Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.comm > #1723 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Michelle Steiner <email@michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-10-27 09:41 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-03-29 13:03 +1300 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 289 — 45 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.comm
Newsreaders Michelle Steiner <email@michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-27 09:41 -0700
Re: Newsreaders Lloyd <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-27 11:56 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Matti Haveri <nospam@here.invalid> - 2014-02-16 15:20 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-10-27 13:01 -0400
Re: Newsreaders Lloyd <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-27 12:36 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-27 14:41 -0500
Re: Newsreaders snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) - 2013-10-27 19:58 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-27 15:05 -0500
Re: Newsreaders snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) - 2013-10-27 20:42 +0000
Re: Newsreaders dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2013-10-28 10:23 +1100
Thoth (not) breaking long URL (was: Newsreaders) "J.P. Kuypers" <Jean-Pierre.Kuypers@adresse.invalid> - 2013-10-28 09:37 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-10-27 19:57 +0000
Re: Newsreaders gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-10-27 19:16 -0700
Re: Newsreaders Lloyd <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-28 08:21 -0500
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-28 10:58 +1300
Re: Newsreaders M-M <nospam.m-m@ny.more> - 2013-10-27 19:24 -0400
Re: Newsreaders Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-10-27 23:42 +0000
Re: Newsreaders M-M <nospam.m-m@ny.more> - 2013-10-27 20:09 -0400
Re: Newsreaders Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-27 19:16 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-10-28 00:16 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Lloyd <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-28 08:11 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-10-28 13:54 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-28 09:01 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-29 09:09 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-28 20:44 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-28 01:26 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-27 21:04 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-28 02:11 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-27 22:01 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-28 03:40 +0000
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-28 17:26 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Lloyd <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-28 08:17 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Lloyd <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-28 08:16 -0500
Re: Newsreaders "J.P. Kuypers" <Jean-Pierre.Kuypers@adresse.invalid> - 2013-10-28 14:20 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-28 13:39 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Lloyd <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-28 08:43 -0500
Re: Newsreaders "J.P. Kuypers" <Jean-Pierre.Kuypers@adresse.invalid> - 2013-11-15 15:29 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Lloyd <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-11-15 09:26 -0600
Re: Newsreaders Ted Lee <tmplee@mr.net> - 2013-10-27 20:30 -0500
Re: Newsreaders AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> - 2013-10-28 11:02 -0400
Re: Newsreaders Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-10-28 00:48 -0400
Re: Newsreaders Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-28 15:16 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-28 15:16 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-28 15:21 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Michelle Steiner <email@michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-28 08:31 -0700
Re: Newsreaders Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-10-28 08:57 -0700
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-29 05:25 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-29 09:22 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-28 21:22 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-29 13:29 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-29 01:43 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-10-29 05:04 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-29 18:25 +1300
Re: Newsreaders nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-29 01:33 -0400
Re: Newsreaders Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-10-29 05:37 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-29 19:25 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-10-29 07:25 +0000
Re: Newsreaders nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-29 04:07 -0400
Re: Newsreaders Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2013-10-29 09:00 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-29 17:01 +0000
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-30 10:24 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-30 14:39 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-30 09:26 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-29 21:35 +0000
Re: Newsreaders bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> - 2013-10-29 16:28 -0700
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-30 13:33 +1300
Re: Newsreaders bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> - 2013-10-29 23:14 -0700
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-30 21:43 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-30 12:39 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-30 14:39 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-31 09:31 +1300
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-31 08:52 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-30 19:36 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-30 12:42 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-30 14:39 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-29 17:01 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-29 17:01 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-30 09:29 +1300
Re: Newsreaders "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2013-10-30 16:44 -0400
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-30 23:22 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-31 13:15 +1300
Re: Newsreaders "J.P. Kuypers" <Jean-Pierre.Kuypers@adresse.invalid> - 2013-10-29 10:10 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Lloyd <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-29 08:36 -0500
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-30 10:25 +1300
Re: Newsreaders spamfalle2@arcor.de (Marc Stibane) - 2013-11-05 20:31 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Matti Haveri <nospam@here.invalid> - 2014-02-08 00:49 +0200
Re: Newsreaders Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-02-07 18:42 -0600
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-08 02:05 +0000
Re: Newsreaders me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-02-08 16:12 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-02-08 15:21 -0600
Re: Newsreaders nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-08 20:01 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-02-08 18:09 -0700
Re: Newsreaders Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-02-08 21:48 -0600
Re: Newsreaders Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-02-08 20:51 -0600
Re: Newsreaders Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2014-02-28 12:19 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-09 01:40 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-02-08 21:50 -0600
Re: Newsreaders Matti Haveri <nospam@here.invalid> - 2014-02-09 19:26 +0200
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-09 17:31 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-09 23:22 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-09 23:44 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-02-10 02:01 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2014-02-10 10:00 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-11 13:27 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2014-02-11 09:51 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-11 18:55 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-11 23:28 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-02-09 19:40 -0600
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-10 04:34 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-08 02:04 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-08 03:33 +0000
Re: Newsreaders android <here@there.was> - 2014-02-09 09:50 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Matti Haveri <nospam@here.invalid> - 2014-02-09 16:19 +0200
Re: Newsreaders android <here@there.was> - 2014-02-09 09:53 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2015-03-27 04:07 -0700
Re: Newsreaders spamfalle2@arcor.de (Marc Stibane) - 2015-03-27 14:45 +0100
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-27 14:18 +0000
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-29 11:44 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-28 22:50 +0000
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-29 13:03 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-29 00:30 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Doc O'Leary <droleary@2usenet2014.subsume.com> - 2015-03-27 14:27 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2015-03-27 13:10 -0700
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-27 20:14 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2015-03-28 01:26 -0700
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-28 14:30 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2015-03-29 01:41 -0700
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-29 13:22 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Howard S Shubs <hshubs@foxtrot.local> - 2015-03-29 19:43 +0000
Re: Newsreaders "M. John Matlaw" <nouser@invalid.com> - 2015-03-28 06:29 -0400
Re: Newsreaders Doc O'Leary <droleary@2usenet2014.subsume.com> - 2015-03-28 14:47 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-28 20:36 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-28 21:27 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-03-28 19:22 -0400
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-28 23:47 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-29 01:26 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-28 14:51 +0000
Re: Newsreaders "M. John Matlaw" <nouser@invalid.com> - 2015-03-28 14:00 -0400
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-28 20:30 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-03-28 17:08 -0400
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-28 21:13 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-03-28 19:10 -0400
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-28 23:46 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2015-03-29 01:45 -0700
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-29 13:23 +0000
Re: Newsreaders "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-03-28 17:09 -0400
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-28 21:18 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-28 21:29 +0000
Re: Newsreaders "M. John Matlaw" <nouser@invalid.com> - 2015-03-28 20:15 -0400
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-29 00:30 +0000
Re: Newsreaders "M. John Matlaw" <nouser@invalid.com> - 2015-03-28 21:28 -0400
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-29 13:21 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-29 13:15 +0000
Re: Newsreaders "M. John Matlaw" <nouser@invalid.com> - 2015-03-29 16:37 -0400
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-29 20:44 +0000
Re: Newsreaders "M. John Matlaw" <nouser@invalid.com> - 2015-03-29 17:58 -0400
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-30 00:07 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-28 21:26 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-28 22:17 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-29 01:25 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-29 12:53 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-29 16:46 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-29 17:32 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-27 22:33 +0000
Re: Newsreaders tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.com> - 2015-03-28 01:33 +0000
Re: Newsreaders TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> - 2015-03-27 22:16 -0500
Re: Newsreaders tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.com> - 2015-03-28 05:10 +0000
Re: Newsreaders bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> - 2015-03-27 21:03 -0700
Re: Newsreaders tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.com> - 2015-03-28 05:11 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-28 06:12 +0000
Re: Newsreaders bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> - 2015-03-28 10:32 -0700
Re: Newsreaders DaveC <not@home.cow> - 2015-03-28 12:53 -0700
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-28 21:18 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-28 22:16 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-29 01:27 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-29 12:56 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-29 16:49 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-29 17:33 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-29 18:25 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2015-03-29 02:00 -0700
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-29 13:30 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Howard S Shubs <hshubs@foxtrot.local> - 2015-03-29 19:32 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-29 20:43 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2015-03-30 03:16 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-30 15:22 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-29 14:40 -0700
Re: Newsreaders Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2015-03-30 03:23 +0000
Re: Newsreaders nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-30 00:02 -0400
Re: Newsreaders Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-29 21:38 -0700
Re: Newsreaders Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2015-03-30 07:43 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-30 08:30 -0700
Re: Newsreaders nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-30 11:36 -0400
Re: Newsreaders Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2015-03-30 20:18 +0000
Re: Newsreaders nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-30 16:34 -0400
Re: Newsreaders Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2015-04-01 07:20 +0000
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-04-01 20:46 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-04-01 09:37 -0700
Re: Newsreaders nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-01 04:22 -0400
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-30 21:22 +0000
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-31 13:53 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-31 01:02 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2015-04-01 07:23 +0000
Re: Newsreaders "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-03-30 21:49 -0400
Re: Newsreaders Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2015-04-01 07:24 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-04-01 09:39 -0700
Re: Newsreaders spamfalle2@arcor.de (Marc Stibane) - 2015-04-20 20:46 +0200
Re: Newsreaders nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-20 14:52 -0400
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-04-20 18:53 +0000
Re: Newsreaders dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-04-21 10:45 +1200
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-04-21 02:08 +0000
Re: Newsreaders dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-04-21 15:07 +1200
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-04-21 04:22 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2015-04-21 11:58 -0500
Re: Newsreaders nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-21 13:05 -0400
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-21 23:49 +0000
Re: Newsreaders nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-21 20:53 -0400
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-22 03:30 +0000
Re: Newsreaders spamfalle2@arcor.de (Marc Stibane) - 2015-04-22 12:03 +0200
Re: Newsreaders Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2015-04-22 17:32 -0500
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-04-23 18:08 +1200
Re: Newsreaders Gordon Sande <Gordon.Sande@gmail.com> - 2015-04-20 17:05 -0300
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-21 05:41 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2015-03-30 23:13 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-30 15:32 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2015-03-30 20:20 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-30 20:38 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2015-03-30 23:08 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-30 10:01 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2015-03-30 20:24 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Doc O'Leary <droleary@2usenet2014.subsume.com> - 2015-03-30 14:54 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-30 15:27 +0000
Re: Newsreaders "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-03-30 21:43 -0400
Re: Newsreaders "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-03-30 21:45 -0400
Re: Newsreaders bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> - 2015-03-30 19:46 -0700
Re: Newsreaders Doc O'Leary <droleary@2usenet2014.subsume.com> - 2015-03-31 14:55 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2015-04-01 07:30 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-29 16:43 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Howard S Shubs <hshubs@foxtrot.local> - 2015-03-29 19:36 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2015-03-29 23:36 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2015-03-30 07:39 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-30 15:35 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2015-03-30 20:14 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-30 20:35 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2015-03-30 22:59 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2015-04-01 07:18 +0000
Re: Newsreaders nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-01 04:22 -0400
Re: Newsreaders TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> - 2015-04-01 08:11 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2015-04-01 23:59 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Doc O'Leary <droleary@2usenet2014.subsume.com> - 2015-04-02 02:14 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2015-04-01 09:05 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Doc O'Leary <droleary@2usenet2014.subsume.com> - 2015-04-01 16:51 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-04-01 17:51 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2015-04-02 00:03 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Doc O'Leary <droleary@2usenet2014.subsume.com> - 2015-04-01 17:06 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2015-03-30 22:56 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Doc O'Leary <droleary@2usenet2014.subsume.com> - 2015-03-30 15:17 +0000
Re: Newsreaders nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-30 11:22 -0400
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-30 15:38 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2015-03-30 20:27 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-30 20:39 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2015-04-01 07:26 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-30 21:17 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2015-03-30 23:04 -0500
Re: Newsreaders Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2015-04-01 07:27 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Doc O'Leary <droleary@2usenet2014.subsume.com> - 2015-03-31 14:28 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-03-31 12:41 -0400
Re: Newsreaders Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2015-04-01 07:28 +0000
Re: Newsreaders tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.com> - 2015-04-01 23:47 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-30 15:33 +0000
Re: Newsreaders FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2015-03-28 01:49 -0400
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-29 11:44 +1300
Re: Newsreaders DaveC <not@home.cow> - 2015-03-28 09:03 -0700
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-29 11:44 +1300
Re: Newsreaders gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-28 09:17 -0700
Re: Newsreaders sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2015-03-28 20:52 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-28 16:00 -0700
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-28 23:06 +0000
Re: Newsreaders sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2015-03-29 03:00 +0000
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-29 23:51 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-29 12:48 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Buster Friendly <lah@de.da.ru.ru> - 2015-03-29 09:01 -0400
Re: Newsreaders "J.P. Kuypers" <Jean-Pierre.Kuypers@adresse.invalid> - 2015-03-29 15:33 +0200
Re: Newsreaders Buster Friendly <lah@de.da.ru.ru> - 2015-03-29 09:40 -0400
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-29 17:04 +0000
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-30 13:37 +1300
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-29 13:03 +1300
Re: Newsreaders Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-29 01:28 +0000
Re: Newsreaders Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-28 15:59 -0700
Re: Newsreaders jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-29 13:03 +1300
Page 4 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 15 Next page →
| From | jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-30 10:24 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <1lbju8q.10oe68e1us23f5N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> |
| In reply to | #1830 |
Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote: > nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > > In article <slrnl6uonh.37j.t-usenet@ID-685.user.individual.de>, Martin > > ?rautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> wrote: > > > >> Don't know what they are up to, but they might use hex as well: > >> MacOS 10.6 > >> MacOS 10.9 > >> MacOS 10.A > >> MacOS 10.F > > > > nothing like confusing everyone but geeks, and what do you do after > > 10.f? > Matbe G? That wouldn't be hex. -- If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-30 14:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l4r5mt$7m0$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1843 |
Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: > Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote: > >> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>> In article <slrnl6uonh.37j.t-usenet@ID-685.user.individual.de>, Martin >>> ?rautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Don't know what they are up to, but they might use hex as well: >>>> MacOS 10.6 >>>> MacOS 10.9 >>>> MacOS 10.A >>>> MacOS 10.F >>> >>> nothing like confusing everyone but geeks, and what do you do after >>> 10.f? >> Matbe G? > > That wouldn't be hex. I see I came up with an interesting new word. I wonder what it might be used for? 8-) -- Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-30 09:26 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <301020130926284065%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #1814 |
In article <slrnl6uonh.37j.t-usenet@ID-685.user.individual.de>, Martin Ԥrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> wrote: > On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 19:25:09 +1300, Your Name wrote: > > Sorry, I didn't mean it would sort any better (which is why it's a > > separate paragraph), just that there's a superfluous extra "10" in > > there all the time - despite it meant ot be pronounced as "Ex". > > Ah, so you may call it MacOSX for the whole family, but should use > MacOS 10.6, MacOS 10.7, MacOS 10.10, > but not MacOSX 6, MacOSX 10, ... The whole family would simply be Mac OS 10, since the different versions have the suffix numbers (10.1, 10.4, etc.). > > Apple is planning NOT to have "Mac OS X 10.10" and instead move to "Mac > > OS Y 1.0" or "Mac OS XI 1.0". ;-) > > Don't know what they are up to, but they might use hex as well: > MacOS 10.6 > MacOS 10.9 > MacOS 10.A > MacOS 10.F That only gives them a few more years though. Maybe they should just continue the alphabet up to Mac OS 10.Z to give themselves more time to come up with Mac OS 11. ;-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-29 21:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnl70agp.16qu.g.kreme@jaka.local> |
| In reply to | #1809 |
In message <291020131825107266%YourName@YourISP.com> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > In article <slrnl6ugfn.37j.t-usenet@ID-685.user.individual.de>, Martin > §rautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> wrote: >> On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 01:43:48 +0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote: >> > In message <291020131329139978%YourName@YourISP.com> >> > Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > They should just get rid of the silly names completely. It's much >> > > easier to know that "Mac OS X 10.9" is newer than "Mac OS X 10.6", >> > > rather than trying to figure out where in the timeline the different >> > > silly codenames fit. >> > >> > The codenames are the names most people know. They are much easier for >> > people to keep track of than a number. >> >> I can't. Maybe I'm more the numbers guy, remembering that I jumped from >> 6.0.8 via 7.0.1 til 7.6.1 to 10.3, upgrading until 10.6.8 and now maybe >> waiting for 10.9.1 to jump in again. >> >> Tell me, which one was Capone? > Exactly. Most normal people use numbers to indicate a series, not > random silly names. First, if you ask regular people what OS version they have they are FAR more likely to tell you the name than the number. If you press for the number, chances are very good they have no idea. Second, this is even true for some abnormal people. > Of course, the problem with Apple's 10.Y numbering system is what is > going to come next? 10.10? Yes, 10.10 is already in testing internally. > It would work for humans, but it's going to screw up many computer > sorting systems. Not unless those systems were programmed by gibbering morons. -- you cannot code around infinite implementations of OCD -John C Welch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-29 16:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <billvan-57FF32.16285329102013@news.shawcable.net> |
| In reply to | #1846 |
In article <slrnl70agp.16qu.g.kreme@jaka.local>, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > In message <291020131825107266%YourName@YourISP.com> > Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > > In article <slrnl6ugfn.37j.t-usenet@ID-685.user.individual.de>, Martin > >rautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> wrote: > >> On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 01:43:48 +0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote: > >> > In message <291020131329139978%YourName@YourISP.com> > >> > Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > They should just get rid of the silly names completely. It's much > >> > > easier to know that "Mac OS X 10.9" is newer than "Mac OS X 10.6", > >> > > rather than trying to figure out where in the timeline the different > >> > > silly codenames fit. > >> > > >> > The codenames are the names most people know. They are much easier for > >> > people to keep track of than a number. > >> > >> I can't. Maybe I'm more the numbers guy, remembering that I jumped from > >> 6.0.8 via 7.0.1 til 7.6.1 to 10.3, upgrading until 10.6.8 and now maybe > >> waiting for 10.9.1 to jump in again. > >> > >> Tell me, which one was Capone? > > > Exactly. Most normal people use numbers to indicate a series, not > > random silly names. > > First, if you ask regular people what OS version they have they are FAR > more likely to tell you the name than the number. If you press for the > number, chances are very good they have no idea. Second, this is even > true for some abnormal people. I must be abnormally abnormal. Within a few months of installing each big cat OS I've forgotten which cat it was. But 10.6.8, which I've been running for a couple of years, is top of mind and tip of tongue for me; I don't have to think about it. My wife, whose iMac runs the same OS, remembered Snow Leopard and 10.6, but not the .8 part. I have a feeling that it's a very individual thing and that we tend to assume that the way we remember it ourselves is the normal way. bill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-30 13:33 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <1lbk2pn.1qawsvr1aflc0vN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> |
| In reply to | #1851 |
bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> wrote: > In article <slrnl70agp.16qu.g.kreme@jaka.local>, > Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > > > In message <291020131825107266%YourName@YourISP.com> > > Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > > > In article <slrnl6ugfn.37j.t-usenet@ID-685.user.individual.de>, Martin > > >rautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> wrote: > > >> On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 01:43:48 +0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote: > > >> > In message <291020131329139978%YourName@YourISP.com> > > >> > Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > They should just get rid of the silly names completely. It's much > > >> > > easier to know that "Mac OS X 10.9" is newer than "Mac OS X 10.6", > > >> > > rather than trying to figure out where in the timeline the different > > >> > > silly codenames fit. > > >> > > > >> > The codenames are the names most people know. They are much easier for > > >> > people to keep track of than a number. > > >> > > >> I can't. Maybe I'm more the numbers guy, remembering that I jumped from > > >> 6.0.8 via 7.0.1 til 7.6.1 to 10.3, upgrading until 10.6.8 and now maybe > > >> waiting for 10.9.1 to jump in again. > > >> > > >> Tell me, which one was Capone? > > > > > Exactly. Most normal people use numbers to indicate a series, not > > > random silly names. > > > > First, if you ask regular people what OS version they have they are FAR > > more likely to tell you the name than the number. If you press for the > > number, chances are very good they have no idea. Second, this is even > > true for some abnormal people. > > I must be abnormally abnormal. Within a few months of installing each > big cat OS I've forgotten which cat it was. But 10.6.8, which I've been > running for a couple of years, is top of mind and tip of tongue for me; > I don't have to think about it. > > My wife, whose iMac runs the same OS, remembered Snow Leopard and 10.6, > but not the .8 part. > > I have a feeling that it's a very individual thing and that we tend to > assume that the way we remember it ourselves is the normal way. > > bill I know I usually think of the version number first, then try to remember the big cat name if that doesn't register for the person I'm talking to. Version numbers after all give useful information - the version, where in the sequence it fell, etc. Big cat names tell you very nothing unless you already remember all the rest. Big cat names or place names are cute. But not useful for anything but marketing. Version numbers are real useful information. I've been in many a discussion where big cat names are used and there is confusion as to where in the sequence each lies (most often with non-geeks). No such trouble with version numbers. Version numbers are logical, but unattractive marketing-wise. That's my experience and personal take on the matter. -- If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-29 23:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <billvan-62648C.23143529102013@news.shawcable.net> |
| In reply to | #1852 |
In article <1lbk2pn.1qawsvr1aflc0vN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote: > bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> wrote: > > I must be abnormally abnormal. Within a few months of installing each > > big cat OS I've forgotten which cat it was. But 10.6.8, which I've been > > running for a couple of years, is top of mind and tip of tongue for me; > > I don't have to think about it. > > > > My wife, whose iMac runs the same OS, remembered Snow Leopard and 10.6, > > but not the .8 part. > > > > I have a feeling that it's a very individual thing and that we tend to > > assume that the way we remember it ourselves is the normal way. > > I know I usually think of the version number first, then try to remember > the big cat name if that doesn't register for the person I'm talking to. > Version numbers after all give useful information - the version, where > in the sequence it fell, etc. Big cat names tell you very nothing unless > you already remember all the rest. Big cat names or place names are > cute. But not useful for anything but marketing. Version numbers are > real useful information. > > I've been in many a discussion where big cat names are used and there is > confusion as to where in the sequence each lies (most often with > non-geeks). No such trouble with version numbers. Version numbers are > logical, but unattractive marketing-wise. > > That's my experience and personal take on the matter. That seems sensible to me. The number, e.g. 10.6.8, puts the OS version in the context of preceding and succeeding versions. There is no such logic or connection with the names. Mavericks as an OS version name is kind of a shrug for me. It means something to California and to surfing communities, I guess, but it has no context for anyone else. It looks a bit dead-endish from here. I'll stick with the numbers. bill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-30 21:43 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <1lbkpjs.pwu1z71e3evbrN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> |
| In reply to | #1861 |
bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> wrote: > In article <1lbk2pn.1qawsvr1aflc0vN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, > jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote: > > > bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> wrote: > > > > I must be abnormally abnormal. Within a few months of installing each > > > big cat OS I've forgotten which cat it was. But 10.6.8, which I've been > > > running for a couple of years, is top of mind and tip of tongue for me; > > > I don't have to think about it. > > > > > > My wife, whose iMac runs the same OS, remembered Snow Leopard and 10.6, > > > but not the .8 part. > > > > > > I have a feeling that it's a very individual thing and that we tend to > > > assume that the way we remember it ourselves is the normal way. > > > > I know I usually think of the version number first, then try to remember > > the big cat name if that doesn't register for the person I'm talking to. > > Version numbers after all give useful information - the version, where > > in the sequence it fell, etc. Big cat names tell you very nothing unless > > you already remember all the rest. Big cat names or place names are > > cute. But not useful for anything but marketing. Version numbers are > > real useful information. > > > > I've been in many a discussion where big cat names are used and there is > > confusion as to where in the sequence each lies (most often with > > non-geeks). No such trouble with version numbers. Version numbers are > > logical, but unattractive marketing-wise. > > > > That's my experience and personal take on the matter. > > That seems sensible to me. The number, e.g. 10.6.8, puts the OS version > in the context of preceding and succeeding versions. There is no such > logic or connection with the names. > > Mavericks as an OS version name is kind of a shrug for me. It means > something to California and to surfing communities, I guess, but it has > no context for anyone else. It looks a bit dead-endish from here. I'll > stick with the numbers. > > bill I guess Leopard and Snow Leopard gave a clue, but other than that - nup. Even I sometimes forgot and still forget 10.4 is Tiger and 10.3 was Panther. Don't even bother quizzing me on the big cat names before the code names because official marketing names, heh :-) -- If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-30 12:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnl71vgt.18sg.g.kreme@mbp55.local> |
| In reply to | #1852 |
In message <1lbk2pn.1qawsvr1aflc0vN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: > bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> wrote: >> In article <slrnl70agp.16qu.g.kreme@jaka.local>, >> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: >> >> > In message <291020131825107266%YourName@YourISP.com> >> > Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: >> > > In article <slrnl6ugfn.37j.t-usenet@ID-685.user.individual.de>, Martin >> > >rautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> wrote: >> > >> On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 01:43:48 +0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote: >> > >> > In message <291020131329139978%YourName@YourISP.com> >> > >> > Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: >> > >> > > >> > >> > > They should just get rid of the silly names completely. It's much >> > >> > > easier to know that "Mac OS X 10.9" is newer than "Mac OS X 10.6", >> > >> > > rather than trying to figure out where in the timeline the different >> > >> > > silly codenames fit. >> > >> > >> > >> > The codenames are the names most people know. They are much easier for >> > >> > people to keep track of than a number. >> > >> >> > >> I can't. Maybe I'm more the numbers guy, remembering that I jumped from >> > >> 6.0.8 via 7.0.1 til 7.6.1 to 10.3, upgrading until 10.6.8 and now maybe >> > >> waiting for 10.9.1 to jump in again. >> > >> >> > >> Tell me, which one was Capone? >> > >> > > Exactly. Most normal people use numbers to indicate a series, not >> > > random silly names. >> > >> > First, if you ask regular people what OS version they have they are FAR >> > more likely to tell you the name than the number. If you press for the >> > number, chances are very good they have no idea. Second, this is even >> > true for some abnormal people. >> >> I must be abnormally abnormal. Within a few months of installing each >> big cat OS I've forgotten which cat it was. But 10.6.8, which I've been >> running for a couple of years, is top of mind and tip of tongue for me; >> I don't have to think about it. >> >> My wife, whose iMac runs the same OS, remembered Snow Leopard and 10.6, >> but not the .8 part. >> >> I have a feeling that it's a very individual thing and that we tend to >> assume that the way we remember it ourselves is the normal way. >> >> bill > I know I usually think of the version number first, then try to remember > the big cat name if that doesn't register for the person I'm talking to. > Version numbers after all give useful information - the version, where > in the sequence it fell, etc. Big cat names tell you very nothing unless > you already remember all the rest. Big cat names or place names are > cute. But not useful for anything but marketing. Version numbers are > real useful information. > I've been in many a discussion where big cat names are used and there is > confusion as to where in the sequence each lies (most often with > non-geeks). Right. Just like I said, normal people remember the NAME, not the number. -- The fact is that camels are far more intelligent than dolphins. Footnote: Never trust a species that grins all the time. It's up to something. --Pyramids
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-30 14:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l4r5mr$7m0$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1866 |
Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > In message <1lbk2pn.1qawsvr1aflc0vN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> > Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: >> bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> wrote: > >>> In article <slrnl70agp.16qu.g.kreme@jaka.local>, >>> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: >>> >>>> In message <291020131825107266%YourName@YourISP.com> >>>> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: >>>>> In article <slrnl6ugfn.37j.t-usenet@ID-685.user.individual.de>, Martin >>>>> rautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 01:43:48 +0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote: >>>>>>> In message <291020131329139978%YourName@YourISP.com> >>>>>>> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> They should just get rid of the silly names completely. It's much >>>>>>>> easier to know that "Mac OS X 10.9" is newer than "Mac OS X 10.6", >>>>>>>> rather than trying to figure out where in the timeline the different >>>>>>>> silly codenames fit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The codenames are the names most people know. They are much easier for >>>>>>> people to keep track of than a number. >>>>>> >>>>>> I can't. Maybe I'm more the numbers guy, remembering that I jumped from >>>>>> 6.0.8 via 7.0.1 til 7.6.1 to 10.3, upgrading until 10.6.8 and now maybe >>>>>> waiting for 10.9.1 to jump in again. >>>>>> >>>>>> Tell me, which one was Capone? >>>> >>>>> Exactly. Most normal people use numbers to indicate a series, not >>>>> random silly names. >>>> >>>> First, if you ask regular people what OS version they have they are FAR >>>> more likely to tell you the name than the number. If you press for the >>>> number, chances are very good they have no idea. Second, this is even >>>> true for some abnormal people. >>> >>> I must be abnormally abnormal. Within a few months of installing each >>> big cat OS I've forgotten which cat it was. But 10.6.8, which I've been >>> running for a couple of years, is top of mind and tip of tongue for me; >>> I don't have to think about it. >>> >>> My wife, whose iMac runs the same OS, remembered Snow Leopard and 10.6, >>> but not the .8 part. >>> >>> I have a feeling that it's a very individual thing and that we tend to >>> assume that the way we remember it ourselves is the normal way. >>> >>> bill > >> I know I usually think of the version number first, then try to remember >> the big cat name if that doesn't register for the person I'm talking to. >> Version numbers after all give useful information - the version, where >> in the sequence it fell, etc. Big cat names tell you very nothing unless >> you already remember all the rest. Big cat names or place names are >> cute. But not useful for anything but marketing. Version numbers are >> real useful information. > >> I've been in many a discussion where big cat names are used and there is >> confusion as to where in the sequence each lies (most often with >> non-geeks). > > Right. Just like I said, normal people remember the NAME, not the > number. > Oh, goody! More proof I'm not normal! It's so boring. -- Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-31 09:31 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <311020130931056318%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #1871 |
In article <l4r5mr$7m0$3@dont-email.me>, Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote: > Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > > In message <1lbk2pn.1qawsvr1aflc0vN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> > > Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: > >> bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> wrote: > > > >>> In article <slrnl70agp.16qu.g.kreme@jaka.local>, > >>> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > >>> > >>>> In message <291020131825107266%YourName@YourISP.com> > >>>> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > >>>>> In article <slrnl6ugfn.37j.t-usenet@ID-685.user.individual.de>, Martin > >>>>> rautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> wrote: > >>>>>> On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 01:43:48 +0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote: > >>>>>>> In message <291020131329139978%YourName@YourISP.com> > >>>>>>> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> They should just get rid of the silly names completely. It's much > >>>>>>>> easier to know that "Mac OS X 10.9" is newer than "Mac OS X 10.6", > >>>>>>>> rather than trying to figure out where in the timeline the different > >>>>>>>> silly codenames fit. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The codenames are the names most people know. They are much easier > >>>>>>> for > >>>>>>> people to keep track of than a number. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I can't. Maybe I'm more the numbers guy, remembering that I jumped from > >>>>>> 6.0.8 via 7.0.1 til 7.6.1 to 10.3, upgrading until 10.6.8 and now maybe > >>>>>> waiting for 10.9.1 to jump in again. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Tell me, which one was Capone? > >>>> > >>>>> Exactly. Most normal people use numbers to indicate a series, not > >>>>> random silly names. > >>>> > >>>> First, if you ask regular people what OS version they have they are FAR > >>>> more likely to tell you the name than the number. If you press for the > >>>> number, chances are very good they have no idea. Second, this is even > >>>> true for some abnormal people. > >>> > >>> I must be abnormally abnormal. Within a few months of installing each > >>> big cat OS I've forgotten which cat it was. But 10.6.8, which I've been > >>> running for a couple of years, is top of mind and tip of tongue for me; > >>> I don't have to think about it. > >>> > >>> My wife, whose iMac runs the same OS, remembered Snow Leopard and 10.6, > >>> but not the .8 part. > >>> > >>> I have a feeling that it's a very individual thing and that we tend to > >>> assume that the way we remember it ourselves is the normal way. > >>> > >>> bill > > > >> I know I usually think of the version number first, then try to remember > >> the big cat name if that doesn't register for the person I'm talking to. > >> Version numbers after all give useful information - the version, where > >> in the sequence it fell, etc. Big cat names tell you very nothing unless > >> you already remember all the rest. Big cat names or place names are > >> cute. But not useful for anything but marketing. Version numbers are > >> real useful information. > > > >> I've been in many a discussion where big cat names are used and there is > >> confusion as to where in the sequence each lies (most often with > >> non-geeks). > > > > Right. Just like I said, normal people remember the NAME, not the > > number. > > > > Oh, goody! More proof I'm not normal! It's so boring. Nope, you're "normal" ... or at least as "normal" as the vast majority of people living in the real world. :-) Lewis is simply a moron living in fantasy geekworld - just ignore him.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-31 08:52 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <1lblkkq.1oz5z2l12omdbfN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> |
| In reply to | #1866 |
Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > In message <1lbk2pn.1qawsvr1aflc0vN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> > Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: > > bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> wrote: > > >> In article <slrnl70agp.16qu.g.kreme@jaka.local>, > >> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > >> > >> > In message <291020131825107266%YourName@YourISP.com> > >> > Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > >> > > In article <slrnl6ugfn.37j.t-usenet@ID-685.user.individual.de>, Martin > >> > >rautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 01:43:48 +0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote: > >> > >> > In message <291020131329139978%YourName@YourISP.com> > >> > >> > Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > They should just get rid of the silly names completely. It's > >> > >> > > much easier to know that "Mac OS X 10.9" is newer than "Mac OS > >> > >> > > X 10.6", rather than trying to figure out where in the > >> > >> > > timeline the different silly codenames fit. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > The codenames are the names most people know. They are much > >> > >> > easier for people to keep track of than a number. > >> > >> > >> > >> I can't. Maybe I'm more the numbers guy, remembering that I jumped > >> > >> from 6.0.8 via 7.0.1 til 7.6.1 to 10.3, upgrading until 10.6.8 and > >> > >> now maybe waiting for 10.9.1 to jump in again. > >> > >> > >> > >> Tell me, which one was Capone? > >> > > >> > > Exactly. Most normal people use numbers to indicate a series, not > >> > > random silly names. > >> > > >> > First, if you ask regular people what OS version they have they are FAR > >> > more likely to tell you the name than the number. If you press for the > >> > number, chances are very good they have no idea. Second, this is even > >> > true for some abnormal people. > >> > >> I must be abnormally abnormal. Within a few months of installing each > >> big cat OS I've forgotten which cat it was. But 10.6.8, which I've been > >> running for a couple of years, is top of mind and tip of tongue for me; > >> I don't have to think about it. > >> > >> My wife, whose iMac runs the same OS, remembered Snow Leopard and 10.6, > >> but not the .8 part. > >> > >> I have a feeling that it's a very individual thing and that we tend to > >> assume that the way we remember it ourselves is the normal way. > >> > >> bill > > > I know I usually think of the version number first, then try to remember > > the big cat name if that doesn't register for the person I'm talking to. > > Version numbers after all give useful information - the version, where > > in the sequence it fell, etc. Big cat names tell you very nothing unless > > you already remember all the rest. Big cat names or place names are > > cute. But not useful for anything but marketing. Version numbers are > > real useful information. > > > I've been in many a discussion where big cat names are used and there is > > confusion as to where in the sequence each lies (most often with > > non-geeks). > > Right. Just like I said, normal people remember the NAME, not the > number. And suffer confusion as a result :-) -- If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-30 19:36 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <301020131936128878%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #1851 |
In article <billvan-57FF32.16285329102013@news.shawcable.net>, bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> wrote: > In article <slrnl70agp.16qu.g.kreme@jaka.local>, > Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > > In message <291020131825107266%YourName@YourISP.com> > > Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > > > In article <slrnl6ugfn.37j.t-usenet@ID-685.user.individual.de>, Martin > > >rautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> wrote: > > >> On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 01:43:48 +0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote: > > >> > In message <291020131329139978%YourName@YourISP.com> > > >> > Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > They should just get rid of the silly names completely. It's much > > >> > > easier to know that "Mac OS X 10.9" is newer than "Mac OS X 10.6", > > >> > > rather than trying to figure out where in the timeline the different > > >> > > silly codenames fit. > > >> > > > >> > The codenames are the names most people know. They are much easier for > > >> > people to keep track of than a number. > > >> > > >> I can't. Maybe I'm more the numbers guy, remembering that I jumped from > > >> 6.0.8 via 7.0.1 til 7.6.1 to 10.3, upgrading until 10.6.8 and now maybe > > >> waiting for 10.9.1 to jump in again. > > >> > > >> Tell me, which one was Capone? > > > > > Exactly. Most normal people use numbers to indicate a series, not > > > random silly names. > > > > First, if you ask regular people what OS version they have they are FAR > > more likely to tell you the name than the number. If you press for the > > number, chances are very good they have no idea. Second, this is even > > true for some abnormal people. > > I must be abnormally abnormal. Within a few months of installing each > big cat OS I've forgotten which cat it was. But 10.6.8, which I've been > running for a couple of years, is top of mind and tip of tongue for me; > I don't have to think about it. > > My wife, whose iMac runs the same OS, remembered Snow Leopard and 10.6, > but not the .8 part. > > I have a feeling that it's a very individual thing and that we tend to > assume that the way we remember it ourselves is the normal way. Don't worry. Lewis is a dimbulb geek who thinks absolutely everyone else does what he and his five geeky friends do (which is why the numbnut is in my killfile). :-\ The fact is that in the real world very few people know what the codename of the Mac OS is, and most people don't even know (nor care) what OS they're using at all ... some Mac users even think they're using Windows.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-30 12:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnl71vlk.18sg.g.kreme@mbp55.local> |
| In reply to | #1862 |
In message <301020131936128878%YourName@YourISP.com> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > In article <billvan-57FF32.16285329102013@news.shawcable.net>, bill van > <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> wrote: >> In article <slrnl70agp.16qu.g.kreme@jaka.local>, >> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: >> > In message <291020131825107266%YourName@YourISP.com> >> > Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: >> > > In article <slrnl6ugfn.37j.t-usenet@ID-685.user.individual.de>, Martin >> > >rautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> wrote: >> > >> On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 01:43:48 +0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote: >> > >> > In message <291020131329139978%YourName@YourISP.com> >> > >> > Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: >> > >> > > >> > >> > > They should just get rid of the silly names completely. It's much >> > >> > > easier to know that "Mac OS X 10.9" is newer than "Mac OS X 10.6", >> > >> > > rather than trying to figure out where in the timeline the different >> > >> > > silly codenames fit. >> > >> > >> > >> > The codenames are the names most people know. They are much easier for >> > >> > people to keep track of than a number. >> > >> >> > >> I can't. Maybe I'm more the numbers guy, remembering that I jumped from >> > >> 6.0.8 via 7.0.1 til 7.6.1 to 10.3, upgrading until 10.6.8 and now maybe >> > >> waiting for 10.9.1 to jump in again. >> > >> >> > >> Tell me, which one was Capone? >> > >> > > Exactly. Most normal people use numbers to indicate a series, not >> > > random silly names. >> > >> > First, if you ask regular people what OS version they have they are FAR >> > more likely to tell you the name than the number. If you press for the >> > number, chances are very good they have no idea. Second, this is even >> > true for some abnormal people. >> >> I must be abnormally abnormal. Within a few months of installing each >> big cat OS I've forgotten which cat it was. But 10.6.8, which I've been >> running for a couple of years, is top of mind and tip of tongue for me; >> I don't have to think about it. >> >> My wife, whose iMac runs the same OS, remembered Snow Leopard and 10.6, >> but not the .8 part. >> >> I have a feeling that it's a very individual thing and that we tend to >> assume that the way we remember it ourselves is the normal way. > Don't worry. Lewis is a dimbulb geek who thinks absolutely everyone > else does what he and his five geeky friends do (which is why the > numbnut is in my killfile). :-\ Yay! But no, I was not describing what I do, or any geeks do. I was describing what normal everyday non-geeks do. The sort of people who call me up and say "when I try to send mail it doesn't work" and don't mention their computer isn't even turned on. Geeks, obviously, use version numbers. -- I WILL NOT BARF UNLESS I'M SICK Bart chalkboard Ep. 8F15
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-30 14:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l4r5ms$7m0$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1851 |
bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> wrote: > In article <slrnl70agp.16qu.g.kreme@jaka.local>, > Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > >> In message <291020131825107266%YourName@YourISP.com> >> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: >>> In article <slrnl6ugfn.37j.t-usenet@ID-685.user.individual.de>, Martin >>> rautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> wrote: >>>> On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 01:43:48 +0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote: >>>>> In message <291020131329139978%YourName@YourISP.com> >>>>> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> They should just get rid of the silly names completely. It's much >>>>>> easier to know that "Mac OS X 10.9" is newer than "Mac OS X 10.6", >>>>>> rather than trying to figure out where in the timeline the different >>>>>> silly codenames fit. >>>>> >>>>> The codenames are the names most people know. They are much easier for >>>>> people to keep track of than a number. >>>> >>>> I can't. Maybe I'm more the numbers guy, remembering that I jumped from >>>> 6.0.8 via 7.0.1 til 7.6.1 to 10.3, upgrading until 10.6.8 and now maybe >>>> waiting for 10.9.1 to jump in again. >>>> >>>> Tell me, which one was Capone? >> >>> Exactly. Most normal people use numbers to indicate a series, not >>> random silly names. >> >> First, if you ask regular people what OS version they have they are FAR >> more likely to tell you the name than the number. If you press for the >> number, chances are very good they have no idea. Second, this is even >> true for some abnormal people. > > I must be abnormally abnormal. Within a few months of installing each > big cat OS I've forgotten which cat it was. But 10.6.8, which I've been > running for a couple of years, is top of mind and tip of tongue for me; > I don't have to think about it. > > My wife, whose iMac runs the same OS, remembered Snow Leopard and 10.6, > but not the .8 part. > > I have a feeling that it's a very individual thing and that we tend to > assume that the way we remember it ourselves is the normal way. > I think you're right. I've never been sure which cat name I'm actually using. -- Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-29 17:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l4opl6$ltb$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1804 |
Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > In message <291020131329139978%YourName@YourISP.com> > Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: >> They should just get rid of the silly names completely. It's much >> easier to know that "Mac OS X 10.9" is newer than "Mac OS X 10.6", >> rather than trying to figure out where in the timeline the different >> silly codenames fit. > > The codenames are the names most people know. They are much easier for > people to keep track of than a number. I question "most". I think it's just a marketing ploy. -- Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-29 17:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l4opl8$ltb$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1803 |
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> In article <slrnl6tlnt.b0i.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman
> <mr@sandman.net> wrote:
>> In article <2013102808574249220-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Is Mavericks a new OS?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. It's OS X 10.9
>>>>
>>>>> Did they run out of cats?
>>>>
>>>> Apparently so, according to what they said at the WWDC in June.
>>>
>>> I guess they missed "Civet". ;-)
>>
>> And Lynx or Ocelot :)
>
> One of the big(ish) rumours at the beginning of the year was that Mac
> OS X 10.9 would be called Lynx. :-)
>
> Apple simply ran out of big cat names. Coming down from Lion (or
> Mountain Lion) to Lynx might have been considered to be sending the
> wrong "message" about it being less powerful or some such marketing /
> pshco-babble nonsense.
>
> They should just get rid of the silly names completely. It's much
> easier to know that "Mac OS X 10.9" is newer than "Mac OS X 10.6",
> rather than trying to figure out where in the timeline the different
> silly codenames fit.
That would be much more logical. It took me a while to figure out why
people were talking about stray cattle here.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-30 09:29 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <301020130929546417%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #1832 |
In article <l4opl8$ltb$5@dont-email.me>, Erilar
<drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > In article <slrnl6tlnt.b0i.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman
> > <mr@sandman.net> wrote:
> >> In article <2013102808574249220-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
> >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is Mavericks a new OS?
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes. It's OS X 10.9
> >>>>
> >>>>> Did they run out of cats?
> >>>>
> >>>> Apparently so, according to what they said at the WWDC in June.
> >>>
> >>> I guess they missed "Civet". ;-)
> >>
> >> And Lynx or Ocelot :)
> >
> > One of the big(ish) rumours at the beginning of the year was that Mac
> > OS X 10.9 would be called Lynx. :-)
> >
> > Apple simply ran out of big cat names. Coming down from Lion (or
> > Mountain Lion) to Lynx might have been considered to be sending the
> > wrong "message" about it being less powerful or some such marketing /
> > pshco-babble nonsense.
> >
> > They should just get rid of the silly names completely. It's much
> > easier to know that "Mac OS X 10.9" is newer than "Mac OS X 10.6",
> > rather than trying to figure out where in the timeline the different
> > silly codenames fit.
>
> That would be much more logical. It took me a while to figure out why
> people were talking about stray cattle here.
At least we can be thankful that Apple is (so far) fairly consistent.
Unlike Windows where they can't decide whether to use numbers (3.1, 8),
years (95, 2000), or names (XP, Vista). :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-30 16:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <dfmanno-89641F.16444530102013@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #1786 |
In article <2013102808574249220-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> Michelle Steiner <email@michelle@michelle.org> said:
> > On 2013-10-28 15:16:28 +0000, Erilar said:
> >
> >> Is Mavericks a new OS?
> >
> > Yes. It's OS X 10.9
> >
> >> Did they run out of cats?
> >
> > Apparently so, according to what they said at the WWDC in June.
>
> I guess they missed "Civet". ;-)
Or "Cougar." Or "Ocelot."
--
D.F. Manno | dfmanno@mail.com
GOP delenda est!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-30 23:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnl7354u.1oju.g.kreme@mbp55.local> |
| In reply to | #1891 |
In message <dfmanno-89641F.16444530102013@news.albasani.net>
D.F. Manno <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:
> In article <2013102808574249220-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> Michelle Steiner <email@michelle@michelle.org> said:
>> > On 2013-10-28 15:16:28 +0000, Erilar said:
>> >
>> >> Is Mavericks a new OS?
>> >
>> > Yes. It's OS X 10.9
>> >
>> >> Did they run out of cats?
>> >
>> > Apparently so, according to what they said at the WWDC in June.
>>
>> I guess they missed "Civet". ;-)
> Or "Cougar."
0% chance they would ever use that one.
> Or "Ocelot."
Ocelot was always the name of the next unreleased version :)
--
In the 60's, people took acid to make the world appear weird. Now the
world is weird and people take Prozac to make it appear normal.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.comm
csiph-web