Re: TIB: Re: Okay, this is just pathetic.

[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: TIB: Re: Okay, this is just pathetic.


Got enough mail lately?  You need to communicate more
often.

--- EMPrime@aol.com wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 4/12/2000 11:50:27 PM Eastern
> Daylight Time, 
> owencannon@mac.com writes:
> 
> > 
> >  > peecee's are cheap pieces of crap.
> >  
> >  riiiiight. (smiles and nods like he cares)
> >   
> >  >  try to think of two things windows has over
> macOS, and write them to
> >  >  owencannon@mac.com
> >  
> >  Better yet, I'll post them right here.
> >  1. Any dual OS program that has both mac and win
> versions will 100% of the
> >  time take up half the memory of the mac version
> if it's installed under
> >  windows.
> >  Maybe it's just me, or does that now matter. What
> do you mean, 'Duel OS
> >  program'? You mean, a program on the computer
> that runs 2 OSs? You cannot
> >  run a mac on your pc because its not x86
> compatible; cant run on your
> >  intel/amd.
> 
> You've got worse spelling than my friend John who
> spells everything with 
> letters added or out of place. It's tragic. WHAT IS
> HAPPENING TO OUR 
> CHILDREN???
> Dual OS, at least that's what I call it (I've
> searched to find the actual 
> name for this but it don't seem to exist), programs
> are built so that the 
> same program can run under two different operating
> systems from the same 
> install disk. Diablo, Starcraft, etcetera. 
> 
> You CAN run MacOS on your PC. I got this neat
> program called VMware that 
> allows any os to run inside of win98 or 2K. Even
> MacOS and probably TI-OS, if 
> I worked it right...
> 
> >  2. Macs, although low in virus numbers, are
> higher in crash possibilities.
> >  Maybe that stems from the fact that a PC file
> transfered to a mac can and
> >  will fuck the mac up, although the other way
> around it works fine... Or
> >  maybe 
> >  because MacOS uses double the memory of Windows
> to run any program...
> 
> >  I know little about programming, but I do know
> that programs built for
> >  windows and ones built for macs are quite
> different.
> 
> Programs for macs are different because of that damn
> "Resource Fork" file 
> stuff Apple insists on sticking with. And don't even
> think about running 
> executables...
> Besides that, it's probably similar or the same on
> the inside. 
> 
> >  3. In truth, they both suck. I'd use linux but my
> HD's already half full 
> and
> >  my PC threatened to become a pc golem if I took
> any more space up with
> >  stuff. 
> >  I've already fucked IE 5.01 up, what's next?
> 
> >  I agree that both aren't the greatest OS's, but
> Mac is the widely used OS
> >  that seems to be more logically designed. What do
> I mean by that you ask?
> >  Isn't that just opinion? no.
> >  
> 
> If Mac OS is so widely used than why is Microsoft
> facing Anti-Trust laws 
> because they out-sell the competition by exponential
> amounts? BECAUSE NO ONE 
> BUYS MAC OS!!!
> 
> >  The complex nested menus under the 'start' button
> give the illusion of a
> >  second file hierarchy, and the 'my computer'
> containing all the drives
> >  disconnects the user from the way the files are
> organized, creating huge
> >  messes in the 'c:\' drives of people's boxes. Not
> only that, the 'close
> >  boxes' of all windows in Windows are on the
> right. That means, when they 
> are
> >  cascaded, you have to move your mouse all over
> the place to find them, and
> >  you can't close all the windows as fast as you
> want.
> >  
> >  MORE IMPORTANTLY: ALL OF THE KEY SHORTCUTS FOR
> 'CLOSE' WINDOWS AND 'QUIT'
> >  PROGRAMS ARE CONSIST THROUGHOUT THE OS! That
> means you know that command Q
> 
> (Swats away a Typo demon) Look at this little
> guy(points to the typo demon, 
> now trying to hide in a corner). He's pathetic,
> don't you think? Whatever. 
> 
> Computers WERE supposed to encourage creative
> thinking. Why do I say WERE? 
> Because these "Easy to use" systems came along. That
> screws everything up. I 
> can hear America dumbing down as we type...
> 
> >  always closes a program, and command w always
> closes a window. Alt-f4 isn't
> >  always the key combination to close a program. I
> believe photoshop and
> >  pagemaker use control q, and some don't even have
> combinations to close.
> >  Even if they did use alt-f4, it takes to two
> hands to close it! So
> >  inefficient.
> 
> Wrong. I'm 6'4 and can reach the Alt-F4 combo with
> one hand. It's not my 
> fault I've got skills that serve no purpose...
> 
> >  
> >  Also, what's with the whole 'window' inside a
> window you get when you start
> >  a program. In Mac, when you start a program, it
> does not create a box
> >  surrounding the menu bar. The only 'windows' you
> see are the documents you
> >  are working on, which is far more important than
> what programs you're
> >  running. Use a mac more often and think about it.
> 
> Now why'd you have to go this way? I can close 99%
> of all programs on the 
> FIRST TRY with the ol' Three Finger Salute. Under
> Win 4, it don't hurt it a 
> bit.
> 
> Hey, what if someone's stealing your credit card
> numbers through your 
> internet connection that you're using to write 500Kb
> e-mails saying that one 
> OS is better than the next but you can't do a damn
> thing about it because you 
> can't see it and thus you don't know it's happening?
> Shit happens. Don't try 
> to stop shit, it'll just cause you to get colon
> cancer or something, and 
> that's NOT what happens when you hit the "," key too
> many times...
> 
> >  
> >  4. Macs are sooo slow. Whoa, Wozniak, don't get
> ahead of yourself. 433 Mhz?
> >  
> >  [500]
> >  
> >  Wow! I've got a 500 Mhz K6-2 (made by AMD, the
> maker of the best processors
> >  on the earth) and I'm gonna get a new motherboard
> and a k7 Athlon 1Ghz some
> >  time. 
> >  
> >  [I don't know much about the internal workings of
> a processor, but I do 
> know
> >  that it takes two cycles for an intel or amd to
> do the same thing that a g3
> >  or a g4 does in just one. That is because PCs use
> CISC (the use of a ton of
> >  different instructions in the hope that you can
> use one to solve a complex
> >  instruction) whereas g3/4s use RISC (the use of a
> reduced set of
> >  instructions to solve simple processor tasks more
> quickly, and make solve
> >  complex tasks in less time. That means, that a
> 500 mhz g4 is the equivelant
> >  to a 1ghz pentium or k7. ]
> >  
> >  Try to find a mac with a processor any faster
> than 433 and you're shit
> >  outta luck. I love saying that.
> >  
> >  [any competant computer user knows why mhz are
> not 
=== message truncated ===

=====
May Canticta ever rise, rise out of the mire that holds it and become triumphant again!  Long live Corinth!
Pandrogas

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com