Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 10:07 PM Wednesday 9/20/2006, Julia Thompson wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 11:49 AM Monday 9/11/2006, Gibson Jonathan wrote:
[...] do you let the programmers self-test in a vacuum
If so, you probably go through a _lot_ of testers that way. And you
have to
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 11:49 AM Monday 9/11/2006, Gibson Jonathan wrote:
[...] do you let the programmers self-test in a vacuum
If so, you probably go through a _lot_ of testers that way. And you
have to wonder about the reports they gasp out in the last stages of
hypoxia.
Dammit,
At 10:07 PM Wednesday 9/20/2006, Julia Thompson wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 11:49 AM Monday 9/11/2006, Gibson Jonathan wrote:
[...] do you let the programmers self-test in a vacuum
If so, you probably go through a _lot_ of testers that way. And
you have to wonder about the reports
On 14 Sep 2006 at 3:37, William T Goodall wrote:
OS X also has a significant share in this market with several
supercomputing clusters in use.
http://www.apple.com/science/
Nope, don't see the American DoD listed there.
AndrewC
Dawn Falcon
___
On 14 Sep 2006, at 7:42PM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 14 Sep 2006 at 3:37, William T Goodall wrote:
OS X also has a significant share in this market with several
supercomputing clusters in use.
http://www.apple.com/science/
Nope, don't see the American DoD listed there.
A quick Google
Thank you Andrew for a much more reasonable tone.
You have cleared a few items up this time around and I'll respond in
time kind.
Claws sheathed.
On Sep 12, 2006, at 11:31 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 12 Sep 2006 at 6:38, Gibson Jonathan wrote:
Face it: If your making games you've
On 13 Sep 2006 at 7:20, Gibson Jonathan wrote:
Why do you have a problem with the fact that some people who can use
technology don't view it as sacred?
What, no answer, again?!?
Anyway, I don't worship at any alter. Why do you insist I do?
Because it's evidently a creed for you, and
On 14 Sep 2006, at 1:47AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 13 Sep 2006 at 7:20, Gibson Jonathan wrote:
Agreed. Never made any other case except to point out a Mac is
better
secured than PC.
No, you're not. Because bluntly Mac's are just another OS as far as
security is concerned. It has none
On 14 Sep 2006 at 2:22, William T Goodall wrote:
On 14 Sep 2006, at 1:47AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 13 Sep 2006 at 7:20, Gibson Jonathan wrote:
Agreed. Never made any other case except to point out a Mac is
better
secured than PC.
No, you're not. Because bluntly Mac's are
On 14 Sep 2006, at 2:32AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 14 Sep 2006 at 2:22, William T Goodall wrote:
On 14 Sep 2006, at 1:47AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 13 Sep 2006 at 7:20, Gibson Jonathan wrote:
Agreed. Never made any other case except to point out a Mac is
better
secured than PC.
On 14 Sep 2006 at 2:58, William T Goodall wrote:
On 14 Sep 2006, at 2:32AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 14 Sep 2006 at 2:22, William T Goodall wrote:
On 14 Sep 2006, at 1:47AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 13 Sep 2006 at 7:20, Gibson Jonathan wrote:
Agreed. Never made any other
On 14 Sep 2006, at 3:13AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 14 Sep 2006 at 2:58, William T Goodall wrote:
It's not 'none' though is it? None/some/all are different you know.
OS X clearly has at least some of the open source advantages of Linux
and certainly a great more than Windows.
Nope. But to
Yawn,
Andrew you are becoming as predictable as a one-note Samba.
OK, I have time just now... let's really start to dance and see what
moves you got beyond boyish bluster. Clear the floor, everyone.
Thermal suits and flame-throwers at the ready?
On Sep 11, 2006, at 10:39 AM, Andrew Crystall
On 12 Sep 2006 at 6:38, Gibson Jonathan wrote:
Face it: If your making games you've forgotten more computer technology
than regular folk will ever know exists. Assuming this isn't your
first game job.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the *attitude* a person takes
towards technology!
My, AndrewC, you are a prickly one aren't you?
You come out all fire and scorching brimstone from the get-go on this
topic.
Expect push-back.
On Sep 8, 2006, at 1:48 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 7 Sep 2006 at 20:04, Gibson Jonathan wrote:
As an artist hovering around the computer
On 11 Sep 2006 at 9:49, Gibson Jonathan wrote:
My, AndrewC, you are a prickly one aren't you?
You come out all fire and scorching brimstone from the get-go on this
topic.
Expect push-back.
It's called reason, applied, and a defence of a tolerant view. And
Except what I'm getting from you
At 11:49 AM Monday 9/11/2006, Gibson Jonathan wrote:
My, AndrewC, you are a prickly one aren't you?
You come out all fire and scorching brimstone from the get-go on this topic.
Expect push-back.
[...] By the standards of clerks, teachers, bus drivers, cooks, you
sir, are a technophile. Let's
On 11 Sep 2006 at 12:47, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
[...] Evangelism of any particular
platform for anything but price/performance and functionality makes
me roll my eyes.
Does compatibility with other people whose stuff you have to be able
to read and run fit in there somewhere?
If it's
At 08:01 PM Saturday 9/9/2006, maru dubshinki wrote:
On 9/6/06, Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JohnR said:
What we really need is an OS with all of the advantages of XP and
Ubuntu and none of the disadvantages of either. Then maybe we
would have a decent operating system.
That's
On 7 Sep 2006 at 20:04, Gibson Jonathan wrote:
As an artist hovering around the computer industry since High School I
find it amazing that AndrewC initially claims to be a non-expert, yet
sells computers he regularly builds. Andrew, you undercut yourself on
Go back and actually read it.
At 10:04 PM Thursday 9/7/2006, Gibson Jonathan wrote:
- Jonathan Real Men Don't Use Backspace Keys Gibson -
So you blindly rely on the good graces of the spell checker?
-- Ronn! :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
At 03:48 AM Friday 9/8/2006, Andrew Crystall wrote:
You're heir to the entire technophile snob legacy, the entire It
looks good so it must be superior class who are either gamers who go
for the PC with the blue LED's or the non-gamers who go for Mac's.
Personally, I am rather tired of blue
On 9 Sep 2006, at 10:21AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 03:48 AM Friday 9/8/2006, Andrew Crystall wrote:
You're heir to the entire technophile snob legacy, the entire It
looks good so it must be superior class who are either gamers who go
for the PC with the blue LED's or the non-gamers who go
At 05:01 AM Saturday 9/9/2006, William T Goodall wrote:
On 9 Sep 2006, at 10:21AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 03:48 AM Friday 9/8/2006, Andrew Crystall wrote:
You're heir to the entire technophile snob legacy, the entire It
looks good so it must be superior class who are either gamers who
On Sep 9, 2006, at 3:01 AM, William T Goodall wrote:
Yes, they can be very annoying. A new firewire disk enclosure I
recently bought has one for disk access (the power light is a less
annoying green) and it's way too bright.
I have a KGear USB2/FW enclosure that has *four* bright blue LEDs
On 9/6/06, Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JohnR said:
What we really need is an OS with all of the advantages of XP and
Ubuntu and none of the disadvantages of either. Then maybe we
would have a decent operating system.
That's called OS X. Oh, except for the fact that OS X is much
Hullo,
So many missives to catch up on. I've been busy.
As an artist hovering around the computer industry since High School I
find it amazing that AndrewC initially claims to be a non-expert, yet
sells computers he regularly builds. Andrew, you undercut yourself on
the credibility factor
On 9/3/06, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Crystall wrote:
I do dual-boot windows 2k and linux, but I don't feel that Linux is
ready for most home users, unlike projects like OpenOffice, which
I've recommended for some years... it's a shame that I can't move
On 9/4/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Those people either buy from people like me (who pre-install the
software), or they buy a brand..which allready has antivirus and
firewalls loaded. I have not seen a PC sold in the last 4 years
without that software...the ones loaded with
On 6 Sep 2006, at 1:24PM, John W Redelfs wrote:
What ever happened
to our rights to be secure in our persons and effects as guaranteed
in the
Bill of Rights? And how come none of these free men and women in this
country seem to care?
I blame it on religion myself :-
Opiate of the People
On 9/4/06, Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 3, 2006, at 8:12 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
No: I'm afraid WTG made a mistake in making that equation, so I won't
throw my lot in with him on that account. They're both valid points,
however:
Macs *do* tend to have a longer productive life
On 9/3/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3 Sep 2006 at 20:01, Dave Land wrote:
On the contrary, there may well be better words for it, such as better
informed about the current state of the Macintosh line than you seem to
be. Or, not just shooting his mouth off without being
On 9/4/06, Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think anybody's suggesting that you change careers just so you
can use a Mac, but you could always run Windows via Parallels
(http://www.parallels.com) and enjoy the best of both worlds (on a box
that you did _not_ build yourself, I
JohnR said:
What we really need is an OS with all of the advantages of XP and
Ubuntu and none of the disadvantages of either. Then maybe we
would have a decent operating system.
That's called OS X. Oh, except for the fact that OS X is much easier
to use (and prettier!) than XP.
And
JohnR said:
Or you could buy a machine with lots of RAM, hard drive and a fast chip.
Then install VMware and a half dozen operating systems and use all of
them at the same time. I wonder if anyone finds doing that to be
useful?
I tried doing that at work but the video performance was
On 6 Sep 2006, at 2:46PM, Richard Baker wrote:
JohnR said:
What we really need is an OS with all of the advantages of XP and
Ubuntu and none of the disadvantages of either. Then maybe we
would have a decent operating system.
That's called OS X. Oh, except for the fact that OS X is much
Richard Baker wrote:
JohnR said:
What we really need is an OS with all of the advantages of XP and
Ubuntu and none of the disadvantages of either. Then maybe we
would have a decent operating system.
That's called OS X. Oh, except for the fact that OS X is much easier
to use (and
Richard Baker wrote:
JohnR said:
Or you could buy a machine with lots of RAM, hard drive and a fast chip.
Then install VMware and a half dozen operating systems and use all of
them at the same time. I wonder if anyone finds doing that to be
useful?
I tried doing that at work but the
On 06/09/2006, at 3:51 PM, John W Redelfs wrote:
I wonder if anyone has two machines, a Mac and a PC?
iBook, Athlon 2200XP based PC currently running XP SP2, Claire's
iMac. Had a dual-boot to Fedora Core 3 but I use the PC for media
storage and Civ and Half-Life and I currently don't
On 6 Sep 2006 at 6:46, Richard Baker wrote:
JohnR said:
What we really need is an OS with all of the advantages of XP and
Ubuntu and none of the disadvantages of either. Then maybe we
would have a decent operating system.
That's called OS X. Oh, except for the fact that OS X is much
On 6 Sep 2006 at 4:38, John W Redelfs wrote:
On 9/4/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Those people either buy from people like me (who pre-install the
software), or they buy a brand..which allready has antivirus and
firewalls loaded. I have not seen a PC sold in the last 4
On Sep 6, 2006, at 5:51 AM, John W Redelfs wrote:
I wonder if anyone has two machines, a Mac and a PC? That way you
could use whichever one seems to be doing best whatever you want to
do.
Sure. I do it almost every day: I use an aging Powerbook G4 for 99%
of my work) as well as lugging
William said:
I got Singh's _Mac OS X Internals_ the other week. 1641 pages of
hard-bound fun to dip into!
That one's on my list of books I'd like to read in the near future.
At the moment, I'm reading Scott's _Programming Language Pragmatics_,
Hennessy and Patterson's _Computer
John W Redelfs wrote:
And tomorrow, Google will be forced to turn over all our
search history to George Bush just so he can make sure he approves of where
we visit on the web.
If you think Bush is an Evil Dictator, you should know
that here in Brazil the Justice is trying to _close_
I doubt I'm the only one here who is old enough to be reminded of
endless similar discussions re: HP vs. TI scientific calculators . . .
-- Ronn! :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On 5 Sep 2006, at 12:56PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
I doubt I'm the only one here who is old enough to be reminded of
endless similar discussions re: HP vs. TI scientific calculators . . .
What discussion? Everyone knows HP are the only scientific
calculators to get. TI were for losers!
At 12:55 PM Tuesday 9/5/2006, William T Goodall wrote:
On 5 Sep 2006, at 12:56PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
I doubt I'm the only one here who is old enough to be reminded of
endless similar discussions re: HP vs. TI scientific calculators . . .
What discussion?
I used that word to be
On 4 Sep 2006, at 3:05AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 4 Sep 2006 at 2:49, William T Goodall wrote:
On 4 Sep 2006, at 2:27AM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:
Andrew Crystall wrote:
A low-end Mac Pro will cost you $2,124 compared with $3,071 for a
In America. For one specific
On 4 Sep 2006, at 2:06PM, William T Goodall wrote:
On 4 Sep 2006, at 3:05AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On the other hand, you're comparing the time a computer can be
connected to the internet, entire unprotected, before it picks up
nastyware. Which a variety of free firewalls and virus
On Sep 3, 2006, at 8:12 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
... A much better-reasoned post, for which I think we can all be
grateful.
I may say some nice things about Macs below, but I am by no means trying
to get you to change platforms -- or careers -- by doing so.
On 3 Sep 2006 at 20:01, Dave
Andrew said:
Here's a hint: A base price of £1000 is more than I spend on an
entire PC which is considerably more powerful than the one you
linked.
This seems somewhat unlikely when 2.66GHz Xeon 5150 processors cost
around £470 each and the base Mac Pro configuration has two of them,
as
On 4 Sep 2006 at 14:06, William T Goodall wrote:
But most people aren't non-technophiles like you and don't know how
to protect themselves against malicious intrusions. And a computer
that's part of a botnet launching DoS attacks and mailing millions of
spams out through its unknowing
On 4 Sep 2006 at 18:43, Richard Baker wrote:
Andrew said:
Here's a hint: A base price of £1000 is more than I spend on an
entire PC which is considerably more powerful than the one you
linked.
This seems somewhat unlikely when 2.66GHz Xeon 5150 processors cost
around £470 each and the
Andrew said:
(Incidentally, the CPU's you are reference are only £320 each inc VAT
from Insight).
This Insight
http://uk.insight.com/apps/nbs/index.php?K=xeon+5150lang=en-
gbM=C=107S=1042
or some other one?
Rich
___
On 4 Sep 2006 at 20:36, Richard Baker wrote:
Andrew said:
(Incidentally, the CPU's you are reference are only £320 each inc VAT
from Insight).
This Insight
http://uk.insight.com/apps/nbs/index.php?K=xeon+5150lang=en-
gbM=C=107S=1042
or some other one?
Ah, yes, you're quite right. On
Andrew said:
Ah, yes, you're quite right. On a quick investigation, for some
reason the external search I used gave me the *upgrade* price for an
existing PC.
That one isn't even remotely the same processor. It has a 533MHz
front-size bus, 512KB of cache, a single core, and is based on the
On 4 Sep 2006 at 20:50, Richard Baker wrote:
Andrew said:
Ah, yes, you're quite right. On a quick investigation, for some
reason the external search I used gave me the *upgrade* price for an
existing PC.
That one isn't even remotely the same processor. It has a 533MHz
front-size
On 9/4/06, Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The 5150s in the Mac Pro
Hmm... the Mac Pro's processors are called 5150s, eh? Pretty funny
considering what 5150 means to anyone in law enforcement, emergency medical
services, etc., here in California. It is the statute for a 72-hour
On 3 Sep 2006 at 12:51, Dave Land wrote:
On Sep 1, 2006, at 9:05 AM, William T Goodall wrote:
And yes, OSX is marvelous. Its merest bootlace, Windows is not
worthy to kiss. - David Brin
With all the things that you and I have to disagree about, it is nice
that we
have this in
Andrew Crystall wrote:
I do dual-boot windows 2k and linux, but I don't feel that Linux is
ready for most home users, unlike projects like OpenOffice, which
I've recommended for some years... it's a shame that I can't move
away entirely because of some of the more arcane Excel spreadsheets
On 3 Sep 2006, at 10:45PM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
And I'm going to keep on using windows purely because it's what the
programs I use run on, and the Mac's charge a stiff premium for their
hardware.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060823/ap_on_hi_te/tech_test_mac_pro_3
The recently released Mac
On 4 Sep 2006 at 1:02, William T Goodall wrote:
A low-end Mac Pro will cost you $2,124 compared with $3,071 for a
In America. For one specific model. And with a very expensive Windows
PC make for comparison. And without similar options for warranty,
etc.
In the UK, the difference for someone
On 4 Sep 2006, at 1:14AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 4 Sep 2006 at 1:02, William T Goodall wrote:
A low-end Mac Pro will cost you $2,124 compared with $3,071 for a
In America. For one specific model. And with a very expensive Windows
PC make for comparison. And without similar options for
On 4 Sep 2006 at 1:33, William T Goodall wrote:
In the UK, the difference for someone like me who builds my own is in
the region of 60% more expensive for the mac in raw performance
terms, and I cannot get a base spec Mac which suits me as a gamer.
So by non-technophile you don't mean
Andrew Crystall wrote:
A low-end Mac Pro will cost you $2,124 compared with $3,071 for a
In America. For one specific model. And with a very expensive Windows
PC make for comparison. And without similar options for warranty,
etc.
Here in Brazil it's even worse. A Mac costs about twice as
On 4 Sep 2006, at 2:27AM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:
Andrew Crystall wrote:
A low-end Mac Pro will cost you $2,124 compared with $3,071 for a
In America. For one specific model. And with a very expensive Windows
PC make for comparison. And without similar options for
On 4 Sep 2006 at 2:49, William T Goodall wrote:
On 4 Sep 2006, at 2:27AM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:
Andrew Crystall wrote:
A low-end Mac Pro will cost you $2,124 compared with $3,071 for a
In America. For one specific model. And with a very expensive Windows
PC make
On Sep 3, 2006, at 7:05 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 4 Sep 2006 at 2:49, William T Goodall wrote:
On 4 Sep 2006, at 2:27AM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:
Andrew Crystall wrote:
A low-end Mac Pro will cost you $2,124 compared with $3,071 for a
In America. For one specific
On 3 Sep 2006 at 20:01, Dave Land wrote:
On the contrary, there may well be better words for it, such as better
informed about the current state of the Macintosh line than you seem to
be. Or, not just shooting his mouth off without being in possession of
the facts.
Okay, you're supporting
On 9/3/06, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4 Sep 2006, at 2:27AM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:
Andrew Crystall wrote:
A low-end Mac Pro will cost you $2,124 compared with $3,071 for a
In America. For one specific model. And with a very expensive Windows
PC make
On 9/3/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4 Sep 2006 at 1:33, William T Goodall wrote:
In the UK, the difference for someone like me who builds my own is in
the region of 60% more expensive for the mac in raw performance
terms, and I cannot get a base spec Mac which suits me
On 3 Sep 2006 at 23:30, maru dubshinki wrote:
Could you elaborate on this? I'm kind of curious since I don't think
computer building has been discussed on list, and I've been
contemplating building a PC for some time now (following the template
Not really - it's a catch 22, I'm not buying
72 matches
Mail list logo
