Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #95100 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201610.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-10-03 15:35 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-10-04 14:51 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 185 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201610.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2016-10-03 15:35 +0000
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-10-03 16:12 +0000
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. "Mongoose" <mongoose@rikkitikkitavi.com> - 2016-10-03 12:26 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-03 12:36 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-03 12:59 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-03 13:16 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Anonymous <nobody@roance.net> - 2016-10-03 17:30 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-03 15:22 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-03 18:38 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-03 22:20 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-03 22:51 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-03 23:56 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-03 20:55 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-04 09:10 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-04 10:04 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-04 14:21 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-04 22:14 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 23:14 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-03 16:06 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-03 22:29 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-03 20:55 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-04 09:12 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-10-04 10:03 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-04 10:17 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-04 09:44 -0500
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. "Mongoose" <mongoose@rikkitikkitavi.com> - 2016-10-03 16:08 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-03 16:31 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-03 16:46 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. "Mongoose" <mongoose@rikkitikkitavi.com> - 2016-10-03 18:26 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-03 18:38 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-03 22:25 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-03 21:08 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-04 09:24 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-04 14:22 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-05 01:40 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-05 11:05 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-05 16:18 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-05 22:45 +0200
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-05 16:50 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-05 16:53 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-05 17:15 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-05 22:48 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-06 09:22 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 09:50 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-05 23:07 +0200
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-05 17:08 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-05 23:17 +0200
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-05 17:22 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-05 22:48 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-05 18:05 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-05 22:48 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 11:07 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-06 15:33 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 16:22 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 09:44 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-06 09:47 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 10:08 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2016-10-06 15:07 +0100
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 11:08 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-06 10:33 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 16:43 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-06 16:48 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-06 14:56 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 18:53 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-06 16:04 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 18:59 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-06 16:08 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 19:31 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-06 16:43 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2016-10-07 00:44 +0100
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-07 06:40 -0500
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-06 19:45 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 19:12 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-06 22:19 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-07 12:25 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-06 19:09 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-05 17:18 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-05 23:21 +0200
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-05 17:34 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-05 23:42 +0200
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-05 17:53 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-06 00:17 +0200
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-05 18:26 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-06 00:45 +0200
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 09:09 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-06 15:22 +0200
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 09:34 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 10:02 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-06 00:32 +0200
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-05 19:03 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-06 00:30 +0200
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-06 00:46 +0200
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-06 00:58 +0200
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-05 22:48 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 09:54 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-06 09:57 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 10:14 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-06 15:33 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 16:56 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 16:24 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 18:54 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 11:13 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-06 15:33 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-06 23:49 +0200
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-06 15:00 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-07 00:05 +0200
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-06 15:31 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 19:15 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-06 22:19 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-07 00:01 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-07 12:28 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-05 23:23 +0200
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2016-10-05 16:40 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-10-05 20:29 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-05 22:48 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-05 18:02 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-05 22:48 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 11:19 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-05 16:51 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-05 23:04 +0200
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-05 17:05 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-05 17:16 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-05 23:16 +0200
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-05 18:10 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-05 22:48 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 11:21 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-06 15:33 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 16:27 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-06 15:33 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 19:00 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-06 16:09 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 19:36 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-06 16:42 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 19:20 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-06 22:19 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-07 12:31 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-07 14:43 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-05 22:07 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 11:22 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-06 10:36 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 16:32 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-05 18:01 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 09:42 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-06 16:20 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 19:28 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2016-10-06 21:03 -0500
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> - 2016-10-06 19:18 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2016-10-06 19:27 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-07 12:33 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-07 20:41 +0200
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-07 13:37 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-07 00:00 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-03 22:32 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-04 09:42 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-03 15:59 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-03 22:16 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-03 22:51 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-03 23:51 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-03 23:55 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-04 09:21 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-04 10:29 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-03 10:26 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-03 14:09 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-03 11:19 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-03 14:27 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-03 11:35 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-03 14:56 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-03 11:59 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-03 15:01 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-03 12:07 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-03 15:35 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-03 12:43 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-03 15:36 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-03 12:45 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-03 20:54 +0000
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-03 17:17 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-03 16:48 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-03 22:55 +0000
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-03 19:04 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-03 23:17 +0000
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-03 19:30 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2016-10-03 16:01 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2016-10-17 10:00 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. pinnerite <pinnerite@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 20:16 +0100
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-04 14:51 -0500
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
| From | Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 17:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nt3qhd$ers$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95286 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 2016-10-05 4:53 PM, nospam wrote: > In article <nt3p1q$9mj$1@dont-email.me>, Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> > wrote: > >> Windows 10 runs OK on 1GB of RAM on a 10 year-old computer. > > no it doesn't. > > i have it on a 7 year old computer and it redefines the meaning of > slow. The student in question had the graphical enhancements automatically turned off and the experience was more than acceptable once I used CCleaner for her decade-old clogged registry and defragmented her hard disk. I expected it to be a joke but it was quite usable and even she was shocked. >> I know this because I did it for a student. 2GB gives you a >> better experience so your 2007-2008 machine is still well-served. >> 4GB and it's quite good whereas OS X chugs along like molasses. >> 8GB and you have an excellent experience whereas OS X still just >> chugs along like molasses. I can't imagine why Apple users would >> be ready and willing to accept such abhorrent performance from a >> modern, expensive machine. > > nonsense. It's only nonsense to a Mac user who has never been exposed to better performance. If OS X is all that you see, you'll consider it to be very fast. However, once you use Windows on the same machine, OS X is exposed as the slow piece of crap that it is. It uses an outdated filesystem from the 90s which even the company itself recognizes as being an issue so no amount of lying from Mac zealots will change reality. - -- Silver Slimer Islam is a disease Gab.AI: @silverslimer -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX9W18AAoJEIwFfgf/rr+uTPcH/3Hv1VA8cDfF/t0mggo7lDKh 5IoxXCLElsVMTRW4xOltNvPpp3D5G3FIsItXVe1UZVhDH6SttBud4mKzWbFRMG40 lAGJ6WNZ7SHSeSKV3zOPByB6FYpvNCfZdFKjr2fz+0B6OeY9LW4tHtMdZ4zcst/3 2FyTSH1nNpB/STfGuBjyK0Qos6ppF3mWTB724+R0AP7FoZEXsWD2cmm16E6uVjdl CuYMTYhrF34Vnw57x1I/t/w9tCigj/YwuDkPF8T9Mhnx0f3py6163BHRepB0lX/i 2jgYAlKum19JRrWXZ/SP5/q4sNEjs9MrvzONpjutKOGs/5VFQ47/Z+qv9kEgANs= =Vbqu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 22:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <051020162248428830%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #95291 |
In article <nt3qhd$ers$1@dont-email.me>, Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >> Windows 10 runs OK on 1GB of RAM on a 10 year-old computer. > > > > no it doesn't. > > > > i have it on a 7 year old computer and it redefines the meaning of > > slow. > > The student in question had the graphical enhancements automatically > turned off in other words, it was so unusable that you had to gimp it so that it was tolerable. > and the experience was more than acceptable once I used > CCleaner for her decade-old clogged registry and defragmented her hard > disk. I expected it to be a joke but it was quite usable and even she > was shocked. sure she was. more bullshit. > >> I know this because I did it for a student. 2GB gives you a > >> better experience so your 2007-2008 machine is still well-served. > >> 4GB and it's quite good whereas OS X chugs along like molasses. > >> 8GB and you have an excellent experience whereas OS X still just > >> chugs along like molasses. I can't imagine why Apple users would > >> be ready and willing to accept such abhorrent performance from a > >> modern, expensive machine. > > > > nonsense. > > It's only nonsense to a Mac user who has never been exposed to better > performance. If OS X is all that you see, you'll consider it to be > very fast. However, once you use Windows on the same machine, OS X is > exposed as the slow piece of crap that it is. It uses an outdated > filesystem from the 90s which even the company itself recognizes as > being an issue so no amount of lying from Mac zealots will change > reality. nonsense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 09:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <0esJz.26004$gE2.17072@fx01.iad> |
| In reply to | #95318 |
On 2016-10-05 22:48, nospam wrote: [...] > nonsense. I'm impressed by the rising intellectual level of this thread. Goes up a notch or two with every post. Thanks for the entertainment, -- Best, Wolf K kirkwood40.blogspot.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 09:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nt5kql$7an$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95318 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 2016-10-05 10:48 PM, nospam wrote: > In article <nt3qhd$ers$1@dont-email.me>, Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> > wrote: > >>>> Windows 10 runs OK on 1GB of RAM on a 10 year-old computer. >>> >>> no it doesn't. >>> >>> i have it on a 7 year old computer and it redefines the meaning >>> of slow. >> >> The student in question had the graphical enhancements >> automatically turned off > > in other words, it was so unusable that you had to gimp it so that > it was tolerable. The sweet girl had no idea what she was doing so yes, I helped her out. >> and the experience was more than acceptable once I used CCleaner >> for her decade-old clogged registry and defragmented her hard >> disk. I expected it to be a joke but it was quite usable and even >> she was shocked. > > sure she was. more bullshit. Imbecile. >>>> I know this because I did it for a student. 2GB gives you a >>>> better experience so your 2007-2008 machine is still >>>> well-served. 4GB and it's quite good whereas OS X chugs along >>>> like molasses. 8GB and you have an excellent experience >>>> whereas OS X still just chugs along like molasses. I can't >>>> imagine why Apple users would be ready and willing to accept >>>> such abhorrent performance from a modern, expensive machine. >>> >>> nonsense. >> >> It's only nonsense to a Mac user who has never been exposed to >> better performance. If OS X is all that you see, you'll consider >> it to be very fast. However, once you use Windows on the same >> machine, OS X is exposed as the slow piece of crap that it is. It >> uses an outdated filesystem from the 90s which even the company >> itself recognizes as being an issue so no amount of lying from >> Mac zealots will change reality. > > nonsense. Yes, your post _is_ complete nonsense. Thank you for pointing it out. - -- Silver Slimer Islam is a disease Gab.AI: @silverslimer -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX9lakAAoJEIwFfgf/rr+uCeoH/2fodNtXkRGaCB/TT8+rai35 A5/3kghxS+wTVoqK8x+BKlwWbqWqxRxSRCHVwfLYMKNP861xKKpej8Gl511z+rok APJi20wg4guAofeZnTw4LhzR1s99ekdjdL0URn6bfdWTkOYyaR5Kg9vmxHgiIzBo 8QMTLX4YswNoRTNTsoPLbGCqERzT6+l8W1ZWmX/JsIwrFcJLrbTz1w2qX4EOjHk6 H2Y3qDwFn45+GhyJ44f3Dmh7GENzn07+TOBNuEyFzH8Gi8sGaPQFZVO8EyyAocjx c9QT2EnqRGqEy+qHiLBHDyiphcPAW5LxzQ6vJ5JSNeeqzKFD5XaIicB+GxUGze4= =f37c -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 23:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20161005230711.60b23288@maxa-pc.cpe.bvcom.net> |
| In reply to | #95284 |
On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 16:50:17 -0400 Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 2016-10-05 4:45 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > > On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 16:18:50 -0400 Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > > > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 > >> > >> On 2016-10-05 1:05 PM, GreyCloud wrote: > >>> On 10/05/2016 02:40 AM, Alan Baker wrote: > >>>> On 2016-10-04 1:22 PM, GreyCloud wrote: > >>>>> On 10/03/2016 10:08 PM, Alan Baker wrote: <snip> > >>>>> > >>>>> Change of subject here, but have you downloaded Sierra > >>>>> yet? > >>>>> > >>>>> If so, did it speed up any? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> No, not yet. > >>>> > >>>> I try and live by the advice I give my clients: don't rush > >>>> to adopt the latest thing. > >>>> > >>>> :-) > >>> > >>> That's why I'm asking. The 4k iMac is nice, but it is so slow. > >>> Should've paid the extra money with one with a faster hard > >>> drive or a big SSD. > >> > >> Regardless of what Mac heads tell you, OS X is slow no matter > >> what kind of processor or amount of memory you throw at it. Apple > >> is happy to see you spend the money but reward you with nothing > >> at all. I recall getting my parents to pay for a 4GB upgrade on > >> their Mac Mini to bring the total to 8GB. There's a 5400 RPM HD > >> in there but even that kind of old technology would work > >> relatively well with Linux or Windows on it. On the Mac? > >> Disgusting. My parents felt _no change_ from 4GB to 8GB despiet > >> assurances from zealots that the experience would be fantastic. > >> Maybe things will change once the filesystem is replaced (did it > >> happen yet?) but I doubt it; optimization is something absolutely > >> no one at Apple can even spell much less implement. > > > > OSX does not have dreaded Windows Update... with 8GB of RAM it > > runs pretty decent.... not that I didn't tried heavy processing on > > it, nor I need that... > > Windows 10 runs OK on 1GB of RAM on a 10 year-old computer. I know > this because I did it for a student. 2GB gives you a better experience > so your 2007-2008 machine is still well-served. 4GB and it's quite > good whereas OS X chugs along like molasses. 8GB and you have an > excellent experience whereas OS X still just chugs along like > molasses. I can't imagine why Apple users would be ready and willing > to accept such abhorrent performance from a modern, expensive machine. > Two words: Windows Update. They need to fix that. Computer constantly writing to disk gigabytes of data is *not acceptable*. And Win 10 takes 1-1.5GB of RAM sitting doing nothing... You need at least 2GB to fire up program without having to swap out.... That is 64 bit version. I guess that for 32 bit version you need half of that... -- press any key to continue or any other to quit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 17:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <051020161708173438%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #95289 |
In article <20161005230711.60b23288@maxa-pc.cpe.bvcom.net>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: > Two words: Windows Update. They need to fix that. Computer constantly > writing to disk gigabytes of data is *not acceptable*. > And Win 10 takes 1-1.5GB of RAM sitting doing nothing... You need at > least 2GB to fire up program without having to swap out.... > That is 64 bit version. I guess that for 32 bit version you need half > of that... who cares. memory is cheap, as is disk space.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 23:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20161005231727.7111c65d@maxa-pc.cpe.bvcom.net> |
| In reply to | #95290 |
On Wed, 05 Oct 2016 17:08:17 -0400 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <20161005230711.60b23288@maxa-pc.cpe.bvcom.net>, Melzzzzz > <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: > > > Two words: Windows Update. They need to fix that. Computer > > constantly writing to disk gigabytes of data is *not acceptable*. > > And Win 10 takes 1-1.5GB of RAM sitting doing nothing... You need at > > least 2GB to fire up program without having to swap out.... > > That is 64 bit version. I guess that for 32 bit version you need > > half of that... > > who cares. memory is cheap, as is disk space. Problem is that Windows Update hogs CPU/disk. Not pleasant experience if you do something with computer other than sending mails/chatting and surfing... -- press any key to continue or any other to quit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 17:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nt3qub$gqj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95294 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 2016-10-05 5:17 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > On Wed, 05 Oct 2016 17:08:17 -0400 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> > wrote: > >> In article <20161005230711.60b23288@maxa-pc.cpe.bvcom.net>, >> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: >> >>> Two words: Windows Update. They need to fix that. Computer >>> constantly writing to disk gigabytes of data is *not >>> acceptable*. And Win 10 takes 1-1.5GB of RAM sitting doing >>> nothing... You need at least 2GB to fire up program without >>> having to swap out.... That is 64 bit version. I guess that for >>> 32 bit version you need half of that... >> >> who cares. memory is cheap, as is disk space. > > Problem is that Windows Update hogs CPU/disk. Not pleasant > experience if you do something with computer other than sending > mails/chatting and surfing... It's not perfect, but it's not as bad as it used to be. You're just looking for issues. - -- Silver Slimer Islam is a disease Gab.AI: @silverslimer -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX9W8aAAoJEIwFfgf/rr+uTk4H/3QDX3pSpiEpggJJ3fC5KzqC xRxH+Jha9Tpl9hesP77EJeigi7Ui97gsHdDjha1+zGCx+pf25+gRWJAtj0F3fufT hYGRR312CXs4uc8OgHAOYbmiCZDMQNKWr1GylPuw3OCiydJWnqmbc6m7vXCAUAcC sg7EdgIKkSC4Q1NkWl4dvU2Baz4o80fUSZ5Q5qhF9fbUXoyYT5groE+jl3CQK6kU tJF+UaOwHkMDFI7t6TFipfaPPpH8wWPrM/rx590JSNACaxCrjARjtEJZgSXSOpXl /UkRY6Lge9fWbUw8r9atMpvqiVxitT0AzzCxA8/OZDKttUI48gNRI/VCSNmSkhI= =xFeD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 22:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <051020162248428874%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #95294 |
In article <20161005231727.7111c65d@maxa-pc.cpe.bvcom.net>, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: > > > Two words: Windows Update. They need to fix that. Computer > > > constantly writing to disk gigabytes of data is *not acceptable*. > > > And Win 10 takes 1-1.5GB of RAM sitting doing nothing... You need at > > > least 2GB to fire up program without having to swap out.... > > > That is 64 bit version. I guess that for 32 bit version you need > > > half of that... > > > > who cares. memory is cheap, as is disk space. > > Problem is that Windows Update hogs CPU/disk. Not pleasant experience > if you do something with computer other than sending mails/chatting and > surfing... no it doesn't and it doesn't take very long to update even if it did.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 18:05 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nt44go$d5j$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95290 |
On 10/05/2016 03:08 PM, nospam wrote: > In article <20161005230711.60b23288@maxa-pc.cpe.bvcom.net>, Melzzzzz > <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: > >> Two words: Windows Update. They need to fix that. Computer constantly >> writing to disk gigabytes of data is *not acceptable*. >> And Win 10 takes 1-1.5GB of RAM sitting doing nothing... You need at >> least 2GB to fire up program without having to swap out.... >> That is 64 bit version. I guess that for 32 bit version you need half >> of that... > > who cares. memory is cheap, as is disk space. > But not on a new iMac. You can't even get inside on the 4k model. You either select all that should be in the mac or live with its slowness. And memory from Apple has never been cheap, and neither are their hard drives or SSDs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 22:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <051020162248459043%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #95314 |
In article <nt44go$d5j$5@dont-email.me>, GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> wrote: > >> Two words: Windows Update. They need to fix that. Computer constantly > >> writing to disk gigabytes of data is *not acceptable*. > >> And Win 10 takes 1-1.5GB of RAM sitting doing nothing... You need at > >> least 2GB to fire up program without having to swap out.... > >> That is 64 bit version. I guess that for 32 bit version you need half > >> of that... > > > > who cares. memory is cheap, as is disk space. > > But not on a new iMac. on any mac or pc, new or old. > You can't even get inside on the 4k model. so what? there's no reason to get inside. > You either select all that should be in the mac or live with its > slowness. And memory from Apple has never been cheap, and neither are > their hard drives or SSDs. apple's memory prices are competitive with other makers such as dell, lenovo and in particular, hp, who is actually *more* expensive than apple.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 11:07 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nt60bj$m01$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95323 |
On 10/05/2016 08:48 PM, nospam wrote: > In article <nt44go$d5j$5@dont-email.me>, GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> > wrote: >>>> Two words: Windows Update. They need to fix that. Computer constantly >>>> writing to disk gigabytes of data is *not acceptable*. >>>> And Win 10 takes 1-1.5GB of RAM sitting doing nothing... You need at >>>> least 2GB to fire up program without having to swap out.... >>>> That is 64 bit version. I guess that for 32 bit version you need half >>>> of that... >>> >>> who cares. memory is cheap, as is disk space. >> >> But not on a new iMac. > > on any mac or pc, new or old. Not on the 4k models. All sealed up. Wife's got one. > >> You can't even get inside on the 4k model. > > so what? there's no reason to get inside. To update after the realization that it needs a faster hard drive or just rip out the hard drive and install an SSD? > >> You either select all that should be in the mac or live with its >> slowness. And memory from Apple has never been cheap, and neither are >> their hard drives or SSDs. > > apple's memory prices are competitive with other makers such as dell, > lenovo and in particular, hp, who is actually *more* expensive than > apple. > At least twice as much as the rest.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 15:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <061020161533024262%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #95347 |
In article <nt60bj$m01$2@dont-email.me>, GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> who cares. memory is cheap, as is disk space. > >> > >> But not on a new iMac. > > > > on any mac or pc, new or old. > > Not on the 4k models. All sealed up. Wife's got one. that doesn't affect price. > >> You can't even get inside on the 4k model. > > > > so what? there's no reason to get inside. > > To update after the realization that it needs a faster hard drive or > just rip out the hard drive and install an SSD? most people never bother. > >> You either select all that should be in the mac or live with its > >> slowness. And memory from Apple has never been cheap, and neither are > >> their hard drives or SSDs. > > > > apple's memory prices are competitive with other makers such as dell, > > lenovo and in particular, hp, who is actually *more* expensive than > > apple. > > At least twice as much as the rest. nope.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 16:22 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nt6ir4$ufh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95358 |
On 10/06/2016 01:33 PM, nospam wrote: > In article <nt60bj$m01$2@dont-email.me>, GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> > wrote: > >>>>> >>>>> who cares. memory is cheap, as is disk space. >>>> >>>> But not on a new iMac. >>> >>> on any mac or pc, new or old. >> >> Not on the 4k models. All sealed up. Wife's got one. > > that doesn't affect price. Yes, it does, if you have to buy a third party kit to open up a 4k iMac. The kit comes with a plastic shiv to open up the seal, then comes with a new set of gaskets. That's an extra $30. Putting it back together isn't easy to do. > >>>> You can't even get inside on the 4k model. >>> >>> so what? there's no reason to get inside. >> >> To update after the realization that it needs a faster hard drive or >> just rip out the hard drive and install an SSD? > > most people never bother. Most people that finally realize this and don't like do bother. > >>>> You either select all that should be in the mac or live with its >>>> slowness. And memory from Apple has never been cheap, and neither are >>>> their hard drives or SSDs. >>> >>> apple's memory prices are competitive with other makers such as dell, >>> lenovo and in particular, hp, who is actually *more* expensive than >>> apple. >> >> At least twice as much as the rest. > > nope. > Uh-huh. sure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 09:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nt5kf6$7an$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95314 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 2016-10-05 8:05 PM, GreyCloud wrote: > On 10/05/2016 03:08 PM, nospam wrote: >> In article <20161005230711.60b23288@maxa-pc.cpe.bvcom.net>, >> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: >> >>> Two words: Windows Update. They need to fix that. Computer >>> constantly writing to disk gigabytes of data is *not >>> acceptable*. And Win 10 takes 1-1.5GB of RAM sitting doing >>> nothing... You need at least 2GB to fire up program without >>> having to swap out.... That is 64 bit version. I guess that >>> for 32 bit version you need half of that... >> >> who cares. memory is cheap, as is disk space. >> > > But not on a new iMac. You can't even get inside on the 4k model. > You either select all that should be in the mac or live with its > slowness. And memory from Apple has never been cheap, and neither > are their hard drives or SSDs. Apple and its users have always been proud to tell us that you need to buy a specific brand of RAM for the Mac if you want to maintain stability. It seemed pretty lame at the time that I owned Macs (2003-2005) but I think that it's still the same story today. Meanwhile, the PC actually offers you the opportunity to put whatever RAM you want in there. - -- Silver Slimer Islam is a disease Gab.AI: @silverslimer -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX9lU1AAoJEIwFfgf/rr+utGwH/je3F1VTUvlZgRbO+rmrb6g0 EYhOn7C1bQhvqzYks9AvPrHru7DHGgRDpqK7GVHrpmvAf3oVrSlc+KN57xcM+g8O /8wsLi6zEjFK1CEi0o32Vyg8JtxYU8p9DN4/4Wagz5vop9bJfzZF7925p+BpEoeC swh9oTW6pFiqVhmw2IZ50jxRo9XMGG3fop2pYkWV0xiGyycRvJMAJuA0+s0AwTfy ckKZoVjwJRqzoBHl/sjuNtC4a6dPCkwhIhxd01AyA7lUzOVWUl+csAz8WQRG9x7q IIzoseAAywE2SVO0NKa8KgASIC1Qz7EkTHKvDVF0pAYE+51f7ilT6T+qO7N/tK0= =ru9K -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 09:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <061020160947189719%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #95335 |
In article <nt5kf6$7an$4@dont-email.me>, Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > > Apple and its users have always been proud to tell us that you need to > buy a specific brand of RAM for the Mac if you want to maintain > stability. It seemed pretty lame at the time that I owned Macs > (2003-2005) but I think that it's still the same story today. complete nonsense. all that matters is that it meets the required specs for the system. > Meanwhile, the PC actually offers you the opportunity to put whatever > RAM you want in there. same with macs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 10:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nt5lsn$djv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95336 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 2016-10-06 9:47 AM, nospam wrote: > In article <nt5kf6$7an$4@dont-email.me>, Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> > wrote: > >> >> Apple and its users have always been proud to tell us that you >> need to buy a specific brand of RAM for the Mac if you want to >> maintain stability. It seemed pretty lame at the time that I >> owned Macs (2003-2005) but I think that it's still the same story >> today. > > complete nonsense. all that matters is that it meets the required > specs for the system. That's true, but I was and am referring to what _Apple_ and its _users_ said/say. The truth and what they say aren't usually in sync. >> Meanwhile, the PC actually offers you the opportunity to put >> whatever RAM you want in there. > > same with macs. Tell that to the other zealots. - -- Silver Slimer Islam is a disease Gab.AI: @silverslimer -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX9lrmAAoJEIwFfgf/rr+u2KAH/juLgZtN4Tg5p9P2JsBFtHqa NGDI7kkoM0jccA0vlMGTf/3OCMqJFG05g54uFjdKsFDwVJjum6z3fJsemLpr33QC OhZdfvpBNAMlxbNk9g0kTKb9uqK4Vj7vr8Uf7FEfwyIMtY0N8v0Q4Yr5gRJxNd3e 8SV4ZwmOvT29/X+4dw7G5GoWX/daxgyiKW1UhENsaAoUQF4dHI1mNvEtW3wAFgfa 7kbXkKSHIE7f1Bx/2o4fW0ABT3gVF+SWf1vnvP1yIxA3L0GafINl1LzmojMPc6u8 SpnDClpMrSY4dVYOjQ408O8huBCoWRFTZW86AeaNboTu+j62jyoXriBfTA/BXsU= =Z5cJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 15:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <061020161507037688%timstreater@greenbee.net> |
| In reply to | #95335 |
In article <nt5kf6$7an$4@dont-email.me>, Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA256 > >On 2016-10-05 8:05 PM, GreyCloud wrote: >> On 10/05/2016 03:08 PM, nospam wrote: >>> In article <20161005230711.60b23288@maxa-pc.cpe.bvcom.net>, >>> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Two words: Windows Update. They need to fix that. Computer >>>> constantly writing to disk gigabytes of data is *not >>>> acceptable*. And Win 10 takes 1-1.5GB of RAM sitting doing >>>> nothing... You need at least 2GB to fire up program without >>>> having to swap out.... That is 64 bit version. I guess that >>>> for 32 bit version you need half of that... >>> >>> who cares. memory is cheap, as is disk space. >> >> But not on a new iMac. You can't even get inside on the 4k model. >> You either select all that should be in the mac or live with its >> slowness. And memory from Apple has never been cheap, and neither >> are their hard drives or SSDs. So don't buy from Apple then. Simples. >Apple and its users have always been proud to tell us that you need to >buy a specific brand of RAM for the Mac if you want to maintain >stability. It seemed pretty lame at the time that I owned Macs >(2003-2005) but I think that it's still the same story today. You only think that because you don't know your arse from a hole in the ground. You're talking total cock. I usually buy from Crucial but there are others. -- "A committee is a cul-de-sac down which ideas are lured and then quietly strangled." - Sir Barnett Cocks (1907-1989)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 11:08 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nt60es$m01$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95341 |
On 10/06/2016 08:07 AM, Tim Streater wrote: > In article <nt5kf6$7an$4@dont-email.me>, Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA256 >> >> On 2016-10-05 8:05 PM, GreyCloud wrote: >>> On 10/05/2016 03:08 PM, nospam wrote: >>>> In article <20161005230711.60b23288@maxa-pc.cpe.bvcom.net>, Melzzzzz >>>> <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Two words: Windows Update. They need to fix that. Computer >>>>> constantly writing to disk gigabytes of data is *not acceptable*. >>>>> And Win 10 takes 1-1.5GB of RAM sitting doing nothing... You need >>>>> at least 2GB to fire up program without having to swap out.... That >>>>> is 64 bit version. I guess that >>>>> for 32 bit version you need half of that... >>>> >>>> who cares. memory is cheap, as is disk space. >>> >>> But not on a new iMac. You can't even get inside on the 4k model. >>> You either select all that should be in the mac or live with its >>> slowness. And memory from Apple has never been cheap, and neither >>> are their hard drives or SSDs. > > So don't buy from Apple then. Simples. > >> Apple and its users have always been proud to tell us that you need to >> buy a specific brand of RAM for the Mac if you want to maintain >> stability. It seemed pretty lame at the time that I owned Macs >> (2003-2005) but I think that it's still the same story today. > > You only think that because you don't know your arse from a hole in the > ground. > > You're talking total cock. I usually buy from Crucial but there are > others. > I can't do that with the wifes' 4k iMac. All sealed up and no screws to undo. The rest are different.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 10:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nt61tj$aha$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #95335 |
On 2016-10-06 6:44 AM, Silver Slimer wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 2016-10-05 8:05 PM, GreyCloud wrote: >> On 10/05/2016 03:08 PM, nospam wrote: >>> In article <20161005230711.60b23288@maxa-pc.cpe.bvcom.net>, >>> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Two words: Windows Update. They need to fix that. Computer >>>> constantly writing to disk gigabytes of data is *not >>>> acceptable*. And Win 10 takes 1-1.5GB of RAM sitting doing >>>> nothing... You need at least 2GB to fire up program without >>>> having to swap out.... That is 64 bit version. I guess that >>>> for 32 bit version you need half of that... >>> >>> who cares. memory is cheap, as is disk space. >>> >> >> But not on a new iMac. You can't even get inside on the 4k model. >> You either select all that should be in the mac or live with its >> slowness. And memory from Apple has never been cheap, and neither >> are their hard drives or SSDs. > > Apple and its users have always been proud to tell us that you need to > buy a specific brand of RAM for the Mac if you want to maintain > stability. It seemed pretty lame at the time that I owned Macs > (2003-2005) but I think that it's still the same story today. > Meanwhile, the PC actually offers you the opportunity to put whatever > RAM you want in there. It's bullshit. You heard one guy once tell you that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web