02-21 00:28 +0100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> - 2022-02-20 21:57 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-21 04:46 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-21 08:08 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2022-02-21 07:41 +0100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-21 08:34 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Peter <occassionally-confused@nospam.co.uk> - 2022-02-22 05:18 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2022-02-22 07:37 +0100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-22 08:32 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-22 09:43 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2022-02-23 09:53 +1300
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Peter <occassionally-confused@nospam.co.uk> - 2022-02-23 17:10 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2022-02-24 05:39 +1100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2022-02-26 11:19 +0100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Peter <occassionally-confused@nospam.co.uk> - 2022-02-26 16:34 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-26 11:45 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-27 16:03 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? "Jacob Jones" <jkj33@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 07:10 +1100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-26 16:09 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2022-02-27 10:25 +1300
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-27 10:22 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-28 15:28 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2022-02-23 09:04 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@R04.CH> - 2022-02-23 03:24 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Peter <occassionally-confused@nospam.co.uk> - 2022-02-23 17:05 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2022-02-24 05:34 +1100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2022-02-23 19:25 +0100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@R04.CH> - 2022-02-23 16:06 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? allen <allen@spam.com> - 2022-02-23 15:22 -0800
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2022-02-24 10:42 +1300
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Peter <occassionally-confused@nospam.co.uk> - 2022-02-23 16:59 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@R04.CH> - 2022-02-23 12:13 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Peter <occassionally-confused@nospam.co.uk> - 2022-02-23 17:39 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-23 21:58 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2022-02-24 07:19 +0100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-24 01:33 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-24 17:04 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-02-24 12:40 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2022-02-21 07:46 +0100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> - 2022-02-20 21:47 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2022-02-21 07:43 +0100
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-21 21:39 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-21 04:19 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> - 2022-02-20 13:01 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-20 20:44 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> - 2022-02-20 21:42 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-21 04:54 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-21 08:09 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-21 21:34 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> - 2022-02-21 21:27 -0500
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2022-02-22 08:02 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-22 08:42 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2022-02-22 09:14 +0000
Re: If Apple can permanently lock your hardware for not logging into it - why can't Microsoft do it too? rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> - 2022-02-22 10:30 -0500
Page 2 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-21 21:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oIXQJ.14201$Icha.703@fx11.iad> |
| In reply to | #1265 |
On 2022-02-21 3:14 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote: > nospam wrote: > >> boot camp will partition the drive, directly install windows from an >> iso and automatically download and install any additional drivers that >> might be needed for the mac. the entire process is both easier and >> faster than installing windows on an actual windows pc. using a usb >> stick is an option, it's just slower. > > What nospam does is play Apple's MARKETING game with the TSMC-Silicon. > > He doesn't tell you Boot Camp doesn't exist on the latest Apple CPUs > > Like MARKETING, he wants you to simply _assume_ that it works. > > When it doesn't. It can't. It won't. It never did. > <https://support.apple.com/ja-jp/HT211814> > > MacBook Pro (14-inch, 2021) > MacBook Pro (16-inch, 2021) > iMac (24-inch, M1, 2021) > Mac mini (M1, 2020) > MacBook Air (M1, 2020) > MacBook Pro (13-inch, M1, 2020) > etc. (basically almost every Mac moving forward) Well, that sort of goes without saying. On the other hand, you don't buy an M1 Mac to use Windows anyway. However, I imagine that Boot Camp is still around and allows you to install Linux, as pointless as that would be. -- rabidR04CH Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Windows 11 For fans of message boards, I invite you: https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-22 05:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sv1s7r$14gv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #1277 |
rabidR04CH wrote: > Well, that sort of goes without saying. On the other hand, you don't buy > an M1 Mac to use Windows anyway. However, I imagine that Boot Camp is > still around and allows you to install Linux, as pointless as that would be. I believe only in facts. Your assumption, I believe is wrong (since Boot Camp doesn't _exist_ for the newer TSMC-Silicon Macs), but that assumption doesn't matter to my main point. My main point is the iKooks like nospam don't even know their own systems. As a result, their claims turn out not only to be baseless, but patently wrong. Either that, or the iKooks brazenly fabricated imaginary functionality. Again. I don't know why the iKooks incessantly brazenly fabricate functionality that doesn't exist. I just know that they do. All the time. Why? I don't know why. I suspect either iKooks are too ignorant to know Boot Camp doesn't exist. Or, perhaps they know this but they think _we_ are too stupid to realize they lied to us. Either way - those two are the only possible assessments. a. They're ignorant, and/or b. They lied. You tell me why nospam made the completely baseless claims that he made. Because all I know is he defends Apple to the death, no matter what, even to the point of brazenly fabricating imaginary functionality that even Apple doesn't claim exists.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-22 10:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <F07RJ.84949$Gojc.83658@fx99.iad> |
| In reply to | #1285 |
On 2022-02-22 00:27, Andy Burnelli wrote: > rabidR04CH wrote: > >> Well, that sort of goes without saying. On the other hand, you don't >> buy an M1 Mac to use Windows anyway. However, I imagine that Boot Camp >> is still around and allows you to install Linux, as pointless as that >> would be. > > I believe only in facts. > > Your assumption, I believe is wrong (since Boot Camp doesn't _exist_ for > the > newer TSMC-Silicon Macs), but that assumption doesn't matter to my main > point. > > My main point is the iKooks like nospam don't even know their own systems. > As a result, their claims turn out not only to be baseless, but patently > wrong. Actually, nospam does know his system quite well. He doesn't know Apple's history _as_ well but definitely understands MacOS. Intel-based Macs most likely run Windows without issue just as he claims so I stand corrected on that whereas the M1 ones probably don't. I don't, however, think it's a licensing issue as much as the fact that the ARM edition of Windows 10/11 is not meant to be used on anything other than Surface machines. It could, technically, amount to a licensing issue though. > Either that, or the iKooks brazenly fabricated imaginary functionality. > Again. > > I don't know why the iKooks incessantly brazenly fabricate functionality > that doesn't exist. This is not a case of that for sure. Boot Camp does exist and it does work, I just didn't know how well. If anything, it's quite impressive what it manages to do considering how poorly Windows itself supports alternative operating systems. > I just know that they do. > All the time. > > Why? > I don't know why. > > I suspect either iKooks are too ignorant to know Boot Camp doesn't exist. > Or, perhaps they know this but they think _we_ are too stupid to realize > they lied to us. > > Either way - those two are the only possible assessments. > a. They're ignorant, and/or > b. They lied. > You tell me why nospam made the completely baseless claims that he made. > > Because all I know is he defends Apple to the death, no matter what, > even to > the point of brazenly fabricating imaginary functionality that even Apple > doesn't claim exists. He definitely does defend the Mac to the death, even when it makes no sense to do so. You have to be a serious zealot to think that a 128KB or 512KB Mac with a palette of exactly two colours, no serious sound capabilities, no ability to multitask, a complete absence of expansion and a tiny monitor which can't be replaced is somehow going to compete with a computer that features a palette of 4096 colours with 32 simultaneous, 4-channel sound, expandability, the ability to be used on a TV or a monitor of a user's choosing and pre-emptive multitasking. You lose *ALL credibility when you make such statements. -- rabidR04CH MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3 "But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than men.'" - Acts 5:29 For fans of message boards, I invite you: https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-22 12:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <220220221243372764%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #1299 |
In article <F07RJ.84949$Gojc.83658@fx99.iad>, rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> wrote: > Actually, nospam does know his system quite well. He doesn't know > Apple's history _as_ well but definitely understands MacOS. i know apple history quite well, having been immersed in it for years. mac is a large portion of it, but it also other products, including iphone, newton, apple ii, lisa and less well known products. > Intel-based > Macs most likely run Windows without issue just as he claims so I stand > corrected on that whereas the M1 ones probably don't. I don't, however, > think it's a licensing issue as much as the fact that the ARM edition of > Windows 10/11 is not meant to be used on anything other than Surface > machines. It could, technically, amount to a licensing issue though. it's a licensing issue. microsoft has an exclusive with qualcomm, which prevents them from licensing it to others until that expires. <https://www.xda-developers.com/qualcomm-exclusivity-deal-microsoft-wind ows-on-arm/> it's possible to get around that but it's considered an 'unsupported configuration'. there's a good chance microsoft will choose to license it for apple silicon macs when they can, but that is not guaranteed. they're certainly not saying anything one way or the other. > > He definitely does defend the Mac to the death, even when it makes no > sense to do so. You have to be a serious zealot to think that a 128KB or > 512KB Mac with a palette of exactly two colours, no serious sound > capabilities, no ability to multitask, a complete absence of expansion > and a tiny monitor which can't be replaced things were different in 1984 when the 128k mac was released. memory was not cheap and they were already having difficulties meeting their price point with 128k, let alone 512k. the sound capabilities were quite good for the time, multitasking was possible on a 512k, there were numerous third party expansion options and the entire package was intended to be portable. some of the ads showed people on bicycles with a mac in its carrying case, strapped to the bike. apple later added everything you listed as missing, including 6 nubus slots on the mac ii, which could also run apple's version of unix, known as a/ux, all in the late 1980s. <http://toastytech.com/guis/auxguimix.png> <https://wiki.preterhuman.net/images/3/35/Picture-5.jpg> > is somehow going to compete > with a computer that features a palette of 4096 colours with 32 > simultaneous, 4-channel sound, expandability, the ability to be used on > a TV or a monitor of a user's choosing and pre-emptive multitasking. You > lose *ALL credibility when you make such statements. as you say, you lose all credibility when you make such statements. not only did the mac compete, but it won, at least against the amiga and atari. it managed to survive against windows, despite major obstacles. there was a *lot* of software and hardware for the mac, and almost nothing for amiga and atari. you're very fixated on raw specs and not what can actually be done with a computer. kinda like the saying, it's not what you have but how you use it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-22 13:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <I3aRJ.79663$H_t7.45186@fx40.iad> |
| In reply to | #1320 |
On 2022-02-22 12:43, nospam wrote: > In article <F07RJ.84949$Gojc.83658@fx99.iad>, rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> > wrote: > >> Actually, nospam does know his system quite well. He doesn't know >> Apple's history _as_ well but definitely understands MacOS. > > i know apple history quite well, having been immersed in it for years. > mac is a large portion of it, but it also other products, including > iphone, newton, apple ii, lisa and less well known products. I've never tried a Newton but I know that those who had the chance to own one absolutely loved it and held onto it for years after it was discontinued by Apple. Any company which can foster such passion from its users for one of their products earns my respect. I still remember the Powerbook I had in 2004 very fondly and kind of wish I had never changed it for an iMac G5. There was no real reason to but I fell for the belief that things were going to be significantly better on a desktop. >> Intel-based >> Macs most likely run Windows without issue just as he claims so I stand >> corrected on that whereas the M1 ones probably don't. I don't, however, >> think it's a licensing issue as much as the fact that the ARM edition of >> Windows 10/11 is not meant to be used on anything other than Surface >> machines. It could, technically, amount to a licensing issue though. > > it's a licensing issue. > > microsoft has an exclusive with qualcomm, which prevents them from > licensing it to others until that expires. > > <https://www.xda-developers.com/qualcomm-exclusivity-deal-microsoft-wind > ows-on-arm/> > > it's possible to get around that but it's considered an 'unsupported > configuration'. > > there's a good chance microsoft will choose to license it for apple > silicon macs when they can, but that is not guaranteed. they're > certainly not saying anything one way or the other. I guess we'll only know once that deal expires and if it is simply not renewed. I suppose that depends on whether the Surface Pro line utilizing the Qualcomm processors is an overwhelming success for both companies or not. >> He definitely does defend the Mac to the death, even when it makes no >> sense to do so. You have to be a serious zealot to think that a 128KB or >> 512KB Mac with a palette of exactly two colours, no serious sound >> capabilities, no ability to multitask, a complete absence of expansion >> and a tiny monitor which can't be replaced > > things were different in 1984 when the 128k mac was released. memory > was not cheap and they were already having difficulties meeting their > price point with 128k, let alone 512k. > > the sound capabilities were quite good for the time, multitasking was > possible on a 512k, there were numerous third party expansion options > and the entire package was intended to be portable. some of the ads > showed people on bicycles with a mac in its carrying case, strapped to > the bike. > > apple later added everything you listed as missing, including 6 nubus > slots on the mac ii, which could also run apple's version of unix, > known as a/ux, all in the late 1980s. > > <http://toastytech.com/guis/auxguimix.png> > <https://wiki.preterhuman.net/images/3/35/Picture-5.jpg> Meanwhile, Amiga and Atari managed to provide everything Apple was unable to and do so at a much lower price. In Atari's case, a user paid about $999 with colour monitor and 1MB RAM which is still $1,400 less than a Mac with 512KB. There's no way the Mac comes out as the better option. >> is somehow going to compete >> with a computer that features a palette of 4096 colours with 32 >> simultaneous, 4-channel sound, expandability, the ability to be used on >> a TV or a monitor of a user's choosing and pre-emptive multitasking. You >> lose *ALL credibility when you make such statements. > > as you say, you lose all credibility when you make such statements. > > not only did the mac compete, but it won, at least against the amiga > and atari. it managed to survive against windows, despite major > obstacles. Mac won because Atari and Commodore later ended up fighting one another on price rather than trying to upgrade their machines in the hope of competing with the PC and the Mac. I'm talking about 1985 where it was clear that the Mac was the worst of the four options and you _know_ that I am. > there was a *lot* of software and hardware for the mac, and almost > nothing for amiga and atari. That is true for software, at the very least. In the case of the Atari, rampant piracy discouraged companies from bothering to produce software for it and I don't blame them. Amiga had tons of software, but most of it was games which is what the Amiga ended up becoming as a result of its stellar hardware. Unfortunately, few saw the machine's potential as a workstation. > you're very fixated on raw specs and not what can actually be done with > a computer. kinda like the saying, it's not what you have but how you > use it. Raw specs are one thing but those two machines could also do a lot more than the Mac could for the very reasons you cite: lack of hardware and software. It should be noted that Atari and Amiga fared incredibly well in Europe and a load of software was made available for both platforms within the continent but a lot of it, particularly games, never made it to North America. -- rabidR04CH MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3 "But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than men.'" - Acts 5:29 For fans of message boards, I invite you: https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-22 15:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <220220221501218593%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #1326 |
In article <I3aRJ.79663$H_t7.45186@fx40.iad>, rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> wrote: > >> Actually, nospam does know his system quite well. He doesn't know > >> Apple's history _as_ well but definitely understands MacOS. > > > > i know apple history quite well, having been immersed in it for years. > > mac is a large portion of it, but it also other products, including > > iphone, newton, apple ii, lisa and less well known products. > > I've never tried a Newton but I know that those who had the chance to > own one absolutely loved it and held onto it for years after it was > discontinued by Apple. Any company which can foster such passion from > its users for one of their products earns my respect. the newton was *well* ahead of its time. its biggest problem was that it was big. the palm pilot was the right size, despite it not being anywhere near as advanced. writing apps for the newton was also very cool. it used something called soups: <http://www.canicula.com/newton/prog/soups.htm> Unlike traditional operating systems such as the MacOS and Windows NT there is no file system and therefore no files in the Newton Operating System. Data is instead stored in opaque collections like a database in entities known as soups. Each entry in a soup can be likened to a record in a database and each data member in an entry (known as a slot) can be likened to a field in a database. Unlike database records entries in a soup do not all have to have the same slots. To retrieve data entries from the soups you don't access them directly but rather send queries to the soups which return cursor objects. You then use the cursor object to get copies of individual entries in the soup. You can then do whatever you want with the copies. The original entries in the soups are not modified unless you overwrite them with your changed copy. i bought a newton when it was released and within a couple of weeks was hired to write an app, which paid for the newton many times over. writing apps for the palm pilot was very much like writing for classic mac os, which is not surprising since some of the same people worked on it. > I still remember the Powerbook I had in 2004 very fondly and kind of > wish I had never changed it for an iMac G5. There was no real reason to > but I fell for the belief that things were going to be significantly > better on a desktop. sometimes they're not. which powerbook was it? the powerbook 12" still has a following to this day. > > > <http://toastytech.com/guis/auxguimix.png> > > <https://wiki.preterhuman.net/images/3/35/Picture-5.jpg> > > Meanwhile, Amiga and Atari managed to provide everything Apple was > unable to and do so at a much lower price. In Atari's case, a user paid > about $999 with colour monitor and 1MB RAM which is still $1,400 less > than a Mac with 512KB. There's no way the Mac comes out as the better > option. you're focused only on hardware. the mac had a *lot* of software and a far more polished interface, which meant it was generally a better choice. as i said, the mac survived the 90s and 00s, when windows was dominant. amiga and atari did not. > > you're very fixated on raw specs and not what can actually be done with > > a computer. kinda like the saying, it's not what you have but how you > > use it. > > Raw specs are one thing but those two machines could also do a lot more > than the Mac could for the very reasons you cite: lack of hardware and > software. It should be noted that Atari and Amiga fared incredibly well > in Europe and a load of software was made available for both platforms > within the continent but a lot of it, particularly games, never made it > to North America. what they did was not enough. the mac was a better all around system, with more variety and better apps. companies could rely on a dealer network for support, something that atari and amiga did not have. companies could justify buying a mac and certainly a windows pc. not so much amiga or atari.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-22 16:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <gPcRJ.92504$i65a.25631@fx16.iad> |
| In reply to | #1331 |
On 2022-02-22 3:01 p.m., nospam wrote: > In article <I3aRJ.79663$H_t7.45186@fx40.iad>, rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> > wrote: > >>>> Actually, nospam does know his system quite well. He doesn't know >>>> Apple's history _as_ well but definitely understands MacOS. >>> >>> i know apple history quite well, having been immersed in it for years. >>> mac is a large portion of it, but it also other products, including >>> iphone, newton, apple ii, lisa and less well known products. >> >> I've never tried a Newton but I know that those who had the chance to >> own one absolutely loved it and held onto it for years after it was >> discontinued by Apple. Any company which can foster such passion from >> its users for one of their products earns my respect. > > the newton was *well* ahead of its time. > > its biggest problem was that it was big. > > the palm pilot was the right size, despite it not being anywhere near > as advanced. > > writing apps for the newton was also very cool. it used something > called soups: > > <http://www.canicula.com/newton/prog/soups.htm> > Unlike traditional operating systems such as the MacOS and Windows > NT there is no file system and therefore no files in the Newton > Operating System. Data is instead stored in opaque collections like > a database in entities known as soups. Each entry in a soup can be > likened to a record in a database and each data member in an entry > (known as a slot) can be likened to a field in a database. Unlike > database records entries in a soup do not all have to have the same > slots. To retrieve data entries from the soups you don't access them > directly but rather send queries to the soups which return cursor > objects. You then use the cursor object to get copies of individual > entries in the soup. You can then do whatever you want with the > copies. The original entries in the soups are not modified unless you > overwrite them with your changed copy. > > i bought a newton when it was released and within a couple of weeks was > hired to write an app, which paid for the newton many times over. > > writing apps for the palm pilot was very much like writing for classic > mac os, which is not surprising since some of the same people worked on > it. I have no doubt that it was ahead of its time and probably much better than a Palm but I wonder whether there was a market for such a device at the time. If not, would there have been one if the device were smaller? >> I still remember the Powerbook I had in 2004 very fondly and kind of >> wish I had never changed it for an iMac G5. There was no real reason to >> but I fell for the belief that things were going to be significantly >> better on a desktop. > > sometimes they're not. > > which powerbook was it? the powerbook 12" still has a following to this > day. It was a G4 1GHz with 1GB of RAM if I remember correctly. The keyboard was nice, I couldn't complain about the battery life and the screen was crisp. I loved not having a tray onto which to put my optical media as well. >>> <http://toastytech.com/guis/auxguimix.png> >>> <https://wiki.preterhuman.net/images/3/35/Picture-5.jpg> >> >> Meanwhile, Amiga and Atari managed to provide everything Apple was >> unable to and do so at a much lower price. In Atari's case, a user paid >> about $999 with colour monitor and 1MB RAM which is still $1,400 less >> than a Mac with 512KB. There's no way the Mac comes out as the better >> option. > > you're focused only on hardware. the mac had a *lot* of software and a > far more polished interface, which meant it was generally a better > choice. > > as i said, the mac survived the 90s and 00s, when windows was dominant. > > amiga and atari did not. For the interface, I can't say that Mac OS wasn't polished. AmigaOS was clearly capable of more but fairly daunting to a first time user and you're right to say that it wasn't all too stable at first... even the Amiga users themselves will laugh at the "Guru Medication" error they often received. Atari's TOS was better but it felt like an incomplete Mac OS. There were few options to say the least. However, it should be pointed out that AmigaOS became much better as of the second release and that much of the instability was due to the Amiga 1000 being rushed to market. >>> you're very fixated on raw specs and not what can actually be done with >>> a computer. kinda like the saying, it's not what you have but how you >>> use it. >> >> Raw specs are one thing but those two machines could also do a lot more >> than the Mac could for the very reasons you cite: lack of hardware and >> software. It should be noted that Atari and Amiga fared incredibly well >> in Europe and a load of software was made available for both platforms >> within the continent but a lot of it, particularly games, never made it >> to North America. > > what they did was not enough. > > the mac was a better all around system, with more variety and better > apps. companies could rely on a dealer network for support, something > that atari and amiga did not have. > > companies could justify buying a mac and certainly a windows pc. not so > much amiga or atari. As a result of the _eventual_ software library, I am tempted to agree with you. However, if we consider 1985 specifically, the libraries of all of the machines involved except for the PC were small and a person would have no choice but to consider the machine's specifications and price. In that respect, the Mac available to people in 1985 was simply a terrible sell not only because it was way too expensive but couldn't even produce colour. -- rabidR04CH Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Windows 11 "But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than men.'" - Acts 5:29 For fans of message boards, I invite you: https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-22 19:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <220220221936359426%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #1336 |
In article <gPcRJ.92504$i65a.25631@fx16.iad>, rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> wrote: > > > >>>> Actually, nospam does know his system quite well. He doesn't know > >>>> Apple's history _as_ well but definitely understands MacOS. > >>> > >>> i know apple history quite well, having been immersed in it for years. > >>> mac is a large portion of it, but it also other products, including > >>> iphone, newton, apple ii, lisa and less well known products. > >> > >> I've never tried a Newton but I know that those who had the chance to > >> own one absolutely loved it and held onto it for years after it was > >> discontinued by Apple. Any company which can foster such passion from > >> its users for one of their products earns my respect. > > > > the newton was *well* ahead of its time. > > ... > I have no doubt that it was ahead of its time and probably much better > than a Palm but I wonder whether there was a market for such a device at > the time. If not, would there have been one if the device were smaller? it did sell, but not as much as the palm pilot. the design goal was for it to be about the size of a paper day planner, which is what people used to carry back in the prehistoric times. its size was a reasonable choice at the time, especially for something on which people would be writing, but as it turned out, that was a mistake. people wanted something smaller and didn't mind using palm's graffiti for the tradeoff. it also used ordinary aa batteries and a coin battery for backup: <https://d1rytvr7gmk1sx.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/DSC_01 73.jpg> the newton was also the first apple product to use arm chips, which apple partly owned and later sold, only to later re-license it for ios devices. there was even a web browser, called newtscape. but despite all of that, a lesser product won out. specs ain't everything. > > > > the mac was a better all around system, with more variety and better > > apps. companies could rely on a dealer network for support, something > > that atari and amiga did not have. > > > > companies could justify buying a mac and certainly a windows pc. not so > > much amiga or atari. > > As a result of the _eventual_ software library, I am tempted to agree > with you. However, if we consider 1985 specifically, the libraries of > all of the machines involved except for the PC were small and a person > would have no choice but to consider the machine's specifications and > price. In that respect, the Mac available to people in 1985 was simply a > terrible sell not only because it was way too expensive but couldn't > even produce colour. true, but as i said in another post, that didn't matter. the mac launched the desktop publishing industry, which at the time, was b/w (outside of high end stuff). the apple laserwriter with adobe postscript, along with a mac, was a game changer. create a document on the mac, proof it on a laserwriter, and then send it to an offset printer for final copy. microsoft word and multiplan were available on the mac in 1984, with excel following in 1985, which was mac only for a few years. <https://winworldpc.com/res/img/screenshots/Microsoft%20Excel%201.5%20-% 20About.png> aldus pagemaker was also in 1985, also mac only initially. people saw the mac's potential, especially microsoft, who copied it for windows.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-22 21:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <hMgRJ.24049$jxu4.3920@fx02.iad> |
| In reply to | #1338 |
On 2022-02-22 7:36 p.m., nospam wrote: > In article <gPcRJ.92504$i65a.25631@fx16.iad>, rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> > wrote: > >>> >>>>>> Actually, nospam does know his system quite well. He doesn't know >>>>>> Apple's history _as_ well but definitely understands MacOS. >>>>> >>>>> i know apple history quite well, having been immersed in it for years. >>>>> mac is a large portion of it, but it also other products, including >>>>> iphone, newton, apple ii, lisa and less well known products. >>>> >>>> I've never tried a Newton but I know that those who had the chance to >>>> own one absolutely loved it and held onto it for years after it was >>>> discontinued by Apple. Any company which can foster such passion from >>>> its users for one of their products earns my respect. >>> >>> the newton was *well* ahead of its time. >>> > > ... > >> I have no doubt that it was ahead of its time and probably much better >> than a Palm but I wonder whether there was a market for such a device at >> the time. If not, would there have been one if the device were smaller? > > it did sell, but not as much as the palm pilot. > > the design goal was for it to be about the size of a paper day planner, > which is what people used to carry back in the prehistoric times. > > its size was a reasonable choice at the time, especially for something > on which people would be writing, but as it turned out, that was a > mistake. people wanted something smaller and didn't mind using palm's > graffiti for the tradeoff. > > it also used ordinary aa batteries and a coin battery for backup: > <https://d1rytvr7gmk1sx.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/DSC_01 > 73.jpg> > > the newton was also the first apple product to use arm chips, which > apple partly owned and later sold, only to later re-license it for ios > devices. > > there was even a web browser, called newtscape. > > but despite all of that, a lesser product won out. > > specs ain't everything. I would have loved to try it out at the time but I guess that's not going to happen now. I imagine that most of the Newtons out in the wild have since bitten the dust. >>> the mac was a better all around system, with more variety and better >>> apps. companies could rely on a dealer network for support, something >>> that atari and amiga did not have. >>> >>> companies could justify buying a mac and certainly a windows pc. not so >>> much amiga or atari. >> >> As a result of the _eventual_ software library, I am tempted to agree >> with you. However, if we consider 1985 specifically, the libraries of >> all of the machines involved except for the PC were small and a person >> would have no choice but to consider the machine's specifications and >> price. In that respect, the Mac available to people in 1985 was simply a >> terrible sell not only because it was way too expensive but couldn't >> even produce colour. > > true, but as i said in another post, that didn't matter. > > the mac launched the desktop publishing industry, which at the time, > was b/w (outside of high end stuff). the apple laserwriter with adobe > postscript, along with a mac, was a game changer. Ah, yes. I nearly forgot about that! Apple was the first to release a laser printer and THAT was definitely a game changer. I believe that Atari eventually made one but it didn't have the same kind of impact mostly because it didn't have the publishing software to seriously challenge what was already established on the Mac side. I actually had that laser printer and a crapload of toner for it. Around 2001, my girlfriend's dad if I could help his neighbour with his computer issues. I did so and he told me a lot about how he used to use Macs and had a collection. He showed me his Mac SE in particular which definitely caught my eye. In exchance for the work I did, he offered to give me the computer but only if I accepted to take the incredibly heavy laser printer and toner with it. I did so if only to play with that Mac at home. It still worked but, admittedly, there was no real use for such a machine in 2002. > create a document on the mac, proof it on a laserwriter, and then send > it to an offset printer for final copy. > > microsoft word and multiplan were available on the mac in 1984, with > excel following in 1985, which was mac only for a few years. > > <https://winworldpc.com/res/img/screenshots/Microsoft%20Excel%201.5%20-% > 20About.png> > > aldus pagemaker was also in 1985, also mac only initially. > > people saw the mac's potential, especially microsoft, who copied it for > windows. If Windows 1.0 was a copy of the Mac then it was clearly a very clumsy one. I would say that Atari's TOS was a lot closer. It's a shock that the company didn't get sued for releasing such an operating system. -- rabidR04CH Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Windows 11 "But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than men.'" - Acts 5:29 For fans of message boards, I invite you: https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-23 07:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <230220220758367861%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #1340 |
In article <hMgRJ.24049$jxu4.3920@fx02.iad>, rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> wrote: > > I would have loved to try it out at the time but I guess that's not > going to happen now. I imagine that most of the Newtons out in the wild > have since bitten the dust. there are some on ebay, and for more than i thought they'd be. there is also a rather dumb date bug: <https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2009/06/impending-newton-y2k10-apocalyp se-narrowly-averted/> The problem for the Newton, however, is that the date was encoded using only 30 bits instead of a full 32 bits, meaning that disaster would strike when the clock struck 6:48:31pm on January 5, 2010. Naturally, Newton aficionados were ruing the day they might be forced to buy a portable device produced within the last decade. ... However, indomitable Newton hacker Eckhart K?ppen developed a patch for the Newton OS which changes the time base used to calculate the real time to make sure the resulting value always falls in a safe range. The patch currently works on the US version of the MessagePad 2100 running Newton OS 2.1. on the other hand, macs don't have that issue. > >>> the mac was a better all around system, with more variety and better > >>> apps. companies could rely on a dealer network for support, something > >>> that atari and amiga did not have. > >>> > >>> companies could justify buying a mac and certainly a windows pc. not so > >>> much amiga or atari. > >> > >> As a result of the _eventual_ software library, I am tempted to agree > >> with you. However, if we consider 1985 specifically, the libraries of > >> all of the machines involved except for the PC were small and a person > >> would have no choice but to consider the machine's specifications and > >> price. In that respect, the Mac available to people in 1985 was simply a > >> terrible sell not only because it was way too expensive but couldn't > >> even produce colour. > > > > true, but as i said in another post, that didn't matter. > > > > the mac launched the desktop publishing industry, which at the time, > > was b/w (outside of high end stuff). the apple laserwriter with adobe > > postscript, along with a mac, was a game changer. > > Ah, yes. I nearly forgot about that! Apple was the first to release a > laser printer and THAT was definitely a game changer. I believe that > Atari eventually made one but it didn't have the same kind of impact > mostly because it didn't have the publishing software to seriously > challenge what was already established on the Mac side. yep. another feature of the original mac were two high speed serial ports capable of up to 1 mbit/sec, which also supported inexpensive appletalk networking. nothing else at the time could do that. appletalk networks were very common, especially with phonenet, which used ordinary phone cord. > I actually had that laser printer and a crapload of toner for it. Around > 2001, my girlfriend's dad if I could help his neighbour with his > computer issues. I did so and he told me a lot about how he used to use > Macs and had a collection. He showed me his Mac SE in particular which > definitely caught my eye. In exchance for the work I did, he offered to > give me the computer but only if I accepted to take the incredibly heavy > laser printer and toner with it. I did so if only to play with that Mac > at home. the original laserwriter weighed nearly 80 lbs and supported both appletalk and serial with postscript and also diablo emulation. later ones were nowhere near as heavy. > > people saw the mac's potential, especially microsoft, who copied it for > > windows. > > If Windows 1.0 was a copy of the Mac then it was clearly a very clumsy > one. I would say that Atari's TOS was a lot closer. it was a work in progress. it wasn't until win 3.x or win95 until it was practical to use instead of dos. early versions of mac os x were also a work in progress. it wasn't until about 10.2 or 10.3 when mac os x was a viable replacement for classic mac os. sometimes you have to ship *something*. > It's a shock that > the company didn't get sued for releasing such an operating system. apple sued microsoft, but it was dismissed on a technicality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-23 09:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <C6rRJ.48974$Y1A7.8787@fx43.iad> |
| In reply to | #1342 |
On 2022-02-23 07:58, nospam wrote: > In article <hMgRJ.24049$jxu4.3920@fx02.iad>, rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> > wrote: > > >> >> I would have loved to try it out at the time but I guess that's not >> going to happen now. I imagine that most of the Newtons out in the wild >> have since bitten the dust. > > there are some on ebay, and for more than i thought they'd be. > > there is also a rather dumb date bug: > <https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2009/06/impending-newton-y2k10-apocalyp > se-narrowly-averted/> > The problem for the Newton, however, is that the date was encoded > using only 30 bits instead of a full 32 bits, meaning that disaster > would strike when the clock struck 6:48:31pm on January 5, 2010. > Naturally, Newton aficionados were ruing the day they might be forced > to buy a portable device produced within the last decade. > ... > However, indomitable Newton hacker Eckhart K?ppen developed a > patch for the Newton OS which changes the time base used to calculate > the real time to make sure the resulting value always falls in a safe > range. The patch currently works on the US version of the MessagePad > 2100 running Newton OS 2.1. > > on the other hand, macs don't have that issue. I would have been surprised if they did. I don't recall how well Macs averted the Y2K "disaster" though. At the time, the interest in Macs on my side or that of my buddies was very minimal. >>>>> the mac was a better all around system, with more variety and better >>>>> apps. companies could rely on a dealer network for support, something >>>>> that atari and amiga did not have. >>>>> >>>>> companies could justify buying a mac and certainly a windows pc. not so >>>>> much amiga or atari. >>>> >>>> As a result of the _eventual_ software library, I am tempted to agree >>>> with you. However, if we consider 1985 specifically, the libraries of >>>> all of the machines involved except for the PC were small and a person >>>> would have no choice but to consider the machine's specifications and >>>> price. In that respect, the Mac available to people in 1985 was simply a >>>> terrible sell not only because it was way too expensive but couldn't >>>> even produce colour. >>> >>> true, but as i said in another post, that didn't matter. >>> >>> the mac launched the desktop publishing industry, which at the time, >>> was b/w (outside of high end stuff). the apple laserwriter with adobe >>> postscript, along with a mac, was a game changer. >> >> Ah, yes. I nearly forgot about that! Apple was the first to release a >> laser printer and THAT was definitely a game changer. I believe that >> Atari eventually made one but it didn't have the same kind of impact >> mostly because it didn't have the publishing software to seriously >> challenge what was already established on the Mac side. > > yep. > > another feature of the original mac were two high speed serial ports > capable of up to 1 mbit/sec, which also supported inexpensive appletalk > networking. nothing else at the time could do that. appletalk networks > were very common, especially with phonenet, which used ordinary phone > cord. That might haven been a reason why people chose them rather than the competition for workstations. If you don't know _about_ networking, you're not likely to care but once you see how easy it is to transfer data from one place to another (rather than disks), you're probably going to be willing to pay top dollar to have it... no matter how slow it might seem to be. >> I actually had that laser printer and a crapload of toner for it. Around >> 2001, my girlfriend's dad if I could help his neighbour with his >> computer issues. I did so and he told me a lot about how he used to use >> Macs and had a collection. He showed me his Mac SE in particular which >> definitely caught my eye. In exchance for the work I did, he offered to >> give me the computer but only if I accepted to take the incredibly heavy >> laser printer and toner with it. I did so if only to play with that Mac >> at home. > > the original laserwriter weighed nearly 80 lbs and supported both > appletalk and serial with postscript and also diablo emulation. later > ones were nowhere near as heavy. This one was an absolute beast. I never got to use it since I really only wanted the computer itself but I recall struggling to bring that thing back home from down the street. I wasn't working out at the time. :) >>> people saw the mac's potential, especially microsoft, who copied it for >>> windows. >> >> If Windows 1.0 was a copy of the Mac then it was clearly a very clumsy >> one. I would say that Atari's TOS was a lot closer. > > it was a work in progress. it wasn't until win 3.x or win95 until it > was practical to use instead of dos. > > early versions of mac os x were also a work in progress. it wasn't > until about 10.2 or 10.3 when mac os x was a viable replacement for > classic mac os. > > sometimes you have to ship *something*. 10.x and 10.1x were at least pretty. Admittedly though, Mac OS 9.2.2 seemed to be a lot more useful. I don't recall MacOS X being fast until 10.15. >> It's a shock that >> the company didn't get sued for releasing such an operating system. > > apple sued microsoft, but it was dismissed on a technicality. I thought Apple had won but its victory limited to releases of Windows 1.x. -- rabidR04CH MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3 "But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than men.'" - Acts 5:29 For fans of message boards, I invite you: https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-23 09:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <230220220927177141%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #1344 |
In article <C6rRJ.48974$Y1A7.8787@fx43.iad>, rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> wrote: > I don't recall how well Macs > averted the Y2K "disaster" though. At the time, the interest in Macs on > my side or that of my buddies was very minimal. classic mac os, which is what existed then, was ok until 2040. mac os x, released a year later and being based on unix, had the well known 2038 limit, which was resolved long ago with mac os x 10.6 and 64 bit time offsets. the current version of macos is good thru 2554.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rabidR04CH <rabid@R04.CH> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-23 03:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tetRJ.47681$yi_7.40400@fx39.iad> |
| In reply to | #1346 |
On 2022-02-23 9:27 a.m., nospam wrote: > In article <C6rRJ.48974$Y1A7.8787@fx43.iad>, rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> > wrote: > >> I don't recall how well Macs >> averted the Y2K "disaster" though. At the time, the interest in Macs on >> my side or that of my buddies was very minimal. > > classic mac os, which is what existed then, was ok until 2040. mac os > x, released a year later and being based on unix, had the well known > 2038 limit, which was resolved long ago with mac os x 10.6 and 64 bit > time offsets. the current version of macos is good thru 2554. Let's just hope that nobody is still using Big Sur in 2554. -- rabidR04CH "But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than men.'" - Acts 5:29 For fans of message boards, I invite you: https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-22 02:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <220220220230351732%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #1277 |
In article <oIXQJ.14201$Icha.703@fx11.iad>, rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> wrote: > > Well, that sort of goes without saying. On the other hand, you don't buy > an M1 Mac to use Windows anyway. microsoft does not license windows on arm for apple silicon macs (aka arm), and without official support, boot camp has no purpose. should microsoft change that decision, then boot camp is likely to come back, with full support from microsoft. there are rumours it might, but until then, there's nothing apple can do, as it's entirely out of their control. > However, I imagine that Boot Camp is > still around and allows you to install Linux, as pointless as that would be. you imagine incorrectly. boot camp is just for windows. it carves out a partition, formats it ntfs, installs windows, downloads additional drivers and marks it as bootable. linux can be installed directly. however, since mac os is based on unix, there is little reason to do so, as just about all linux software will run natively in mac os, nearly all of which has been ported. on some macs, secure boot needs to be disabled, which is not a big deal. for those who do want to use linux, spinning up a linux vm is much easier, far more practical and also fully supported.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-22 10:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Hc7RJ.8935$3Pje.5688@fx09.iad> |
| In reply to | #1290 |
On 2022-02-22 02:30, nospam wrote: > In article <oIXQJ.14201$Icha.703@fx11.iad>, rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch> > wrote: > >> >> Well, that sort of goes without saying. On the other hand, you don't buy >> an M1 Mac to use Windows anyway. > > microsoft does not license windows on arm for apple silicon macs (aka > arm), and without official support, boot camp has no purpose. > > should microsoft change that decision, then boot camp is likely to come > back, with full support from microsoft. > > there are rumours it might, but until then, there's nothing apple can > do, as it's entirely out of their control. To a degree, I imagine that Microsoft knows that if people can run Windows on their Macs in such a convenient way, there would be no real reason to get a Windows-based computer anymore. It is likely a strategic move on their part. >> However, I imagine that Boot Camp is >> still around and allows you to install Linux, as pointless as that would be. > > you imagine incorrectly. > > boot camp is just for windows. it carves out a partition, formats it > ntfs, installs windows, downloads additional drivers and marks it as > bootable. > > linux can be installed directly. however, since mac os is based on > unix, there is little reason to do so, as just about all linux software > will run natively in mac os, nearly all of which has been ported. on > some macs, secure boot needs to be disabled, which is not a big deal. > > for those who do want to use linux, spinning up a linux vm is much > easier, far more practical and also fully supported. Good to know. -- rabidR04CH MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3 "But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than men.'" - Acts 5:29 For fans of message boards, I invite you: https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-22 12:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <220220221243402968%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #1302 |
In article <Hc7RJ.8935$3Pje.5688@fx09.iad>, rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> wrote: > >> > >> Well, that sort of goes without saying. On the other hand, you don't buy > >> an M1 Mac to use Windows anyway. > > > > microsoft does not license windows on arm for apple silicon macs (aka > > arm), and without official support, boot camp has no purpose. > > > > should microsoft change that decision, then boot camp is likely to come > > back, with full support from microsoft. > > > > there are rumours it might, but until then, there's nothing apple can > > do, as it's entirely out of their control. > > To a degree, I imagine that Microsoft knows that if people can run > Windows on their Macs in such a convenient way, there would be no real > reason to get a Windows-based computer anymore. It is likely a strategic > move on their part. again, you imagine incorrectly. microsoft is more than happy to sell a windows license to anyone who wants to buy one, for use on whatever computer they want, whether it's a dell, lenovo, mac, a virtual machine, a home built system or whatever else. the issue is that microsoft has an exclusive with qualcomm: <https://www.xda-developers.com/qualcomm-exclusivity-deal-microsoft-wind ows-on-arm/> what they do after that expires is anyone's guess.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-21 15:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <sv0rlm$smh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #1223 |
nospam wrote: > false. apple even provides a utility to install windows, called boot > camp. they also fully support linux. they don't care what os someone > uses. How does Boot Camp work on the latest M1 TSMC-Silicon Apple CPUs, nospam?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-21 15:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <210220221523471291%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #1264 |
In article <sv0rlm$smh$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote: > > > false. apple even provides a utility to install windows, called boot > > camp. they also fully support linux. they don't care what os someone > > uses. > > How does Boot Camp work on the latest M1 TSMC-Silicon Apple CPUs, nospam? microsoft refuses to license windows on arm for apple silicon macs, and without that, apple *can't* offer boot camp support. should microsoft change their mind, then apple will be able to update boot camp.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-22 05:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sv1sia$17as$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #1268 |
nospam wrote: > microsoft refuses to license windows on arm for apple silicon macs, and > without that, apple *can't* offer boot camp support. Heh heh heh... Nobody intelligent falls for your tricks. You think I don't know every one of your sleazy tricks, nospam? a. Either you were completely ignorant in your claims, or, b. You brazenly fabricated functionality which you knew doesn't exist. (Pick one) Don't call me a genius for figuring out you were ignorant or that you lied to the Windows ng people because I can predict you years in advance nospam. You're no harder to predict than a kindergarten kid who _thinks_ his parents believe his lies when he has chocolate all over his face and the freezer is missing the chocolate ice cream. You will defend Apple at all costs, and to the death, even to the point of brazenly fabricating purely imaginary functionality that even Apple doesn't claim exists. It's what you do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-22 09:37 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <j7kea7F48daU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #1286 |
On 2022-02-21 11:32 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote: > nospam wrote: > >> microsoft refuses to license windows on arm for apple silicon macs, and >> without that, apple *can't* offer boot camp support. > > Heh heh heh... Nobody intelligent falls for your tricks. > > You think I don't know every one of your sleazy tricks, nospam? > a. Either you were completely ignorant in your claims, or, b. You > brazenly fabricated functionality which you knew doesn't exist. > (Pick one) > > Don't call me a genius for figuring out you were ignorant or that you lied > to the Windows ng people because I can predict you years in advance nospam. > > You're no harder to predict than a kindergarten kid who _thinks_ his > parents > believe his lies when he has chocolate all over his face and the freezer is > missing the chocolate ice cream. > > You will defend Apple at all costs, and to the death, even to the point of > brazenly fabricating purely imaginary functionality that even Apple doesn't > claim exists. > > It's what you do. > Yup, Apple says 'Shit' and nospam says 'How much' Rene
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.microsoft.windows
csiph-web