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 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
| From | Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 16:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nt6d1v$7m9$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95353 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 2016-10-06 1:33 PM, Alan Baker wrote: > 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. To be honest, I don't really care if you believe me. However, web forums at the time were very clear in telling you that you had to buy whatever brand Apple uses or else you were exposing yourself to problems. It turned out to be garbage, but it seems that zealots at the time were not as honest as today's edition. - -- Silver Slimer Islam is a disease Gab.AI: @silverslimer -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX9rePAAoJEIwFfgf/rr+uG5MH/3h8K0e2k8SZ9sTR1RxQoRFK FXgxAEh7QhSbEnHvjYnF9yNFwA8oSJAZc5naVoNUoPjbNBuCdVIoYnJfRoLHfsoP MxqAdNmF3AL4VkD45Um4qaSXAk6+ljBVL2wdDBKd+WFd4QUlqS9lBTvagEEjyurA bz0Rbg0C9onyrAFbQ70J7UfkXXHQT4NaV4Uonz/Z7ehDcYtQ0duoS9Ke5Wky+J1E UD1WH/UfElU4d/CqO362YpfKSHhO6hAr6hqZHJMEaNv9XNDVJd5OHBb9YwMqTOi3 IRhoT6mPdFIYCqtEIYQBqngm9rUyXkyv9S88JWhbqlb1rcnXq/ucelkD1znrfUw= =pj7z -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 16:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <061020161648456819%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #95368 |
In article <nt6d1v$7m9$2@dont-email.me>, Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >> > >> Apple and its users have always been proud to tell us that you > >> need to buy a specific brand of RAM for the Mac if you want to > >> maintain stability. It seemed pretty lame at the time that I > >> owned Macs (2003-2005) but I think that it's still the same story > >> today. Meanwhile, the PC actually offers you the opportunity to > >> put whatever RAM you want in there. > > > > It's bullshit. You heard one guy once tell you that. > > To be honest, I don't really care if you believe me. However, web > forums at the time were very clear in telling you that you had to buy > whatever brand Apple uses or else you were exposing yourself to > problems. It turned out to be garbage, but it seems that zealots at > the time were not as honest as today's edition. web forums are your reference? you're an idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 14:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nt6hba$d4c$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #95368 |
On 2016-10-06 1:43 PM, Silver Slimer wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 2016-10-06 1:33 PM, Alan Baker wrote: >> 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. > > To be honest, I don't really care if you believe me. However, web > forums at the time were very clear in telling you that you had to buy > whatever brand Apple uses or else you were exposing yourself to > problems. It turned out to be garbage, but it seems that zealots at > the time were not as honest as today's edition. Well then if the answer was found in web forums, you should have no trouble providing a couple of examples...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 18:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nt6kju$47h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95373 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 2016-10-06 5:56 PM, Alan Baker wrote: > On 2016-10-06 1:43 PM, Silver Slimer wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 >> >> On 2016-10-06 1:33 PM, Alan Baker wrote: >>> 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. >> >> To be honest, I don't really care if you believe me. However, >> web forums at the time were very clear in telling you that you >> had to buy whatever brand Apple uses or else you were exposing >> yourself to problems. It turned out to be garbage, but it seems >> that zealots at the time were not as honest as today's edition. > > Well then if the answer was found in web forums, you should have > no trouble providing a couple of examples... Sure, give me a reason to care about proving this to you and I will. - -- Silver Slimer Islam is a disease Gab.AI: @silverslimer -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX9tXOAAoJEIwFfgf/rr+uiPMH/jMe7RuMIDpU2gBceoIQyZjE jxJUqtFUxMfcx+lQQWWvx26UEgVc4z3EBu/Gwd7FXL6cV4SQVooKJ0MLp2nFcvQL 0jwSMWkFbExdUfJsAg0IxezFs6iZMtae99UegHo9iOnxZnd/jIOQnBmOBUh5IvDw WCOyDLuQRrbtUBx4YRXi4S1UCNZUNuSM1v/jqbtlfuris0dcVHWnQJdO4swepVbW CZakD0spLCmh4bqrWkfn26JbrwrP0e1neeAxrp9Z6I1cb3YMgFX+SBjYS+1/1lFR /JRBqrhf9N3RRuAc7vD1TdgtHcbZSnCxdAqQF06hB/OjvS8HUaTblNAYPpDbNDM= =USBu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 16:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nt6l9s$mho$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #95387 |
On 2016-10-06 3:53 PM, Silver Slimer wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 2016-10-06 5:56 PM, Alan Baker wrote: >> On 2016-10-06 1:43 PM, Silver Slimer wrote: >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 >>> >>> On 2016-10-06 1:33 PM, Alan Baker wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> To be honest, I don't really care if you believe me. However, >>> web forums at the time were very clear in telling you that you >>> had to buy whatever brand Apple uses or else you were exposing >>> yourself to problems. It turned out to be garbage, but it seems >>> that zealots at the time were not as honest as today's edition. >> >> Well then if the answer was found in web forums, you should have >> no trouble providing a couple of examples... > > Sure, give me a reason to care about proving this to you and I will. As I thought...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 18:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nt6l0m$5k5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95373 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 2016-10-06 5:56 PM, Alan Baker wrote: > On 2016-10-06 1:43 PM, Silver Slimer wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 >> >> On 2016-10-06 1:33 PM, Alan Baker wrote: >>> 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. >> >> To be honest, I don't really care if you believe me. However, >> web forums at the time were very clear in telling you that you >> had to buy whatever brand Apple uses or else you were exposing >> yourself to problems. It turned out to be garbage, but it seems >> that zealots at the time were not as honest as today's edition. > > Well then if the answer was found in web forums, you should have > no trouble providing a couple of examples... Just for fun though, here's a post from <https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3565348?start=0&tstart=0> ... notice the domain name there. And I quote: "Macs are picky about RAM." Here's another that I found just to be a jerk and shove it up your Apple-branded ass: <http://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/74688/can-a-ram-module-not-be- compatible-with-macs> "Macs are more choosey about the RAM that is fitted whilst non-Mac's are more forgiving. " One thing to learn about me: unlike Mac zealots, I will only tell the truth. - -- Silver Slimer Islam is a disease Gab.AI: @silverslimer -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX9tdmAAoJEIwFfgf/rr+ueagH/2gVx9nFxeJsrW7C6ZawmE7o BZcxf7WgBspuzSO3Njk5l+S7D3/hOOFUAA4k77znYYIFfujE9biXPMwkTEtRJxWH /N3/7vFi0vwE5ZHnE5g5X8sl195iBL4z+9g5lefGHapiewOO+G8q/yRfvkRmyX1Z ayJBhn7J2F7+a0UEhSU3KwGIJ3heNoI8Q9c7e1J6Ny2eEjB7UaqIx6YRfMMPZGda j+7lz2VFPbroDqO9We/+6ewJR+4iOZTDFDpmMKaFfLYwcFum7ncxhegpT4LXhjPD 08wWfqhi6SBS0iwBO9zmHjcGIjKTpTgVOe8xHFChXYc3WLEkUOZ3XeZ2mEms+hw= =mSy+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 16:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nt6lgk$mho$2@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #95389 |
On 2016-10-06 3:59 PM, Silver Slimer wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 2016-10-06 5:56 PM, Alan Baker wrote: >> On 2016-10-06 1:43 PM, Silver Slimer wrote: >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 >>> >>> On 2016-10-06 1:33 PM, Alan Baker wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> To be honest, I don't really care if you believe me. However, >>> web forums at the time were very clear in telling you that you >>> had to buy whatever brand Apple uses or else you were exposing >>> yourself to problems. It turned out to be garbage, but it seems >>> that zealots at the time were not as honest as today's edition. >> >> Well then if the answer was found in web forums, you should have >> no trouble providing a couple of examples... > > Just for fun though, here's a post from > <https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3565348?start=0&tstart=0> ... > notice the domain name there. And I quote: > > "Macs are picky about RAM." You mean where all it actually says is that you need to use RAM that's compatible? > > Here's another that I found just to be a jerk and shove it up your > Apple-branded ass: > <http://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/74688/can-a-ram-module-not-be- > compatible-with-macs> > > "Macs are more choosey about the RAM that is fitted whilst non-Mac's > are more forgiving. " Which is vague and says nothing about only using "specific brands", does it? > > One thing to learn about me: unlike Mac zealots, I will only tell the > truth. So produce a quote that says that only specific brands will work from either of those two threads...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 19:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nt6mrn$a35$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95392 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 2016-10-06 7:08 PM, Alan Baker wrote: > On 2016-10-06 3:59 PM, Silver Slimer wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 >> >> On 2016-10-06 5:56 PM, Alan Baker wrote: >>> On 2016-10-06 1:43 PM, Silver Slimer wrote: >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 >>>> >>>> On 2016-10-06 1:33 PM, Alan Baker wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> To be honest, I don't really care if you believe me. >>>> However, web forums at the time were very clear in telling >>>> you that you had to buy whatever brand Apple uses or else you >>>> were exposing yourself to problems. It turned out to be >>>> garbage, but it seems that zealots at the time were not as >>>> honest as today's edition. >>> >>> Well then if the answer was found in web forums, you should >>> have no trouble providing a couple of examples... >> >> Just for fun though, here's a post from >> <https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3565348?start=0&tstart=0> >> ... notice the domain name there. And I quote: >> >> "Macs are picky about RAM." > > You mean where all it actually says is that you need to use RAM > that's compatible? Hey man, I'm not the one who made that comment. I simply informed you to the fact that a lot of Mac zealots will claim that you have to get a specific brand and such. I never said that I agreed with them. >> Here's another that I found just to be a jerk and shove it up >> your Apple-branded ass: >> <http://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/74688/can-a-ram-module-not- be- >> >> compatible-with-macs> >> >> "Macs are more choosey about the RAM that is fitted whilst >> non-Mac's are more forgiving. " > > Which is vague and says nothing about only using "specific brands", > does it? Ah, so we're playing semantics. >> One thing to learn about me: unlike Mac zealots, I will only tell >> the truth. > > So produce a quote that says that only specific brands will work > from either of those two threads... You're a complete waste of time. I'm done with this. - -- Silver Slimer Islam is a disease Gab.AI: @silverslimer -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX9t7HAAoJEIwFfgf/rr+uGisH/2hBEpyDNn5UTj+NSXLwrhLS Yk0Xqo6MFOiFz2ke7pYkENXsgFhbGCH1ZPdW5Fy459TLEG9zgHq1WaLZuZC0WiEb YnuebccgtcCsrO+QuENp4OshuRkUBVUNKFlddxYvsxZ9oPl3ZZboyXt9NlQtaFUO 6R548WubkHiCCzbmneMDpkgEokv6ZzDy9f6bVxY8P5yGUDOLvROMpsep8Aq+5OnR uNTYXMFGs8JVEVSz680ieKrDvuE1OOSg5e5yjrfyPJ+eV+F7R0AAjM8Gcw4HXfIy qwlAeAlg55IhP3cvrCX8ExZNofJYc2f5k6Hn7JOSwv7UeDYHdZa/ZLrCU7GO9FU= =CHh/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 16:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nt6nji$pt2$3@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #95396 |
On 2016-10-06 4:31 PM, Silver Slimer wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 2016-10-06 7:08 PM, Alan Baker wrote: >> On 2016-10-06 3:59 PM, Silver Slimer wrote: >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 >>> >>> On 2016-10-06 5:56 PM, Alan Baker wrote: >>>> On 2016-10-06 1:43 PM, Silver Slimer wrote: >>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 >>>>> >>>>> On 2016-10-06 1:33 PM, Alan Baker wrote: >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> To be honest, I don't really care if you believe me. >>>>> However, web forums at the time were very clear in telling >>>>> you that you had to buy whatever brand Apple uses or else you >>>>> were exposing yourself to problems. It turned out to be >>>>> garbage, but it seems that zealots at the time were not as >>>>> honest as today's edition. >>>> >>>> Well then if the answer was found in web forums, you should >>>> have no trouble providing a couple of examples... >>> >>> Just for fun though, here's a post from >>> <https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3565348?start=0&tstart=0> >>> ... notice the domain name there. And I quote: >>> >>> "Macs are picky about RAM." >> >> You mean where all it actually says is that you need to use RAM >> that's compatible? > > Hey man, I'm not the one who made that comment. I simply informed you > to the fact that a lot of Mac zealots will claim that you have to get > a specific brand and such. I never said that I agreed with them. > >>> Here's another that I found just to be a jerk and shove it up >>> your Apple-branded ass: >>> <http://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/74688/can-a-ram-module-not- > be- >>> >>> > compatible-with-macs> >>> >>> "Macs are more choosey about the RAM that is fitted whilst >>> non-Mac's are more forgiving. " >> >> Which is vague and says nothing about only using "specific brands", >> does it? > > Ah, so we're playing semantics. No. Neither of your two examples so much as suggest that only certain brands of RAM will work properly in a Mac. > >>> One thing to learn about me: unlike Mac zealots, I will only tell >>> the truth. >> >> So produce a quote that says that only specific brands will work >> from either of those two threads... > > You're a complete waste of time. I'm done with this. You're a loser who can't admit as much.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 00:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <071020160044407199%timstreater@greenbee.net> |
| In reply to | #95396 |
In article <nt6mrn$a35$1@dont-email.me>, Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA256 > >On 2016-10-06 7:08 PM, Alan Baker wrote: >> On 2016-10-06 3:59 PM, Silver Slimer wrote: >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 >>> >>> On 2016-10-06 5:56 PM, Alan Baker wrote: >>>> On 2016-10-06 1:43 PM, Silver Slimer wrote: >>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 >>>>> >>>>> On 2016-10-06 1:33 PM, Alan Baker wrote: >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> To be honest, I don't really care if you believe me. >>>>> However, web forums at the time were very clear in telling >>>>> you that you had to buy whatever brand Apple uses or else you >>>>> were exposing yourself to problems. It turned out to be >>>>> garbage, but it seems that zealots at the time were not as >>>>> honest as today's edition. >>>> >>>> Well then if the answer was found in web forums, you should >>>> have no trouble providing a couple of examples... >>> >>> Just for fun though, here's a post from >>> <https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3565348?start=0&tstart=0> >>> ... notice the domain name there. And I quote: >>> >>> "Macs are picky about RAM." >> >> You mean where all it actually says is that you need to use RAM >> that's compatible? > >Hey man, I'm not the one who made that comment. I simply informed you >to the fact that a lot of Mac zealots will claim that you have to get >a specific brand and such. I never said that I agreed with them. Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle. What a worm you are. Now piss off. -- "Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 06:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <g52fvb1c2t7p3qtir0rrabdvfbq6iv6458@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #95400 |
Tim Streater wrote: > slime wrote: >> >> Alan Baker wrote: >>> >>> You mean where all it actually says is that you need to use RAM >>> that's compatible? >> >>Hey man, I'm not the one who made that comment. I simply informed you >>to the fact that a lot of Mac zealots will claim that you have to get >>a specific brand and such. I never said that I agreed with them. > > Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle. What a worm you are. Now piss off. LOL. Poor "Slimer". -- "I hate fragmentation in every sense of the word and Android is the very definition of it." - "Slimer"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 19:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <061020161945393656%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #95396 |
In article <nt6mrn$a35$1@dont-email.me>, Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >> Just for fun though, here's a post from > >> <https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3565348?start=0&tstart=0> > >> ... notice the domain name there. And I quote: > >> > >> "Macs are picky about RAM." > > > > You mean where all it actually says is that you need to use RAM > > that's compatible? > > Hey man, I'm not the one who made that comment. I simply informed you > to the fact that a lot of Mac zealots will claim that you have to get > a specific brand and such. I never said that I agreed with them. no different than pc zealots. the reality is that what matters is that the specs are correct. for example, pc2-5300 won't work in a system that requires pc3-8500. who makes the memory doesn't matter (unless it's shit quality, which pc users seem to prefer).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 19:12 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nt6sop$ot7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95401 |
On 10/06/2016 05:45 PM, nospam wrote: > In article <nt6mrn$a35$1@dont-email.me>, Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >>>> Just for fun though, here's a post from >>>> <https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3565348?start=0&tstart=0> >>>> ... notice the domain name there. And I quote: >>>> >>>> "Macs are picky about RAM." >>> >>> You mean where all it actually says is that you need to use RAM >>> that's compatible? >> >> Hey man, I'm not the one who made that comment. I simply informed you >> to the fact that a lot of Mac zealots will claim that you have to get >> a specific brand and such. I never said that I agreed with them. > > no different than pc zealots. > > the reality is that what matters is that the specs are correct. for > example, pc2-5300 won't work in a system that requires pc3-8500. who > makes the memory doesn't matter (unless it's shit quality, which pc > users seem to prefer). > Spec wise you are correct. Quality wise, you are incorrect. That ram stick you put into a mac is no different in quality to the ones that go into a regular PC. I've installed ram on earlier macs, and they Apple ram that was in the mac and the additional ram that I bought were the same brand, only less money.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 22:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <061020162219176684%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #95403 |
In article <nt6sop$ot7$1@dont-email.me>, GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> "Macs are picky about RAM." > >>> > >>> You mean where all it actually says is that you need to use RAM > >>> that's compatible? > >> > >> Hey man, I'm not the one who made that comment. I simply informed you > >> to the fact that a lot of Mac zealots will claim that you have to get > >> a specific brand and such. I never said that I agreed with them. > > > > no different than pc zealots. > > > > the reality is that what matters is that the specs are correct. for > > example, pc2-5300 won't work in a system that requires pc3-8500. who > > makes the memory doesn't matter (unless it's shit quality, which pc > > users seem to prefer). > > > > Spec wise you are correct. Quality wise, you are incorrect. That ram > stick you put into a mac is no different in quality to the ones that go > into a regular PC. exactly the point. mac memory does not cost more. > I've installed ram on earlier macs, and they Apple > ram that was in the mac and the additional ram that I bought were the > same brand, only less money. now compare what dell, lenovo and hp charge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 12:25 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nt8p9m$de4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95410 |
On 10/06/2016 08:19 PM, nospam wrote: > In article <nt6sop$ot7$1@dont-email.me>, GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> > wrote: > >>>>>> >>>>>> "Macs are picky about RAM." >>>>> >>>>> You mean where all it actually says is that you need to use RAM >>>>> that's compatible? >>>> >>>> Hey man, I'm not the one who made that comment. I simply informed you >>>> to the fact that a lot of Mac zealots will claim that you have to get >>>> a specific brand and such. I never said that I agreed with them. >>> >>> no different than pc zealots. >>> >>> the reality is that what matters is that the specs are correct. for >>> example, pc2-5300 won't work in a system that requires pc3-8500. who >>> makes the memory doesn't matter (unless it's shit quality, which pc >>> users seem to prefer). >>> >> >> Spec wise you are correct. Quality wise, you are incorrect. That ram >> stick you put into a mac is no different in quality to the ones that go >> into a regular PC. > > exactly the point. mac memory does not cost more. > >> I've installed ram on earlier macs, and they Apple >> ram that was in the mac and the additional ram that I bought were the >> same brand, only less money. > > now compare what dell, lenovo and hp charge. > A bit less, but not a huge discount. I go to Best Buy to get ram and is even more discounted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 19:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <061020161909102324%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #95389 |
In article <nt6l0m$5k5$1@dont-email.me>, Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >> > >> To be honest, I don't really care if you believe me. However, > >> web forums at the time were very clear in telling you that you > >> had to buy whatever brand Apple uses or else you were exposing > >> yourself to problems. It turned out to be garbage, but it seems > >> that zealots at the time were not as honest as today's edition. > > > > Well then if the answer was found in web forums, you should have > > no trouble providing a couple of examples... > > Just for fun though, here's a post from > <https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3565348?start=0&tstart=0> ... > notice the domain name there. apple discussion forums are not apple employees. they're open to anyone. while there are some *very* helpful people there, there are also the usual idiots. > And I quote: > > "Macs are picky about RAM." they only require memory that meets the required specs, same as any other computer. memory quality does vary and buying shit quality memory can sometimes cause problems, no matter who makes the computer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 17:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nt3qmc$ers$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95289 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 2016-10-05 5:07 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > 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*. Like I said before, it has already been resolved with forced updates. The remaining problem is that after updating, Windows keeps the update files on the hard disk for God knows what reason. The more they accumulate, the slower the computer gets. > 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... LOL, a complete lie. I didn't realize you posted to COLA, Senator Kaine. - -- Silver Slimer Islam is a disease Gab.AI: @silverslimer -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX9W4bAAoJEIwFfgf/rr+urC4H/jeA0OVBqAdNyRBX1/oRil/s eUAmXfL7nNWEBLGyXvDmAu3eDTgUteJn4GfFEBCYfE6kYbI/YLZoGANe2BT16xZ9 A2Fgql+mV3mXJxB59xcQ+E6W8MSkyPRkMvXuCE9W4UjS9l42VpiK6kSpXM/IXN+F rC6n/ctDmi8gcFhc9jEAZFJc/6XQfnddipbfVsQzXNkjCGShuEWc7KdP8vAWRfa9 ya05hHWCZA2v6bZEzPa3vKQ6t1F/+4FT3H12tDhESQ15QDfiF8KyQNf7GRCief5B UrMzOt0n8s1oFNKlwhOU7yAyqBkHj0qpLV6Np5+U3C/UaIf0Ec4xyLtWjedMIdg= =AeFf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 23:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20161005232107.02dbc0aa@maxa-pc.cpe.bvcom.net> |
| In reply to | #95295 |
On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:18:20 -0400 Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > On 2016-10-05 5:07 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > > > 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... > > LOL, a complete lie. I didn't realize you posted to COLA, Senator > Kaine. > Sure. Lie. Having Win 10 in VM now, it reports 1GB usage with only task manager open? Does Win 10 lies? Perhaps... -- press any key to continue or any other to quit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 17:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nt3rli$j92$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95296 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 2016-10-05 5:21 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:18:20 -0400 Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >> On 2016-10-05 5:07 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >> >>> 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... >> >> LOL, a complete lie. I didn't realize you posted to COLA, >> Senator Kaine. >> > > Sure. Lie. Having Win 10 in VM now, it reports 1GB usage with only > task manager open? Does Win 10 lies? Perhaps... I wasn't referring to the memory usage, I was referring to your belief that it needs at least 2GB to prevent disk swapping. I won't say that Windows 10 doesn't hog memory, but I will say that it is not worse than 7 or 8 were. Linux is seriously king when it comes to using only as much memory or disk space as needed. - -- Silver Slimer Islam is a disease Gab.AI: @silverslimer -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX9XIAAAoJEIwFfgf/rr+ueXQH/RDzeqLb9ebTP6NcQKgZNg7A BV3SPGGtX25h0wYhfE2qz5DHfJr/quG8sg0cc9fRXM5wxEhgYapLkkD6qZN72hmn jZaJe5e4ZHjwqGi7casLneD6aBrshAXpQ0E57tJFnNG2HKpfXsayfTZptCQwwFc9 WIKba3A5+vMTjjNhOidxXmVZCF+8uMbfulKaMwvn5fWT051RdepKlFmzQJR2oCSb C4eFcUxJGbMzDTc/BBRQWt/UvR2MIZPdRUjtOQDoOxKQ0qCojslYybK2q1DKgrT2 Af21Ct682XdrHSvo4YHZ8EpCFQ3NHOA5ctQbxJH0Z232Px/VZtOnjMYRLJu7BLg= =W4fv -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 23:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20161005234205.418d1c9d@maxa-pc.cpe.bvcom.net> |
| In reply to | #95299 |
On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:34:56 -0400 Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 2016-10-05 5:21 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > > On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:18:20 -0400 Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > > > >> On 2016-10-05 5:07 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > >> > >>> 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... > >> > >> LOL, a complete lie. I didn't realize you posted to COLA, > >> Senator Kaine. > >> > > > > Sure. Lie. Having Win 10 in VM now, it reports 1GB usage with only > > task manager open? Does Win 10 lies? Perhaps... > > I wasn't referring to the memory usage, I was referring to your belief > that it needs at least 2GB to prevent disk swapping. I won't say that > Windows 10 doesn't hog memory, but I will say that it is not worse > than 7 or 8 were. Win 8 takes less then 7 and 10 takes less then 8. Also they finally implemented zswap in Win 10. > > Linux is seriously king when it comes to using only as much memory or > disk space as needed. That depends on what you run. eg running KDE with akonadi and indexer services will easily take more then 1GB of RAM sitting doing nothing... -- press any key to continue or any other to quit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web