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 $302.4 million to VirnetX. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-04 14:51 -0500
Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 17:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <051020161705202820%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #95287 |
In article <nt3prt$d5d$1@dont-email.me>, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: > >> Regardless of what Mac heads tell you, OS X is slow no matter what > >> kind of processor or amount of memory you throw at it. > > > > benchmarks show that to be complete rubbish. > > Benchmarks show apples HFS to be the slowest filesystem of all, by a *very* > wide margin. The second slowest FS is NTFS from MS, and that is nearly twice > as fast nonsense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 17:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nt3qi8$ers$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95288 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 2016-10-05 5:05 PM, nospam wrote: > In article <nt3prt$d5d$1@dont-email.me>, Peter Köhlmann > <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: > >>>> Regardless of what Mac heads tell you, OS X is slow no matter >>>> what kind of processor or amount of memory you throw at it. >>> >>> benchmarks show that to be complete rubbish. >> >> Benchmarks show apples HFS to be the slowest filesystem of all, >> by a *very* wide margin. The second slowest FS is NTFS from MS, >> and that is nearly twice as fast > > nonsense. I think we finally found a bigger liar than Tim Kaine. - -- Silver Slimer Islam is a disease Gab.AI: @silverslimer -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX9W2XAAoJEIwFfgf/rr+utIQH/j45wTnu4Eh1m9SVTuz4KU+4 J6IpEYcegZE/IOCuGgtDKwVd22PXl+Zj0gjBOJ+0w9aT5XqlDPm6J3a+12UvehzZ 6iz0c+Fh6mEmRpT7GxFgDh+rF5KSpOai25EGUAPsMVDg1obNxm46jKTZ3ZdKcUYj AOV6evyGTx9BiPJtss5XlBNC7KpkQbI3n3uEin85sx4xPSZWxj4X6tM8IlxeVzNa 4pOw4jRRrP8+NkNLcns3mhEBptK1uEm/qaINTQgXv7oPTqgXtlo57xWu5XFnVZVt Ixt7FzAWYvwVbcqbB4n5ULdZXPM/iiqkeitrxAiK3GtYDGJf3XstZ+iMhvOgCiE= =mkGg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 23:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nt3qjd$fui$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95288 |
nospam wrote: > In article <nt3prt$d5d$1@dont-email.me>, Peter Köhlmann > <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: > >> >> Regardless of what Mac heads tell you, OS X is slow no matter what >> >> kind of processor or amount of memory you throw at it. >> > >> > benchmarks show that to be complete rubbish. >> >> Benchmarks show apples HFS to be the slowest filesystem of all, by a >> *very* wide margin. The second slowest FS is NTFS from MS, and that is >> nearly twice as fast > > nonsense. Idiot
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 18:10 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nt44op$d5j$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95285 |
On 10/05/2016 02:51 PM, nospam wrote: > In article <nt3n6r$2o2$3@dont-email.me>, Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >> >> Regardless of what Mac heads tell you, OS X is slow no matter what >> kind of processor or amount of memory you throw at it. > > benchmarks show that to be complete rubbish. > >> Apple is happy >> to see you spend the money but reward you with nothing at all. I >> recall getting my parents to pay for a 4GB upgrade on their Mac Mini >> to bring the total to 8GB. There's a 5400 RPM HD in there but even >> that kind of old technology would work relatively well with Linux or >> Windows on it. On the Mac? Disgusting. My parents felt _no change_ >> from 4GB to 8GB despiet assurances from zealots that the experience >> would be fantastic. > > that only means that you weren't memory bound. > >> Maybe things will change once the filesystem is >> replaced (did it happen yet?) but I doubt it; optimization is >> something absolutely no one at Apple can even spell much less implement. > > nonsense. > Why does the Apple Terminal program take 7 seconds to finally show a prompt then?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 22:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <051020162248469096%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #95315 |
In article <nt44op$d5j$6@dont-email.me>, GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> wrote: > >> Regardless of what Mac heads tell you, OS X is slow no matter what > >> kind of processor or amount of memory you throw at it. > > > > benchmarks show that to be complete rubbish. > > > >> Apple is happy > >> to see you spend the money but reward you with nothing at all. I > >> recall getting my parents to pay for a 4GB upgrade on their Mac Mini > >> to bring the total to 8GB. There's a 5400 RPM HD in there but even > >> that kind of old technology would work relatively well with Linux or > >> Windows on it. On the Mac? Disgusting. My parents felt _no change_ > >> from 4GB to 8GB despiet assurances from zealots that the experience > >> would be fantastic. > > > > that only means that you weren't memory bound. > > > >> Maybe things will change once the filesystem is > >> replaced (did it happen yet?) but I doubt it; optimization is > >> something absolutely no one at Apple can even spell much less implement. > > > > nonsense. > > > Why does the Apple Terminal program take 7 seconds to finally show a > prompt then? because something is wrong with your system, and instead of trying to diagnose the issue and resolve it, you'd rather bitch and moan. it takes about 1-2 seconds to cold-launch terminal on a 2008 macbook i happen to have, while on 2013 mac (which still is not the latest and greatest), terminal launches instantly. it's too fast to even measure. double-click terminal and there's a prompt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 11:21 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nt616k$o40$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95324 |
On 10/05/2016 08:48 PM, nospam wrote: > In article <nt44op$d5j$6@dont-email.me>, GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> > wrote: > >>>> Regardless of what Mac heads tell you, OS X is slow no matter what >>>> kind of processor or amount of memory you throw at it. >>> >>> benchmarks show that to be complete rubbish. >>> >>>> Apple is happy >>>> to see you spend the money but reward you with nothing at all. I >>>> recall getting my parents to pay for a 4GB upgrade on their Mac Mini >>>> to bring the total to 8GB. There's a 5400 RPM HD in there but even >>>> that kind of old technology would work relatively well with Linux or >>>> Windows on it. On the Mac? Disgusting. My parents felt _no change_ >>>> from 4GB to 8GB despiet assurances from zealots that the experience >>>> would be fantastic. >>> >>> that only means that you weren't memory bound. >>> >>>> Maybe things will change once the filesystem is >>>> replaced (did it happen yet?) but I doubt it; optimization is >>>> something absolutely no one at Apple can even spell much less implement. >>> >>> nonsense. >>> >> Why does the Apple Terminal program take 7 seconds to finally show a >> prompt then? > > because something is wrong with your system, and instead of trying to > diagnose the issue and resolve it, you'd rather bitch and moan. > > it takes about 1-2 seconds to cold-launch terminal on a 2008 macbook i > happen to have, while on 2013 mac (which still is not the latest and > greatest), terminal launches instantly. it's too fast to even measure. > double-click terminal and there's a prompt. > It was right there on my old 2007 iMac. On this new one it seems to take forever. Also, on boot up, and logging into my account, it seems that all the services are very slow in starting up. I may have to call up Apple on this one, since I have paid support.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 15:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <061020161533014225%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #95351 |
In article <nt616k$o40$4@dont-email.me>, GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> wrote: > >>> > >> Why does the Apple Terminal program take 7 seconds to finally show a > >> prompt then? > > > > because something is wrong with your system, and instead of trying to > > diagnose the issue and resolve it, you'd rather bitch and moan. > > > > it takes about 1-2 seconds to cold-launch terminal on a 2008 macbook i > > happen to have, while on 2013 mac (which still is not the latest and > > greatest), terminal launches instantly. it's too fast to even measure. > > double-click terminal and there's a prompt. > > > > It was right there on my old 2007 iMac. On this new one it seems to > take forever. then something is wrong. > Also, on boot up, and logging into my account, it seems that all the > services are very slow in starting up. I may have to call up Apple on > this one, since I have paid support. yes you do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 16:27 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nt6j3u$ufh$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95357 |
On 10/06/2016 01:33 PM, nospam wrote: > In article <nt616k$o40$4@dont-email.me>, GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> > wrote: > > >>>>> >>>> Why does the Apple Terminal program take 7 seconds to finally show a >>>> prompt then? >>> >>> because something is wrong with your system, and instead of trying to >>> diagnose the issue and resolve it, you'd rather bitch and moan. >>> >>> it takes about 1-2 seconds to cold-launch terminal on a 2008 macbook i >>> happen to have, while on 2013 mac (which still is not the latest and >>> greatest), terminal launches instantly. it's too fast to even measure. >>> double-click terminal and there's a prompt. >>> >> >> It was right there on my old 2007 iMac. On this new one it seems to >> take forever. > > then something is wrong. > >> Also, on boot up, and logging into my account, it seems that all the >> services are very slow in starting up. I may have to call up Apple on >> this one, since I have paid support. > > yes you do. > Guffaw!!! And on a brand new machine no less. Hardware tests pass.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 15:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nt6jev$ia5$2@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #95379 |
On 2016-10-06 3:27 PM, GreyCloud wrote: > On 10/06/2016 01:33 PM, nospam wrote: >> In article <nt616k$o40$4@dont-email.me>, GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> >> wrote: >> >> >>>>>> >>>>> Why does the Apple Terminal program take 7 seconds to finally show a >>>>> prompt then? >>>> >>>> because something is wrong with your system, and instead of trying to >>>> diagnose the issue and resolve it, you'd rather bitch and moan. >>>> >>>> it takes about 1-2 seconds to cold-launch terminal on a 2008 macbook i >>>> happen to have, while on 2013 mac (which still is not the latest and >>>> greatest), terminal launches instantly. it's too fast to even measure. >>>> double-click terminal and there's a prompt. >>>> >>> >>> It was right there on my old 2007 iMac. On this new one it seems to >>> take forever. >> >> then something is wrong. >> >>> Also, on boot up, and logging into my account, it seems that all the >>> services are very slow in starting up. I may have to call up Apple on >>> this one, since I have paid support. >> >> yes you do. >> > > Guffaw!!! And on a brand new machine no less. > Hardware tests pass. > Brand new machine... ...but is it a brand new ACCOUNT? Did you migrate data over from an old system? Have you tried setting up a new account, logging in to it, and then seeing how long the Terminal takes to launch? Because I'm here on a year old MacBook Pro running 10.11.6, and I have no issues with the speed with which the prompt arrives in Terminal.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 19:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nt6l23$5k5$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95383 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 2016-10-06 6:33 PM, Alan Baker wrote: > On 2016-10-06 3:27 PM, GreyCloud wrote: >> On 10/06/2016 01:33 PM, nospam wrote: >>> In article <nt616k$o40$4@dont-email.me>, GreyCloud >>> <Cumulus@mist.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Why does the Apple Terminal program take 7 seconds to >>>>>> finally show a prompt then? >>>>> >>>>> because something is wrong with your system, and instead of >>>>> trying to diagnose the issue and resolve it, you'd rather >>>>> bitch and moan. >>>>> >>>>> it takes about 1-2 seconds to cold-launch terminal on a >>>>> 2008 macbook i happen to have, while on 2013 mac (which >>>>> still is not the latest and greatest), terminal launches >>>>> instantly. it's too fast to even measure. double-click >>>>> terminal and there's a prompt. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It was right there on my old 2007 iMac. On this new one it >>>> seems to take forever. >>> >>> then something is wrong. >>> >>>> Also, on boot up, and logging into my account, it seems that >>>> all the services are very slow in starting up. I may have to >>>> call up Apple on this one, since I have paid support. >>> >>> yes you do. >>> >> >> Guffaw!!! And on a brand new machine no less. Hardware tests >> pass. >> > > Brand new machine... > > ...but is it a brand new ACCOUNT? > > Did you migrate data over from an old system? > > Have you tried setting up a new account, logging in to it, and > then seeing how long the Terminal takes to launch? > > Because I'm here on a year old MacBook Pro running 10.11.6, and I > have no issues with the speed with which the prompt arrives in > Terminal. Most likely a lie. Apple zealots _never_ tell the truth. If it took him twenty minutes to load it, he'd still claim that there's no problem "here." - -- Silver Slimer Islam is a disease Gab.AI: @silverslimer -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX9teSAAoJEIwFfgf/rr+u5eYH/0uK42cREqsf32FWqsMghhHX R4gl8LwQpykN5nIFaeAH8QNBlnTu7AV2gao4yx1SfiBSu/gEV+btK3wHjgdn+s7i MHpH8NhOVhDLZRfJkG5gGGWgb2ALKEkzahflWkvilsWVtoQ4uJQQ8bGo1HhXk0lt wQ7bb2j/FdYeB7137oVXkDJd+Dw2u+UiSTLjvAN7bh+sfVv90UKfz/+Gg5RgWxKw iMhWm2w2GuCWt1E4j8SQrCmi5rzjZtURlW1osT3LyjztHiqQwLj+5jAfwmwgQTkH CUckqG0q67CFmh5UejpUVJ8/bHT4oaz6rRy88kQ9KqNQwDeAYec0L5Mx1Yaf2oQ= =rN0k -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 16:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nt6lih$mho$3@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #95390 |
On 2016-10-06 4:00 PM, Silver Slimer wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 2016-10-06 6:33 PM, Alan Baker wrote: >> On 2016-10-06 3:27 PM, GreyCloud wrote: >>> On 10/06/2016 01:33 PM, nospam wrote: >>>> In article <nt616k$o40$4@dont-email.me>, GreyCloud >>>> <Cumulus@mist.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why does the Apple Terminal program take 7 seconds to >>>>>>> finally show a prompt then? >>>>>> >>>>>> because something is wrong with your system, and instead of >>>>>> trying to diagnose the issue and resolve it, you'd rather >>>>>> bitch and moan. >>>>>> >>>>>> it takes about 1-2 seconds to cold-launch terminal on a >>>>>> 2008 macbook i happen to have, while on 2013 mac (which >>>>>> still is not the latest and greatest), terminal launches >>>>>> instantly. it's too fast to even measure. double-click >>>>>> terminal and there's a prompt. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It was right there on my old 2007 iMac. On this new one it >>>>> seems to take forever. >>>> >>>> then something is wrong. >>>> >>>>> Also, on boot up, and logging into my account, it seems that >>>>> all the services are very slow in starting up. I may have to >>>>> call up Apple on this one, since I have paid support. >>>> >>>> yes you do. >>>> >>> >>> Guffaw!!! And on a brand new machine no less. Hardware tests >>> pass. >>> >> >> Brand new machine... >> >> ...but is it a brand new ACCOUNT? >> >> Did you migrate data over from an old system? >> >> Have you tried setting up a new account, logging in to it, and >> then seeing how long the Terminal takes to launch? >> >> Because I'm here on a year old MacBook Pro running 10.11.6, and I >> have no issues with the speed with which the prompt arrives in >> Terminal. > > Most likely a lie. Apple zealots _never_ tell the truth. If it took > him twenty minutes to load it, he'd still claim that there's no > problem "here." Sorry, Slime, but it's the simple truth. I can make a screen movie if you insist on being shown to be an ass in another way... :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 19:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nt6n4v$bh1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95394 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 2016-10-06 7:09 PM, Alan Baker wrote: > On 2016-10-06 4:00 PM, Silver Slimer wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 >> >> On 2016-10-06 6:33 PM, Alan Baker wrote: >>> On 2016-10-06 3:27 PM, GreyCloud wrote: >>>> On 10/06/2016 01:33 PM, nospam wrote: >>>>> In article <nt616k$o40$4@dont-email.me>, GreyCloud >>>>> <Cumulus@mist.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why does the Apple Terminal program take 7 seconds >>>>>>>> to finally show a prompt then? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> because something is wrong with your system, and >>>>>>> instead of trying to diagnose the issue and resolve it, >>>>>>> you'd rather bitch and moan. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> it takes about 1-2 seconds to cold-launch terminal on >>>>>>> a 2008 macbook i happen to have, while on 2013 mac >>>>>>> (which still is not the latest and greatest), terminal >>>>>>> launches instantly. it's too fast to even measure. >>>>>>> double-click terminal and there's a prompt. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It was right there on my old 2007 iMac. On this new one >>>>>> it seems to take forever. >>>>> >>>>> then something is wrong. >>>>> >>>>>> Also, on boot up, and logging into my account, it seems >>>>>> that all the services are very slow in starting up. I >>>>>> may have to call up Apple on this one, since I have paid >>>>>> support. >>>>> >>>>> yes you do. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Guffaw!!! And on a brand new machine no less. Hardware >>>> tests pass. >>>> >>> >>> Brand new machine... >>> >>> ...but is it a brand new ACCOUNT? >>> >>> Did you migrate data over from an old system? >>> >>> Have you tried setting up a new account, logging in to it, and >>> then seeing how long the Terminal takes to launch? >>> >>> Because I'm here on a year old MacBook Pro running 10.11.6, and >>> I have no issues with the speed with which the prompt arrives >>> in Terminal. >> >> Most likely a lie. Apple zealots _never_ tell the truth. If it >> took him twenty minutes to load it, he'd still claim that there's >> no problem "here." > > Sorry, Slime, but it's the simple truth. I can make a screen movie > if you insist on being shown to be an ass in another way... > > :-) What I'd prefer is for you to produce a video of how fast Windows 10 is in comparison to OS X on the same hardware. I _know_ that Windows 10 has your bloated operating system beat in performance in addition to having greater hardware and software support but if you can prove otherwise, it will be an enlightening experience to say the least. However, I have to admit, this has nothing to do with Windows 10 or Linux and shouldn't be posted on either newsgroup. Therefore, consider this my final reply. - -- Silver Slimer Islam is a disease Gab.AI: @silverslimer -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX9t/uAAoJEIwFfgf/rr+uym8H/0HwOz63tCqntvXyxKvufB9D MG9tzV5N0WpIZpaUxJqw2OEuX4jrshnxh9JMX/2cCr3Kmp5vrmrX8bV6WdQQKH+/ OC/weIx9+vxWSbjzW/cX/6dE+4AK67lI4BzM+OtK0wXjZu7oUIpWlTvNPQqnRSF7 qmR4T9JNmxpCsWKp3V3fX5BNp/JRkfj76v8INZIrMLN2LP9dJDWPaS0yRM+naxHc 9O/m0aCyn5SM7sPhQ04OyhpgbUY9npFN/ut5WEDvqOaXpWAYiBi9m/3q3Iht1RSv cxaJjC8gvogGVHeI8Cpz9Qlm/X4mKqhtK085jLiSmVVpTEDoqFylgpylFlGUkqE= =3DPr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 16:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nt6ni1$pt2$2@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #95397 |
On 2016-10-06 4:36 PM, Silver Slimer wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 2016-10-06 7:09 PM, Alan Baker wrote: >> On 2016-10-06 4:00 PM, Silver Slimer wrote: >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 >>> >>> On 2016-10-06 6:33 PM, Alan Baker wrote: >>>> On 2016-10-06 3:27 PM, GreyCloud wrote: >>>>> On 10/06/2016 01:33 PM, nospam wrote: >>>>>> In article <nt616k$o40$4@dont-email.me>, GreyCloud >>>>>> <Cumulus@mist.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why does the Apple Terminal program take 7 seconds >>>>>>>>> to finally show a prompt then? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> because something is wrong with your system, and >>>>>>>> instead of trying to diagnose the issue and resolve it, >>>>>>>> you'd rather bitch and moan. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> it takes about 1-2 seconds to cold-launch terminal on >>>>>>>> a 2008 macbook i happen to have, while on 2013 mac >>>>>>>> (which still is not the latest and greatest), terminal >>>>>>>> launches instantly. it's too fast to even measure. >>>>>>>> double-click terminal and there's a prompt. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It was right there on my old 2007 iMac. On this new one >>>>>>> it seems to take forever. >>>>>> >>>>>> then something is wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Also, on boot up, and logging into my account, it seems >>>>>>> that all the services are very slow in starting up. I >>>>>>> may have to call up Apple on this one, since I have paid >>>>>>> support. >>>>>> >>>>>> yes you do. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Guffaw!!! And on a brand new machine no less. Hardware >>>>> tests pass. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Brand new machine... >>>> >>>> ...but is it a brand new ACCOUNT? >>>> >>>> Did you migrate data over from an old system? >>>> >>>> Have you tried setting up a new account, logging in to it, and >>>> then seeing how long the Terminal takes to launch? >>>> >>>> Because I'm here on a year old MacBook Pro running 10.11.6, and >>>> I have no issues with the speed with which the prompt arrives >>>> in Terminal. >>> >>> Most likely a lie. Apple zealots _never_ tell the truth. If it >>> took him twenty minutes to load it, he'd still claim that there's >>> no problem "here." >> >> Sorry, Slime, but it's the simple truth. I can make a screen movie >> if you insist on being shown to be an ass in another way... >> >> :-) > > What I'd prefer is for you to produce a video of how fast Windows 10 > is in comparison to OS X on the same hardware. I _know_ that Windows > 10 has your bloated operating system beat in performance in addition > to having greater hardware and software support but if you can prove > otherwise, it will be an enlightening experience to say the least. Your tacit admission that you were full of it noted. > > However, I have to admit, this has nothing to do with Windows 10 or > Linux and shouldn't be posted on either newsgroup. Therefore, consider > this my final reply. Your utter capitulation accepted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 19:20 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nt6t9a$qr3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95383 |
On 10/06/2016 04:33 PM, Alan Baker wrote: > On 2016-10-06 3:27 PM, GreyCloud wrote: >> On 10/06/2016 01:33 PM, nospam wrote: >>> In article <nt616k$o40$4@dont-email.me>, GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Why does the Apple Terminal program take 7 seconds to finally show a >>>>>> prompt then? >>>>> >>>>> because something is wrong with your system, and instead of trying to >>>>> diagnose the issue and resolve it, you'd rather bitch and moan. >>>>> >>>>> it takes about 1-2 seconds to cold-launch terminal on a 2008 macbook i >>>>> happen to have, while on 2013 mac (which still is not the latest and >>>>> greatest), terminal launches instantly. it's too fast to even measure. >>>>> double-click terminal and there's a prompt. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It was right there on my old 2007 iMac. On this new one it seems to >>>> take forever. >>> >>> then something is wrong. >>> >>>> Also, on boot up, and logging into my account, it seems that all the >>>> services are very slow in starting up. I may have to call up Apple on >>>> this one, since I have paid support. >>> >>> yes you do. >>> >> >> Guffaw!!! And on a brand new machine no less. >> Hardware tests pass. >> > > Brand new machine... > > ...but is it a brand new ACCOUNT? Not intially, so I tested it with a new account. No soap. > > Did you migrate data over from an old system? Yes I did. > > Have you tried setting up a new account, logging in to it, and then > seeing how long the Terminal takes to launch? Yes. > > Because I'm here on a year old MacBook Pro running 10.11.6, and I have > no issues with the speed with which the prompt arrives in Terminal. The solution I found was this: rm /users/username/library/preferences/com.apple.terminal.plist I have three different accounts that were affected. Doing this clean them up and now the terminal app snaps up quickly. And I sort of suspected this but wasn't sure. The other oddity with the system is I have to go in at least once a week to get rid of the email zipped logs. Each day goes by the boot up time gets a little slower. Once the zipped logs are gone, the system boots up a bit faster. Don't know why, as I found this in one of Apples forums. Plus I have to do the periodics in root.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 22:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <061020162219176727%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #95405 |
In article <nt6t9a$qr3$1@dont-email.me>, GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> wrote: > The other oddity with the system is I have to go in at least once a week > to get rid of the email zipped logs. Each day goes by the boot up time > gets a little slower. Once the zipped logs are gone, the system boots > up a bit faster. Don't know why, as I found this in one of Apples > forums. Plus I have to do the periodics in root. no need.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 12:31 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nt8pm5$de4$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95411 |
On 10/06/2016 08:19 PM, nospam wrote: > In article <nt6t9a$qr3$1@dont-email.me>, GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> > wrote: > >> The other oddity with the system is I have to go in at least once a week >> to get rid of the email zipped logs. Each day goes by the boot up time >> gets a little slower. Once the zipped logs are gone, the system boots >> up a bit faster. Don't know why, as I found this in one of Apples >> forums. Plus I have to do the periodics in root. > > no need. > Really? Then why does the system start working good after doing the periodics? The system runs the email log zipping in the background and eventually, if you don't clean those logs out, your system could get a bit clogged. Most logging systems limit to how many logs are written, and then deletes them, but it still helps to clean out the logs every now and then.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 14:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <071020161443251874%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #95429 |
In article <nt8pm5$de4$3@dont-email.me>, GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> wrote: > >> The other oddity with the system is I have to go in at least once a week > >> to get rid of the email zipped logs. Each day goes by the boot up time > >> gets a little slower. Once the zipped logs are gone, the system boots > >> up a bit faster. Don't know why, as I found this in one of Apples > >> forums. Plus I have to do the periodics in root. > > > > no need. > > > > Really? Then why does the system start working good after doing the > periodics? you're taking about removing old logs, which is a waste of time. the periodics run on their own. no need to manually invoke them. > The system runs the email log zipping in the background and eventually, > if you don't clean those logs out, your system could get a bit clogged. > Most logging systems limit to how many logs are written, and then > deletes them, but it still helps to clean out the logs every now and then. nonsense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 22:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nt4m5o$7mh$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #95315 |
On 2016-10-05 5:10 PM, GreyCloud wrote: > On 10/05/2016 02:51 PM, nospam wrote: >> In article <nt3n6r$2o2$3@dont-email.me>, Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >> >>> >>> Regardless of what Mac heads tell you, OS X is slow no matter what >>> kind of processor or amount of memory you throw at it. >> >> benchmarks show that to be complete rubbish. >> >>> Apple is happy >>> to see you spend the money but reward you with nothing at all. I >>> recall getting my parents to pay for a 4GB upgrade on their Mac Mini >>> to bring the total to 8GB. There's a 5400 RPM HD in there but even >>> that kind of old technology would work relatively well with Linux or >>> Windows on it. On the Mac? Disgusting. My parents felt _no change_ >>> from 4GB to 8GB despiet assurances from zealots that the experience >>> would be fantastic. >> >> that only means that you weren't memory bound. >> >>> Maybe things will change once the filesystem is >>> replaced (did it happen yet?) but I doubt it; optimization is >>> something absolutely no one at Apple can even spell much less implement. >> >> nonsense. >> > Why does the Apple Terminal program take 7 seconds to finally show a > prompt then? > I don't know, because I can open it and get a prompt instantly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 11:22 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nt618h$o40$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95325 |
On 10/05/2016 11:07 PM, Alan Baker wrote: > On 2016-10-05 5:10 PM, GreyCloud wrote: >> On 10/05/2016 02:51 PM, nospam wrote: >>> In article <nt3n6r$2o2$3@dont-email.me>, Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Regardless of what Mac heads tell you, OS X is slow no matter what >>>> kind of processor or amount of memory you throw at it. >>> >>> benchmarks show that to be complete rubbish. >>> >>>> Apple is happy >>>> to see you spend the money but reward you with nothing at all. I >>>> recall getting my parents to pay for a 4GB upgrade on their Mac Mini >>>> to bring the total to 8GB. There's a 5400 RPM HD in there but even >>>> that kind of old technology would work relatively well with Linux or >>>> Windows on it. On the Mac? Disgusting. My parents felt _no change_ >>>> from 4GB to 8GB despiet assurances from zealots that the experience >>>> would be fantastic. >>> >>> that only means that you weren't memory bound. >>> >>>> Maybe things will change once the filesystem is >>>> replaced (did it happen yet?) but I doubt it; optimization is >>>> something absolutely no one at Apple can even spell much less >>>> implement. >>> >>> nonsense. >>> >> Why does the Apple Terminal program take 7 seconds to finally show a >> prompt then? >> > > I don't know, because I can open it and get a prompt instantly. Well, what could cause the terminal prompt to take 7 seconds to appear? That one I really like to know. Wife is really starting to hate this new iMac.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 10:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nt623e$aha$2@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #95352 |
On 2016-10-06 10:22 AM, GreyCloud wrote: > On 10/05/2016 11:07 PM, Alan Baker wrote: >> On 2016-10-05 5:10 PM, GreyCloud wrote: >>> On 10/05/2016 02:51 PM, nospam wrote: >>>> In article <nt3n6r$2o2$3@dont-email.me>, Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> benchmarks show that to be complete rubbish. >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> that only means that you weren't memory bound. >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> nonsense. >>>> >>> Why does the Apple Terminal program take 7 seconds to finally show a >>> prompt then? >>> >> >> I don't know, because I can open it and get a prompt instantly. > > Well, what could cause the terminal prompt to take 7 seconds to appear? > That one I really like to know. > Wife is really starting to hate this new iMac. > Create a brand-new user account and see if the behaviour persists.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web