[Ricky[_9_]]

Avid's latest extortion attempt with Protools 10 is failing
miserably. Who are they trying to kid or should I say extort?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHAb8...layer_embedded

Linux and Open Source is the future.
Start migrating to Linux and Ardour now and avoid the rush when Rome
(Avid) burns.

Look here for some outstanding Linux production software.
And it's all free.

http://ardour.org/
http://www.ladspa.org/
http://ubuntustudio.org/

[Scott Dorsey]

Ricky wrote:
Avid's latest extortion attempt with Protools 10 is failing
miserably. Who are they trying to kid or should I say extort?

Don't worry, Apple's mangling of FCP will soon have all the Final Cut
users going to Avid software, so they'll make it up.

Linux and Open Source is the future.
Start migrating to Linux and Ardour now and avoid the rush when Rome
(Avid) burns.

Thank you, Flatfish. Now please go away.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Ricky wrote:
Avid's latest extortion attempt with Protools 10 is failing
miserably. Who are they trying to kid or should I say extort?

Don't worry, Apple's mangling of FCP will soon have all the Final Cut
users going to Avid software, so they'll make it up.

They could go Vegas way instead.

geoff

[hank alrich]

geoff wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Ricky wrote:
Avid's latest extortion attempt with Protools 10 is failing
miserably. Who are they trying to kid or should I say extort?

Don't worry, Apple's mangling of FCP will soon have all the Final Cut
users going to Avid software, so they'll make it up.

They could go Vegas way instead.

geoff

Yep, and it'll run on a Mac, too.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[vdubreeze]

What's in it for the trolls to post this stuff? To be recognized as
the only person to use "Ardour" and "outstanding" in the same post?

BTW, I have personally watched someone demonstrate all of those
softwares and they might indeed be ready for doing an hour's worth of
work in less than 5 hours in about 20 years.

[philicorda[_9_]]

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 13:53:31 -0700, vdubreeze wrote:


BTW, I have personally watched someone demonstrate all of those
softwares and they might indeed be ready for doing an hour's worth of
work in less than 5 hours in about 20 years.

What is it with the trolls who post this stuff?

[Scott Dorsey]

philicorda wrote:
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 13:53:31 -0700, vdubreeze wrote:


BTW, I have personally watched someone demonstrate all of those
softwares and they might indeed be ready for doing an hour's worth of
work in less than 5 hours in about 20 years.

What is it with the trolls who post this stuff?

It's pretty much just one troll, flatfish, who pops up in all kinds of
newsgroups under different names. The problem is that then people like
vudubreeze reply to him seriously. The worst thing you can do to a troll
is to take him seriously.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"philicorda" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 13:53:31 -0700, vdubreeze wrote:


BTW, I have personally watched someone demonstrate all of those
softwares and they might indeed be ready for doing an hour's worth of
work in less than 5 hours in about 20 years.

What is it with the trolls who post this stuff?

They are obviously very disappointed in their product, as a good product
will sell itself without hype.

[gjsmo]

On Oct 31, 4:05*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"philicorda" wrote in message

...

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 13:53:31 -0700, vdubreeze wrote:

BTW, I have personally watched someone demonstrate all of those
softwares and they might indeed be ready for doing an hour's worth of
work in less than 5 hours in about 20 years.

What is it with the trolls who post this stuff?

They are obviously very disappointed in their product, as a good product
will sell itself without hype.

As I linux geek, I can say I'm not disappointed in most Linux
products.

I'm disappointed in manufacturers, who can't spend the time and money
to develop a barebones driver for Linux. If Linux had good audio
support, I guarantee you Ardour would be every bit as good as Pro
Tools. But it doesn't, and it won't, because ALL serious pro audio
people use either Windows (yuck...) or Mac (ridiculously stable).

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"gjsmo" wrote in message
...
On Oct 31, 4:05 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"philicorda" wrote in message

...

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 13:53:31 -0700, vdubreeze wrote:

BTW, I have personally watched someone demonstrate all of those
softwares and they might indeed be ready for doing an hour's worth of
work in less than 5 hours in about 20 years.

What is it with the trolls who post this stuff?

They are obviously very disappointed in their product, as a good product
will sell itself without hype.

As I linux geek, I can say I'm not disappointed in most Linux
products.

I'm disappointed in manufacturers, who can't spend the time and money
to develop a barebones driver for Linux.

IOW, there isn't enough different kinds of hardware for you to run that
allegedly wonderful software on.

I don't see a lot of difference between dissatisfaction with being able to
run a product and dissastisfaction with a product.


If Linux had good audio support, I guarantee you Ardour would be every bit
as good as Pro
Tools.

Unforturnately the cash value of that guarantee is what? Zilch?

But it doesn't, and it won't, because ALL serious pro audio
people use either Windows (yuck...) or Mac (ridiculously stable).

As a heavy audio and video user of ridiculously stable windows boxes, I
don't know what you are talking about.

Interestingly enough one major difference between the current Intel Mac OS
and windows is again the driver support. Mac software has very limited
driver support as compared to Windows. A current Mac is basically just
another kind of PC clone at 2-3 times the price. And, if it weren't for
Windows most of the hardware that most people run *nix on wouldn't exist.

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Mon 2011-Oct-31 13:00, Scott Dorsey writes:
What is it with the trolls who post this stuff?

It's pretty much just one troll, flatfish, who pops up in all kinds
of newsgroups under different names. The problem is that then
people like vudubreeze reply to him seriously. The worst thing you
can do to a troll is to take him seriously.
--scott
--

MIght be, but I sort of try to follow along a bit, as I use
the operating system on more than one machine around here.
And, even though it's the same troll, at least it's audio,
unlike the guy from the site that's supposedly for audio
discussion advertising knockoff designer clothing bull****
from China.
At least I only see him via my albisani connection, I've got him filtered on this one.

Would filter flatfish on this one too as this is my long
term archival, and connected with my bbs, but there may be
useful discussions of linux and audio so I'd be filtering
them too.
FF is also sharp enough to grab a new pseudonym.

Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[geoff]

gjsmo wrote:

As I linux geek, I can say I'm not disappointed in most Linux
products.

Probably because you have isolated yourself from the rest of the world.

iDDicts have similar views regarding Apple.

I'm disappointed in manufacturers, who can't spend the time and money
to develop a barebones driver for Linux.

As linniots tend to get stiffies over the concept of openess and freedom
(esp wrt price) of everything, and are incredibly clever and innovative, why
don't they write the missing drivers themselves rather than demand it from
manufacturers ?

If linux had good audio
support, I guarantee you Ardour would be every bit as good as Pro
Tools.

" ...as good as ProTools" ?!!! That's a lame target standard.

But it doesn't, and it won't, because ALL serious pro audio
people use either Windows (yuck...)

No

or Mac (ridiculously stable).

No.


geoff

[gjsmo]

On Nov 1, 1:47*am, "geoff" wrote:
gjsmo wrote:

As I linux geek, I can say I'm not disappointed in most Linux
products.

Probably because you have isolated yourself from the rest of the world.

iDDicts have similar views regarding Apple.

Haven't isolated myself at all...

I'm disappointed in manufacturers, who can't spend the time and money
to develop a barebones driver for Linux.

As linniots tend to get stiffies over the concept of openess and freedom
(esp wrt price) of everything, and are incredibly clever and innovative, why
don't they write the missing drivers themselves rather than demand it from
manufacturers ?

Because that would take more time then designing an ideal ADC and DAC.
Reverse-engineering an audio interface is near impossible. It takes
almost no effort though, if you built the thing.

If linux had good audio
support, I guarantee you Ardour would be every bit as good as Pro
Tools.

" ...as good as ProTools" ?!!! That's a lame target standard.

Why is Pro Tools the "Industry Standard" (not my words) then? Anyways,
"as good as Pro Tools" is obviously plenty good enough - Avid is NOT
going out of business.

But it doesn't, and it won't, because ALL serious pro audio
people use either Windows (yuck...)

No

or Mac (ridiculously stable).

No.

geoff

Alright, so what OS do YOU use? You don't have any other choices. Pick
one: Windows, Mac, Linux. There's literally NOTHING else with any kind
of audio support, and of course Linux is very bad as it is.

Unless you don't use a DAW. In which case, why are you in this thread?

[gjsmo]

On Oct 31, 4:46*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"gjsmo" wrote in message

...
On Oct 31, 4:05 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

"philicorda" wrote in message

...

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 13:53:31 -0700, vdubreeze wrote:

BTW, I have personally watched someone demonstrate all of those
softwares and they might indeed be ready for doing an hour's worth of
work in less than 5 hours in about 20 years.

What is it with the trolls who post this stuff?

They are obviously very disappointed in their product, as a good product
will sell itself without hype.
As I linux geek, I can say I'm not disappointed in most Linux

products.

I'm disappointed in manufacturers, who can't spend the time and money

to develop a barebones driver for Linux.

IOW, there isn't enough different kinds of hardware for you to run that
allegedly wonderful software on.

I don't see a lot of difference between dissatisfaction with being able to
run a product and dissastisfaction with a product.

I never said it was wonderful. I just said I was satisfied. BIG
difference.
And the difference is like having a Toyota (bad product) or a Porsche
with no roads (no place to use it).

If Linux had good audio support, I guarantee you Ardour would be every bit
as good as Pro

Tools.

Unforturnately the cash value of that guarantee is what? Zilch?

Things which have support get developed. Linux audio has no support,
so no development. Windows and Mac audio have plenty of support, so
there's LOTS of development.

But it doesn't, and it won't, because ALL serious pro audio

people use either Windows (yuck...) or Mac (ridiculously stable).

As a heavy audio and video user of ridiculously stable windows boxes, I
don't know what you are talking about.

Hmm... I do. I have never seen a Mac computer crash because of a
software fault. Not even driver issues. And the hardware is top-notch,
too.
Windows, however, will crash and burn like a stick of TNT drenched in
gasoline. Not even remotely enough tolerance for bad drivers or
programs. Maybe you're just really lucky.

Interestingly enough one major difference between the current Intel Mac OS
and windows is again the driver support. Mac software has very limited
driver support as compared to Windows. A current Mac is basically just
another kind of PC clone at 2-3 times the price. And, if it weren't for
Windows most of the hardware that most people run *nix on wouldn't exist.

Yes, but Macs run Mac OS X, which is inherently more stable - better
protection against crashes, for one thing. Also, Macs use EFI and not
BIOS, which is something that should've been in PCs 10 years ago.
The PC architecture originated from IBM, who needed an OS for their
new PC, and asked Microsoft. They bought DOS from Tandy, literally
across town, and sold it to IBM with the Microsoft name. It became the
default OS, and since IBM released literally EVERYTHING needed to
clone a PC (schematics, instruction sets, you name it), when everyone
copied it, they copied the OS too. Microsoft quickly became the
default OS on every computer. Of course, most of the the *nix's
weren't even written for x86 to begin with, but it just so happened
that the architecture got really big, fast, so it made sense to make a
C compiler at some point and put Unix and Linux on a PC. So Windows
had very little to do with the development of PCs.

[geoff]

gjsmo wrote:
rather than demand it from manufacturers ?

Because that would take more time then designing an ideal ADC and DAC.
Reverse-engineering an audio interface is near impossible. It takes
almost no effort though, if you built the thing.

Tell that to the ASIO4ALL people.

If linux had good audio
support, I guarantee you Ardour would be every bit as good as Pro
Tools.

" ...as good as ProTools" ?!!! That's a lame target standard.

Why is Pro Tools the "Industry Standard" (not my words) then? Anyways,
"as good as Pro Tools" is obviously plenty good enough - Avid is NOT
going out of business.

Early product and cunning way of locking people into exclusively their
product. And rest rest is history.


Alright, so what OS do YOU use? You don't have any other choices. Pick
one: Windows, Mac, Linux. There's literally NOTHING else with any kind
of audio support, and of course Linux is very bad as it is.

I use the OS my DAW of choice requires. And those are Vegas, Acid, and
Reaper.

geoff

[Anahata]

On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 18:47:40 +1300, geoff wrote:

why don't they write the missing drivers themselves rather than demand
it from manufacturers ?

For one thing because many Linux users are not programmers, or at least
not at the level to do a good job of writing device drivers... but mostly
because many manufacturers don't provide the necessary hardware
documentation.

Of course it's not going to do anything to the stranglehold PT has on the
market place (PT seems to be essential mainly because "everyone else has
it" and because customers expect it), but ready-to-go installations like
AVLinux, the real time capability of recent Linux kernels, The Ardour DAW
and products like LinuxDSP plugins (not free-as-in-beer, incidentally,
but worth every penny) are light years away from the unstable, hard-to-
use and incomplete offerings of a few years ago.

You can run Ardour on MAC OS too...

--
Anahata
--/-- http://www.treewind.co.uk
+44 (0)1638 720444

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"gjsmo" wrote in message
...
On Oct 31, 4:46 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
As a heavy audio and video user of ridiculously stable windows boxes, I
don't know what you are talking about.

Hmm... I do. I have never seen a Mac computer crash because of a
software fault. Not even driver issues. And the hardware is top-notch,
too.

Your lack of real world experience with Macs is showing. They crash, too. I
know, because people ask me to help them with their Apples and I decline
because I want to maintain focus.

Comparing Macs with thieir narrow hardware and software options to Windows
machines where *everything* goes is fair as long as you don't have the same
expectations.

With liberty comes responsibility and accountability. People are foolish if
they expect the liberty of Windows but don't want to take responsibility for
what that liberty necessarily brings with it.

Windows, however, will crash and burn like a stick of TNT drenched in
gasoline.

Windows will run forever if you know what you are doing. I'm still building
a few *new* Win98 systems that people are using to maintain compatibility
with legacy hardware and software. If you use the right hardware and
software, Win98 (not even the preferred SE version) can run like a clock for
years between boots.

Not even remotely enough tolerance for bad drivers or programs. Maybe
you're just really lucky.

You obviously have no idea what havoc a poorly written driver can do and why
it must be allowable. You obviously know way too little about computer
science expecially operating system design, to be making the broad claims
that you seem to be making.

Interestingly enough one major difference between the current Intel Mac OS
and windows is again the driver support.

You've said a mouthful that you obviously don't appreciate. There is,
comparitively speaking *almost no* driver support in the Mac OS. Can anybody
even estimate the number of different pieces of hardware for which Windows
drivers exist? With a Mac the list is relatively very short. By their
very nature some drivers must operate in a highly priveleged state. With
that power comes accountability that not every driver writer can actually
step up to.

Mac software has very limited
driver support as compared to Windows. A current Mac is basically just
another kind of PC clone at 2-3 times the price. And, if it weren't for
Windows most of the hardware that most people run *nix on wouldn't exist.

Yes, but Macs run Mac OS X, which is inherently more stable - better
protection against crashes, for one thing.

There is zero reliable technical evidence to support that claim. If I'm
wrong, cite it.

Also, Macs use EFI and not BIOS, which is something that should've been
in PCs 10 years ago.

EFI is just a different name for firmware that every modern computer must
have. The alternative to firmware is to have the end user store a boot
program into execuitable memory using front panel switches or something like
them. Before there was firmware, hardware engineers had to tediously design
and implement dedicated hardware to initiate the boot process. I've been
around long enough (over 50 years of hands-on experience with computers at
all levels) to work at both the hardware & software maintenance as well as
the user level with machines that used that ancient and arcane process, as
long as every subsequent step along the way through today.

Gjsmo, you obvously have little or no clue about what the firmware of a
modern PC or other computer involves.

The PC architecture originated from IBM, who needed an OS for their
new PC, and asked Microsoft. They bought DOS from Tandy, literally
across town, and sold it to IBM with the Microsoft name. It became the
default OS, and since IBM released literally EVERYTHING needed to
clone a PC (schematics, instruction sets, you name it), when everyone
copied it, they copied the OS too. Microsoft quickly became the
default OS on every computer. Of course, most of the the *nix's
weren't even written for x86 to begin with, but it just so happened
that the architecture got really big, fast, so it made sense to make a
C compiler at some point and put Unix and Linux on a PC.

Ancient history which is completely irrelevant to the following false claim:

So Windows had very little to do with the development of PCs.

Gjsmo, you shouldn't insult people who actually understand hardware and
system software with such ignorant and specious claims. I've personally run
and done detailed hardware and software maintenance on every version of
mainstream PC OS software from MS DOS 1.0 to Windows 1.0 through Windows
7/64 and also many not-so-mainstream kinds of PC software including CP/M,
OS/2, and several flavors of *nix.

[gjsmo]

On Nov 1, 9:16*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"gjsmo" wrote in message

...
On Oct 31, 4:46 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

As a heavy audio and video user of ridiculously stable windows boxes, I
don't know what you are talking about.
Hmm... I do. I have never seen a Mac computer crash because of a

software fault. Not even driver issues. And the hardware is top-notch,
too.

Your lack of real world experience with Macs is showing. They crash, too. I
know, because people ask me to help them with their Apples and I decline
because I want to maintain focus.

They CAN crash... but they don't. You can't say that Macs crash as
often as Windows.

Comparing Macs with thieir narrow hardware and software options to Windows
machines where *everything* goes is fair as long as you don't have the same
expectations.

With liberty comes responsibility and accountability. People are foolish if
they expect the liberty of Windows but don't want to take responsibility for
what that liberty necessarily brings with it.

Agreed.

Windows, however, will crash and burn like a stick of TNT drenched in

gasoline.

Windows will run forever if you know what you are doing. I'm still building
a few *new* Win98 systems that people are using to maintain compatibility
with legacy hardware and software. If you use the right hardware and
software, Win98 (not even the preferred SE version) can run like a clock for
years between boots.

If. Somehow, this doesn't really matter with a Mac. No ifs. If you
have the right hardware (they're picky about RAM, in particular), they
work. I'm not talking peripherals here, BTW.

Not even remotely enough tolerance for bad drivers or programs. Maybe
you're just really lucky.

You obviously have no idea what havoc a poorly written driver can do and why
it must be allowable. You obviously know way too little about computer
science expecially operating system design, to be making the broad claims
that you seem to be making.

I DO have an idea what a bad driver can do. It's happened to me. Oddly
enough, the Mac mindset seems to instill itself on developers, who
write better drivers.
Low-level drivers need to be written with care, which doesn't seem to
always happen.

Interestingly enough one major difference between the current Intel Mac OS
and windows is again the driver support.

You've said a mouthful that you obviously don't appreciate. There is,
comparitively speaking *almost no* driver support in the Mac OS. Can anybody
even estimate the number of different pieces of hardware for which Windows
drivers exist? * With a Mac the list is relatively very short. *By their
very nature some drivers must operate in a highly priveleged state. With
that power comes accountability that not every driver writer can actually
step up to.

Yes, it has less driver support, but plenty of pro audio equipment has
Mac drivers. Maybe not all, but quite a lot. There are things which
aren't supported in Windows, too.

Mac software has very limited
driver support as compared to Windows. A current Mac is basically just
another kind of PC clone at 2-3 times the price. And, if it weren't for
Windows most of the hardware that most people run *nix on wouldn't exist.

[gjsmo]

On Nov 1, 9:16*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"gjsmo" wrote in message

...
On Oct 31, 4:46 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

As a heavy audio and video user of ridiculously stable windows boxes, I
don't know what you are talking about.
Hmm... I do. I have never seen a Mac computer crash because of a

software fault. Not even driver issues. And the hardware is top-notch,
too.

Your lack of real world experience with Macs is showing. They crash, too. I
know, because people ask me to help them with their Apples and I decline
because I want to maintain focus.

They CAN crash... but they don't. You can't say that Macs crash as
often as Windows.

Comparing Macs with thieir narrow hardware and software options to Windows
machines where *everything* goes is fair as long as you don't have the same
expectations.

With liberty comes responsibility and accountability. People are foolish if
they expect the liberty of Windows but don't want to take responsibility for
what that liberty necessarily brings with it.

Agreed.

Windows, however, will crash and burn like a stick of TNT drenched in

gasoline.

Windows will run forever if you know what you are doing. I'm still building
a few *new* Win98 systems that people are using to maintain compatibility
with legacy hardware and software. If you use the right hardware and
software, Win98 (not even the preferred SE version) can run like a clock for
years between boots.

If. Somehow, this doesn't really matter with a Mac. No ifs. If you
have the right hardware (they're picky about RAM, in particular), they
work. I'm not talking peripherals here, BTW.

Not even remotely enough tolerance for bad drivers or programs. Maybe
you're just really lucky.

You obviously have no idea what havoc a poorly written driver can do and why
it must be allowable. You obviously know way too little about computer
science expecially operating system design, to be making the broad claims
that you seem to be making.

I DO have an idea what a bad driver can do. It's happened to me. Oddly
enough, the Mac mindset seems to instill itself on developers, who
write better drivers.
Low-level drivers need to be written with care, which doesn't seem to
always happen.

Interestingly enough one major difference between the current Intel Mac OS
and windows is again the driver support.

You've said a mouthful that you obviously don't appreciate. There is,
comparitively speaking *almost no* driver support in the Mac OS. Can anybody
even estimate the number of different pieces of hardware for which Windows
drivers exist? * With a Mac the list is relatively very short. *By their
very nature some drivers must operate in a highly priveleged state. With
that power comes accountability that not every driver writer can actually
step up to.

Yes, it has less driver support, but plenty of pro audio equipment has
Mac drivers. Maybe not all, but quite a lot. There are things which
aren't supported in Windows, too.

Mac software has very limited
driver support as compared to Windows. A current Mac is basically just
another kind of PC clone at 2-3 times the price. And, if it weren't for
Windows most of the hardware that most people run *nix on wouldn't exist.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 07:51:55 -0700 (PDT), gjsmo
wrote:

Your lack of real world experience with Macs is showing. They crash, too. I
know, because people ask me to help them with their Apples and I decline
because I want to maintain focus.

They CAN crash... but they don't. You can't say that Macs crash as
often as Windows.

Windows machines crash more often because people tend to mess with
them much more than Macs. I'm not sure when I last saw a Windows
machine that wasn't "custom" in some way. Actually not true - a friend
of mine has had the same PC for about seven years now. She hasn't the
slightest idea how anything works and can just about manage Hotmail
and the occasional Word document - oh and now photos, although she
frequently phones me to recover the thumbnail views for her.

Anyway the point is that this machine has never in all that time
crashed. I guess the registry still looks the same today is it did
when I first built it for her.

d

[Scott Dorsey]

anahata wrote:
On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 18:47:40 +1300, geoff wrote:

why don't they write the missing drivers themselves rather than demand
it from manufacturers ?

For one thing because many Linux users are not programmers, or at least
not at the level to do a good job of writing device drivers... but mostly
because many manufacturers don't provide the necessary hardware
documentation.

Reverse-engineering the interface is not a fun job. It used to be when you
bought a piece of hardware you would expect full documentation with it: a
big thick book that told you what inputs and outputs were at what addresses
and what each of the bits do and so forth. You no longer get that (except
possibly with some RME products). Manufacturers stare at you when you ask
for it. It's like asking for schematics.

Audio interfaces aren't quite as complex as video cards, but I have had to
recently reverse-engineer a National Instruments A/D card (ironically because
their Linux drivers were so badly written as to be nearly useless) and I can
attest to it not being a thing I would ever do for free.

Of course it's not going to do anything to the stranglehold PT has on the
market place (PT seems to be essential mainly because "everyone else has
it" and because customers expect it), but ready-to-go installations like
AVLinux, the real time capability of recent Linux kernels, The Ardour DAW
and products like LinuxDSP plugins (not free-as-in-beer, incidentally,
but worth every penny) are light years away from the unstable, hard-to-
use and incomplete offerings of a few years ago.

Note that PT is also a whole lot better than it was a few years ago... it
was not too long ago that you could not expect to get the same data out of
PT as you put in.... load a file, make no edits, just save it... and you
got something that was not bit-for-bit identical. Things are much, much
better in the PT world too now.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"gjsmo" wrote in message
...
On Nov 1, 9:16 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"gjsmo" wrote in message

...
On Oct 31, 4:46 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

As a heavy audio and video user of ridiculously stable windows boxes, I
don't know what you are talking about.
Hmm... I do. I have never seen a Mac computer crash because of a

software fault. Not even driver issues. And the hardware is top-notch,
too.

Your lack of real world experience with Macs is showing. They crash, too.
I
know, because people ask me to help them with their Apples and I decline
because I want to maintain focus.

They CAN crash... but they don't. You can't say that Macs crash as
often as Windows.

If you adjust for the clear differences in operational use and context, the
answer is that Macs crash as often as Windows if not more.

What you don't seem to get is that if we eliminate or reduce ugly little
necessities like users, software and hardware, then its all about the same
because it is those ugly things where most crashes come from.


Comparing Macs with thieir narrow hardware and software options to Windows
machines where *everything* goes is fair as long as you don't have the
same
expectations.

With liberty comes responsibility and accountability. People are foolish
if
they expect the liberty of Windows but don't want to take responsibility
for
what that liberty necessarily brings with it.

Agreed.

Windows, however, will crash and burn like a stick of TNT drenched in

gasoline.

Windows will run forever if you know what you are doing. I'm still
building
a few *new* Win98 systems that people are using to maintain compatibility
with legacy hardware and software. If you use the right hardware and
software, Win98 (not even the preferred SE version) can run like a clock
for
years between boots.

If.

What you don't seem to get is the fact that the current Macs are just like
all of the other PC clones, except for a strait jacket of limited hardware
and software that you buy into when you do the Apple game.

There is no magic. Intel doesn't pull out all of the good processors and
send them to Apple and leave the rest for everybody else to use. Neither do
any of the other hardware suppliers.

Apple's OS can't be copared to Windows 1:1 because again there is no
comparison in terms of varied use and operational context. If I get to pick
as few Windows drivers as the short list that the Mac OS supports, I'd
probably come out ahead in terms of reliability.

There's a sure fire way to have fewer failures - sell less hardware and
software!

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"gjsmo" wrote in message
...

The point I was trying to make was simple - A Mac is generally more
stable, and easier to set up than a Windows PC.

And that point has no validity, no support.


It's been my experience, and that of other people I know,

Which is vanishingly small.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"anahata" wrote in message
o.uk...

Of course it's not going to do anything to the stranglehold PT has on the
market place (PT seems to be essential mainly because "everyone else has
it" and because customers expect it),

And this is a myth.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"gjsmo" wrote in message
...
On Oct 31, 4:46 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Also, Macs use EFI and not BIOS, which is something that should've been in
PCs 10 years ago.

Actually, Windows has supported EFI since 2002 which is on the verge of 10
years ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified...ware_Interface

* The Itanium versions of Windows 2000 (Advanced Server Limited Edition and
Datacenter Server Limited Edition) implemented EFI 1.10 in 2002. MS Windows
Server 2003 for IA-64, MS Windows XP 64-bit Edition and Windows 2000
Advanced Server Limited Edition, all of which are for the Intel Itanium
family of processors, implement EFI, a requirement of the platform through
the DIG64 specification.[26]

* Microsoft introduced UEFI for x86-64 Windows operating systems with
Windows Server 2008 and Windows Vista Service Pack 1, so the 64-bit versions
of Windows 7 are compatible with EFI. Microsoft does not implement 32-bit
UEFI since vendors did not have any interest in producing native 32-bit UEFI
firmware because of the mainstream status of 64-bit computing.[27] Microsoft
has released a video with Andrew Ritz and Jamie Schwartz explaining Pre-OS
UEFI functions on Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008.[28]

* Microsoft will require computers with the "Designed for Windows 8" logo to
use UEFI with secure boot (which will only allow signed software to run on
the device) enabled by default.[29][30] Red Hat developer Matthew Garrett
raised concerns over the requirement for secure booting to be enabled by
default and Microsoft responded by saying that there was no mandate from
Microsoft that prevents secure booting from being disabled in firmware or
that keys could not be updated and managed.[29][30]

[gjsmo]

On Nov 1, 1:35*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"gjsmo" wrote in message

...

The point I was trying to make was simple - A Mac is generally more

stable, and easier to set up than a Windows PC.

And that point has no validity, no support.

Easier to set up for sure. Remember how Macs work out of the box?
And this is somewhat of a subjective point - as I said, Windows may be
easier for you, but I simply cannot stand the BSOD. Yes, Macs can
crash - but at least there's usually a good reason, not just a bad
driver.

It's been my experience, and that of other people I know,

Which is vanishingly small.

Doesn't matter. Macs work for me. Windows doesn't.
Windows hasn't decreased the number of problems it has, and you can't
tell me Vista was a good thing.
OTOH, every release of Mac OS is better than the previous. And with
the exception of PowerPC being replaced, every new release is
completely compatible with previous computers. And no driver issues.
And that NEVER happens with Windows.

By manufacturing both hardware and software, Macs are and will always
be more reliable than a Windows PC. Windows has to support a
ridiculous amount of hardware, which is impossible to do as well as a
Mac with limited hardware. I'll take the stability over the lack of
drivers. As it is, everything in my PC would work in a Mac as it is.

[John Williamson]

gjsmo wrote:
Doesn't matter. Macs work for me. Windows doesn't.
Windows hasn't decreased the number of problems it has, and you can't
tell me Vista was a good thing.

Even M$ admitted it wasn't, by releasing Windows 7 so quickly.

OTOH, every release of Mac OS is better than the previous. And with
the exception of PowerPC being replaced, every new release is
completely compatible with previous computers. And no driver issues.
And that NEVER happens with Windows.

You've not been reading about the problems with the latest, greatest
version breaking both well established software and hardware, then?

Some posts are in here, and the video guys are not at all happy. One
program they use has had a large part of its user interface disabled by
the latest OS update, which means that a fair slice of functionality
can't be accessed, even though the code is still there.

By manufacturing both hardware and software, Macs are and will always
be more reliable than a Windows PC. Windows has to support a
ridiculous amount of hardware, which is impossible to do as well as a
Mac with limited hardware. I'll take the stability over the lack of
drivers. As it is, everything in my PC would work in a Mac as it is.

Choose the hardware and software carefully, and Windows is as reliable
as any other OS. That's all Apple have done, by restricting their
hardware and software choices.

I've still got a Windows 98 machine running with an 8-in, 4 out
soundcard with a built in synth that hasn't crashed in years.

This machine (An EEE PC 701 with a 4gig SSD, and 2 Gig of RAM) runs
Audacity under XP perfectly well in conjunction with a Zoom H2 being
used as a soundcard, with the only problem being a lack of storage space
for large projects, and having to use an external burner. Admittedly,it
did take some fiddling, but it's now stable enough to trust for a
non-vital live project.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Frank Stearns]

"Arny Krueger" writes:

snips

Apple's OS can't be copared to Windows 1:1 because again there is no
comparison in terms of varied use and operational context. If I get to pick
as few Windows drivers as the short list that the Mac OS supports, I'd
probably come out ahead in terms of reliability.

There's a sure fire way to have fewer failures - sell less hardware and
software!

Arny, what you say is largely true.

However, there seems to have been "cultural" issues at MS for years and years --
it's taken them 25 years to mature and often they *still* don't get it. (I say this
as a shop with six operating Windows machines -- 2 are Win98, 3 are XP, and 1 is
Win7. I skipped Vista, but Win7 is annoying enough. I only use it for one set of
customers; everything else, including the audio production machine, is on XP.)

An old friend I went to school with was a very early employee at MS, before they
had even 100 people. He was there for 19 years, left with a pile of money to do his
own thing, then came back as a consultant for a number of years. The stories he
tells about various technical missteps, seat-of-pants engineering based on
inexperience, OS and apps divisions NOT communicating because of petty infighting,
etc, etc makes you shake your head.

Recall that NT (or was it 2000?), the first reasonably stable OS they offered, was
thanks in large part to the guy they brought in from DEC -- he changed the culture
on that project.

Windows was a shocker for me because I started with a very expensive but well
supported proprietary S100-based system in the mid '70s. That system and its clone
ran flawlessly for 8 years. While quaint and primitive by today's standards, I
got a lot of (non-audio) work done on that system and made a living doing so.

Then I moved to a Sun platform (UNIX). Again, that same level of stability. On the
side I also had a DOS-based 286 PC. Fairly stable, once Compaq got the hardware
issues resolved. That only took 2 years!

I also worked in shops with a wide swath of the DEC product line -- PDP11s, 750s,
780s, MicroVaxs, etc. Again, that stuff just ran and ran.

Late 90s I moved most of the operation over to PCs. I was horrified at the number of
problems, crashes, etc. As third party experts suggested various tunings, I tried
all, accepted many, and the systems settled. (The eternal question was why the
system defaults were often so worthless and stupid. Do not get me started on the MS
treatment of VM!)

XP cured many ills, but still, the occasional hiccup.

Windows does indeed support a wider array of hardware and software from many, many
sources, but because of that it seems to me there could be more thoughtful and
responsible engineering. As one software guru once said (and I paraphrase), 1/2 your
code does the deed, the other 1/2 traps errors and prevents problems, even if such
problems could "never" occur. Often windows fell short in this regard -- both in the
OS and the development environments.

Another large customer, who routinely ran deep code diagnostics on EVERYTHING they
bought, commented on how "resource leaky" windows itself tended to be. A
programmer working for me on a project (a bloody genius who came from a
real-time UNIX programming brackground) also commented on how easily the windows
environment leaked. Of course, leaks lead to crashes.

Most development environments by default are supposed to help programmers prevent
leaks. With earlier windows if you blinked they leaked. It wasn't intentional by MS,
we all knew, but again, careless software design -- perhaps because of hurried dev
cycles, or just plain not knowing what to do -- contributed to various problems.

No doubt Macs are somewhat similar, but the faults are "hidden" because of the
monolithic environment. To their credit, however, my understanding is that there's a
flavor of BSD UNIX under the Mac hood. Don't know if that's true, but it would
certainly be a good head start toward stability.

BTW, I'm skittish about Linux (mainly because no one seems in charge), but
I've seen many true UNIX environments adhering to BSD or AT&T run damn near
flawlessly. (Might be other serious players now, but at the time those two were
utterly reliable.)

Would I give up my PCs? Hell no! Too much bang for the buck. Would I ever buy a Mac?
Probably not. There's something slightly off-putting about the smugness surrounding
the Mac. Personal bias, to be sure.

But I still get ****ed off at times thinking about the hours wasted attempting to
research and solve many varied windows issues that never should have been there in
the first place, had there been an adult in the room when the things were designed.

MS did and does have a lot of bright folks, many of them quite young, much like our
own gjsmo. But in something as vast as an OS project you need sage leadership to
guide that boundless creative and innovative energy. That sage needs to prevent
running over various technical cliffs, such as keeping track of resources used, and
preventing poorly-written third-party offerings from kicking the legs out from under
the OS.

As always, YMMV.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[vdubreeze]

On Oct 31, 2:00*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

It's pretty much just one troll, flatfish, who pops up in all kinds of
newsgroups under different names. *The problem is that then people like
vudubreeze reply to him seriously. *The worst thing you can do to a troll
is to take him seriously.


I apologize for feeding the troll. Can't blame me for the next
twenty posts though : )

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"gjsmo" wrote in message
...
On Nov 1, 1:35 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"gjsmo" wrote in message

...

The point I was trying to make was simple - A Mac is generally more
stable, and easier to set up than a Windows PC.

And that point has no validity, no support.

Easier to set up for sure. Remember how Macs work out of the box?

You obviously haven't taken a PC out of a box marked Dell or HP or Toshiba
(or even Emachines, Acer or competitive) this millenium.

They generally work right out of the box. I can't remember the last one that
didn't work perfectly right out of the box and I open those boxes dozens of
time every year.

In the face of your monumental ignorance and arrogance, there is no purpose
to trying to talk sense to you. :-(

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"gjsmo" wrote in message
...
On Nov 1, 1:35 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

OTOH, every release of Mac OS is better than the previous. And with
the exception of PowerPC being replaced, every new release is
completely compatible with previous computers. And no driver issues.
And that NEVER happens with Windows.

Interesting statement. Basically you're saying that other than totally
obsoleting every piece of computer hardware that Apple built based on the
PowerPC chip, which was most if not everything they made until about 2004,
Apple never obsoletes their hardware. That's a contradiction!

Thing is, one can run 2010 editions of Windows 7 on PCs that were made in
2001, 2005 and even those made in the previous millenium. The last PC that
wouldn't couldn't run the current windows for sure was a probably a 286 and
those were obsolete over 20 years ago.

There has never been a mass obsolescence of PCs that compares to what Apple
did when they dumped PowerPC support just a few years back. How quickly the
true believers forget the sins of their diety!

Your comments about Windows drivers are equally poorly-informed. For the
basic load of drivers, being keyboard, mouse, video and things like that,
every version of Windows provides generic drivers that actually work. This
means that while my 2005 Dell laptop has no purpose-written Windows 7 LCD
driver, it does have a generic driver that lets me run the computer
effectively and exploits the maximum hardware resolution of its screen. The
whole computer works under Windows 7; touchpad, screen, video port, USB
ports, audio, modem, wired and wireless LAN, and all. It even runs at a
credible rate - no worse than it ran under XP.

[Tobiah[_4_]]

Congratulations on your troll success so far.
Nice Mac/Windows war too.

[John Williamson]

Arny Krueger wrote:
Thing is, one can run 2010 editions of Windows 7 on PCs that were made in
2001, 2005 and even those made in the previous millenium. The last PC that
wouldn't couldn't run the current windows for sure was a probably a 286 and
those were obsolete over 20 years ago.

Not entirely true. Windows 7, like Vista, will not even try to install
on anything less than a 1GHz Pentium class processor with a Gigabyte of
RAM and about 16 Gigabytes of space on the hard drive, not to mention a
pretty good graphis card. That was real cutting edge stuff in 2001. A
quick look at a list of what Intel have made says nothing they made
before 2001 will do the job. The 286 can't run anything later than
Windows 3.0, IIRC, though you *might* get 3.1 to stagger. I may have a
play with an old Tosh I've got sitting on the shelf in a bit.

However, a text mode program written for DOS back in the '80s can
probably be made to run under Windows 7, as long as it doesn't require
direct hardware access, and only uses documented OS calls. It's more
likely to run under XP, though.

There has never been a mass obsolescence of PCs that compares to what Apple
did when they dumped PowerPC support just a few years back. How quickly the
true believers forget the sins of their diety!

Your comments about Windows drivers are equally poorly-informed. For the
basic load of drivers, being keyboard, mouse, video and things like that,
every version of Windows provides generic drivers that actually work. This
means that while my 2005 Dell laptop has no purpose-written Windows 7 LCD
driver, it does have a generic driver that lets me run the computer
effectively and exploits the maximum hardware resolution of its screen. The
whole computer works under Windows 7; touchpad, screen, video port, USB
ports, audio, modem, wired and wireless LAN, and all. It even runs at a
credible rate - no worse than it ran under XP.

+1 for my 2006 Toshiba Satellite U200. Some stuff needs special drivers,
but the Vista ones worked well enough.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Ty Ford]

On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 12:14:14 -0400, Tobiah wrote
(in article ):

Congratulations on your troll success so far.
Nice Mac/Windows war too.

Yawn....


Ty Ford

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Tobiah]

On 11/2/2011 2:35 PM, Ty Ford wrote:
On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 12:14:14 -0400, Tobiah wrote
(in ):

Congratulations on your troll success so far.
Nice Mac/Windows war too.

Yawn....

Not very clever of me, I admit...

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
Thing is, one can run 2010 editions of Windows 7 on PCs that were made in
2001, 2005 and even those made in the previous millenium. The last PC
that wouldn't couldn't run the current windows for sure was a probably a
286 and those were obsolete over 20 years ago.

Not entirely true. Windows 7, like Vista, will not even try to install on
anything less than a 1GHz Pentium class processor with a Gigabyte of RAM
and about 16 Gigabytes of space on the hard drive, not to mention a pretty
good graphis card. That was real cutting edge stuff in 2001.

Or, the result of fairly inexpensive upgrades done more recently.

The point is that it can be done.

A quick look at a list of what Intel have made says nothing they made
before 2001 will do the job. The 286 can't run anything later than Windows
3.0, IIRC, though you *might* get 3.1 to stagger. I may have a play with
an old Tosh I've got sitting on the shelf in a bit.

I agree that the 286 is pretty grim, but its not from this century, and not
even from the last decade of the previous one.

However, a text mode program written for DOS back in the '80s can probably
be made to run under Windows 7, as long as it doesn't require direct
hardware access, and only uses documented OS calls. It's more likely to
run under XP, though.

There are a variety of virtual machines that may be able to run ancient code
on even totally modern hardware. VMWare's virtual machines seem to be far
more flexible and better supported than MS's.

There has never been a mass obsolescence of PCs that compares to what
Apple did when they dumped PowerPC support just a few years back. How
quickly the true believers forget the sins of their diety!

Your comments about Windows drivers are equally poorly-informed. For the
basic load of drivers, being keyboard, mouse, video and things like
that, every version of Windows provides generic drivers that actually
work. This means that while my 2005 Dell laptop has no purpose-written
Windows 7 LCD driver, it does have a generic driver that lets me run the
computer effectively and exploits the maximum hardware resolution of its
screen. The whole computer works under Windows 7; touchpad, screen, video
port, USB ports, audio, modem, wired and wireless LAN, and all. It even
runs at a credible rate - no worse than it ran under XP.

+1 for my 2006 Toshiba Satellite U200. Some stuff needs special drivers,
but the Vista ones worked well enough.

Exactly.

Gjsmo seems to actually believe the Mac bigot trash he has been talking. He
doesn't seem to understand that if you walk into a store and buy a PC, it
boots and runs right away. Other than plugging in keyboard, display and
mouse, no assembly is required. I believe Macs have similar assembly
requirements. Just because it doesn't have a "Runs Windows 7" sticker on
it, doesn't mean that Windows 7 can't run on it.

[gjsmo]

On Nov 2, 8:27*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"gjsmo" wrote in message

...
On Nov 1, 1:35 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

"gjsmo" wrote in message

...

The point I was trying to make was simple - A Mac is generally more
stable, and easier to set up than a Windows PC.

And that point has no validity, no support.
Easier to set up for sure. Remember how Macs work out of the box?

You obviously haven't taken a PC out of a box marked Dell or HP or Toshiba
(or even Emachines, Acer or competitive) *this millenium.

I have. Trial Office, nothing which can compete with iLife (a typical
consumer product to be sure, but not present in Windows), and
bloatware all over the place. Nice try, though.

They generally work right out of the box. I can't remember the last one that
didn't work perfectly right out of the box and I open those boxes dozens of
time every year.

In the face of your monumental ignorance and arrogance, there is no purpose
to trying to talk sense to you. :-(

I could say the same of you.

[gjsmo]

On Nov 2, 8:32*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message

...

Arny Krueger wrote:
Thing is, one can run 2010 editions of Windows 7 on PCs that were made in
2001, 2005 and even those made in the previous millenium. *The last PC
that wouldn't couldn't run the current windows for sure was a probably a
286 and those were obsolete over 20 years ago.

Not entirely true. Windows 7, like Vista, will not even try to install on
anything less than a 1GHz Pentium class processor with a Gigabyte of RAM
and about 16 Gigabytes of space on the hard drive, not to mention a pretty
good graphis card. That was real cutting edge stuff in 2001.

Or, the result of fairly inexpensive upgrades done more recently.

The point is that it can be done.

A * quick look at a list of what Intel have made says nothing they made
before 2001 will do the job. The 286 can't run anything later than Windows
3.0, IIRC, though you *might* get 3.1 to stagger. I may have a play with
an old Tosh I've got sitting on the shelf in a bit.

I agree that the 286 is pretty grim, but its not from this century, and not
even from the last decade of the previous one.

However, a text mode program written for DOS back in the '80s can probably
be made to run under Windows 7, as long as it doesn't require direct
hardware access, and only uses documented OS calls. It's more likely to
run under XP, though.

There are a variety of virtual machines that may be able to run ancient code
on even totally modern hardware. VMWare's virtual machines seem to be far
more flexible and better supported than MS's.

There has never been a mass obsolescence of PCs that compares to what
Apple did when they dumped PowerPC support just a few years back. How
quickly the true believers forget the sins of their diety!

In all fairness, while PowerPC was a nice architecture, it was not
meeting the performance of x86. Apple decided to jump before it was
too late. Also, up until Lion, Mac OS included Rosetta, which allowed
PPC programs to run, though not low-level drivers and such. I
personally think no-one could have done a better job transitioning
architectures - Universal Binaries and Rosetta are pretty good.

Your comments about Windows drivers are equally poorly-informed. For the
basic load of drivers, being keyboard, mouse, video and *things like
that, every version of Windows provides generic drivers that actually
work. This means that while my 2005 Dell laptop has no purpose-written
Windows 7 LCD driver, it does have a generic driver that lets me run the
computer effectively and exploits the maximum hardware resolution of its
screen. The whole computer works under Windows 7; touchpad, screen, video
port, USB ports, audio, modem, wired and wireless LAN, and all. It even
runs at a credible rate - no worse than it ran under XP.

Again, you're lucky. I've had computer with such bad driver support
that not even the CD drive worked. I had to take out the hard drive to
put the driver installers on it. That'll never happen on a Mac.

+1 for my 2006 Toshiba Satellite U200. Some stuff needs special drivers,
but the Vista ones worked well enough.

Exactly.

Gjsmo seems to actually believe the Mac bigot trash he has been talking. He

Oddly enough, I do... but I wouldn't call it bigot trash.

doesn't seem to understand that if you walk into a store and buy a PC, it
boots and runs right away. Other than plugging in keyboard, display and
mouse, no assembly is required. I believe Macs have similar assembly
requirements. *Just because it doesn't have a "Runs Windows 7" sticker on
it, doesn't mean that Windows 7 can't run on it.

There are new PCs which have a Windows 7 sticker on them, and don't
even run that. A Mac WILL work when you take it out of the box, unless
it got damaged in shipping or has a corrupted hard drive (unavoidable
possible problems in ANY computer). It WILL have a working Office
suite, it WILL have iLife (again, not saying it's awesome - but it's
there), it will have NO driver issues, and guess what - it'll run
Windows if you want.

I personally don't see why you can't at least find SOME merit in the
tightly integrated, "always works" Apple ecosystem. I admire Microsoft
for trying so hard to make Windows work on EVERY PC out there, and
it's bound to fail some of the time. It's a different design
philosophy. Every program I use has a Mac version, or equivalent on
Mac. There's always Boot Camp for the ones that don't - but I'd sooner
virtualize Windows.

And honestly, such vehement dislike for a competitor is unhealthy.
I've never particularly liked Windows, but at least I can acknowledge
its merits.

[geoff]

Richard Webb wrote:
On Wed 2011-Nov-02 18:26, Tobiah writes:
Congratulations on your troll success so far.
Nice Mac/Windows war too.

Yawn....

Not very clever of me, I admit...

YEah, but still fitting, as is TY's "yawn" about the whole
thing.

Use wtf ever enables you to get your work done in the
fashion you like.


A worthwhile thread , if only to temmpt those who believe everything they
read to at least think twice.

geoff

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Wed 2011-Nov-02 18:26, Tobiah writes:
Congratulations on your troll success so far.
Nice Mac/Windows war too.

Yawn....

Not very clever of me, I admit...

YEah, but still fitting, as is TY's "yawn" about the whole
thing.

Use wtf ever enables you to get your work done in the
fashion you like.

Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.