Another PC Oddity

[Mike Rivers]

I have a Tosiba NB305 series Netbook computer here running Windows XP.
'Scu'se me for my simplicity, but when I'm traveling and need to edit
some audio, I just use the built-in audio hardware and plug headphones
into the jack on the side of the computer.

I usually don't shut down Windows, but rather put it into hibernation.
It uses practically no battery in that mode and starts up quickly when I
want to use it again. But what I've found is that after a few cycles
going in and out of hibernation, I lose the audio output and have to
restart Windows in order to get it back. Audio programs don't complain
that they can't find a playback device, the Windows Sound/Audio window
shows the correct audio device, and the mixer doesn't show that it's
muted. (yes, I've tried exercising the Mute button and also checked for
'reversed' operation).

Does anyone have an educated guess as to what's going on here? Is there
any way I can reset the audio without restarting Windows? It's not a
big deal, I'm just curious as to why this happens. I suppose it could be
a Toshiba thing, that it somehow disconnects the headphone output
amplifier to save the battery after a certain length of hibernation
time, but I've had the audio work after several days of hibernation. It
seems to go away after a number (unknown) of hibernation in/out cycles.

Your next question is about whether it does this only with the internal
audio hardware and not when I've set up an external audio device for
Windows playback (or even program playback if it's not the Windows
default). I don't know, since I rarely use an external audio interface
with this computer.


..


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson

Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then

[William Sommerwerck]

Simply from a diagnosis perspective... Have you tried quitting one of the
programs that's grown silent, then restarting it?

My gut feeling is that this is a BIOS problem. Have you contacted Toshiba?

[Frank Stearns]

Mike Rivers > writes:

>I have a Tosiba NB305 series Netbook computer here running Windows XP.

snip

>I usually don't shut down Windows, but rather put it into hibernation.

>want to use it again. But what I've found is that after a few cycles
>going in and out of hibernation, I lose the audio output and have to
>restart Windows in order to get it back. Audio programs don't complain

Hibernate mode on Windows was a novel idea that still, after nearly 20 years,
they've not managed to get right -- though it has gotten marginally better. In the
olden days, it often flat out failed on the first attempt to wake up (even with no
apps running, just the OS!), let alone multiple cycles.

The idea was to take a memory and processor snap shot, write it out to disk as a big
image file (including pointers to VM), set a flag so that when you "awoke" the
system it was still a bootup, but a specialized one that just told the machine to go
right to reloading that image. This saved a lot of time because all of that
CPU-using configuration/process start activity was already done, represented in that
image file.

Theoretically, if you put everything back the way it was, the machine should be able
to pick up from where it left off.

Theoretically.

Seems that processors and software have some ambiguous states when one attempts a
"restart in the middle" like this. If you're lucky, you've hit things at a point
where this works. Other times, something that could not be represented properly in
the sleep image causes a stumble and there you go, head-first down the stairs.

That's the gist of the problem as I understand it (and have had bite me with various
laptops over the years). I'll be interested too in any updated info someone else
might have.

Much as I would have liked to use hibernation (even on the desktops to save
boot time) I've just gotten used to doing a fresh start each time.

Now, if your system actually keeps everything in memory and just tickles the memory
to keep it alive, shutting down all the power hogs, like the CPU and disk, that's
kind of neat. But there's still the potential issues of restarting the CPU at
exactly the right point and resyncing with what's in memory. I imagine that would be
pretty tricky business.

Good luck with it,

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:

> I have a Tosiba NB305 series Netbook computer here running Windows XP.
> 'Scu'se me for my simplicity, but when I'm traveling and need to edit
> some audio, I just use the built-in audio hardware and plug headphones
> into the jack on the side of the computer.

Nothing to excuse, some laptops have excellent inbuilt audio, all HP's in my
household and @work are ok for serious playback, at least with headphones or
if used floating. Grounding can create issues that require the use of a
transformer if used with external playback implements ...

> I usually don't shut down Windows, but rather put it into hibernation.
> It uses practically no battery in that mode and starts up quickly
> when I want to use it again. But what I've found is that after a few
> cycles going in and out of hibernation, I lose the audio output and
> have to restart Windows in order to get it back. Audio programs don't
> complain that they can't find a playback device, the Windows
> Sound/Audio window shows the correct audio device, and the mixer
> doesn't show that it's muted. (yes, I've tried exercising the Mute
> button and also checked for 'reversed' operation).

> Does anyone have an educated guess as to what's going on here?

Crap XP audio drivers, down to W2K servicepack 4 or up to vista. There seems
to be some kind of geas on Microsoft to always break audio whenever they
update anything.

> Is
> there any way I can reset the audio without restarting Windows?

No.

> It's
> not a big deal, I'm just curious as to why this happens. I suppose it
> could be a Toshiba thing, that it somehow disconnects the headphone
> output amplifier to save the battery after a certain length of
> hibernation time, but I've had the audio work after several days of
> hibernation. It seems to go away after a number (unknown) of
> hibernation in/out cycles.

It is a paging issue, stuff gets pushed to virtual memory - even if it is
disabled. Happens agin and again with this HP, also when watching web video.
Some of the time maximizing the video window will bush the audio out of
gargle-mode, some of the time it is is plain stuck in it.

> Your next question is about whether it does this only with the
> internal audio hardware and not when I've set up an external audio
> device for Windows playback (or even program playback if it's not the
> Windows default). I don't know, since I rarely use an external audio
> interface with this computer.

You will have the same issue with an external interface, I have it also with
a Midiman Duo, gargle-mode even can come on for the part of a concert after
the intermession. I dunno if microsoft got audio right in windows 6 (vista)
or 6.1 (7) but they took great care to break it after finally having gotten
it right in w2k sp4. You can not rely on a hibernated xp-box to come out of
hibernation with proper audio hardware access, it is a lottery.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

> Simply from a diagnosis perspective... Have you tried quitting one of
> the programs that's grown silent, then restarting it?

> My gut feeling is that this is a BIOS problem. Have you contacted
> Toshiba?

Broken OS paging routine, it probably puts driver buffer into the disk-cache
adding unexpected handling overhead.

kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Mr Soul]

It sounds like a Windows bug to me (certainly not one that they have
tested). The only thing I can think of is to go to the Device Manager
and see if the Audio device is enabled (it probably will be).

Mike C
http://www.pcDAW.net

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message

> I have a Tosiba NB305 series Netbook computer here
> running Windows XP. 'Scu'se me for my simplicity, but
> when I'm traveling and need to edit some audio, I just
> use the built-in audio hardware and plug headphones into
> the jack on the side of the computer.
> I usually don't shut down Windows, but rather put it into
> hibernation. It uses practically no battery in that mode
> and starts up quickly when I want to use it again. But
> what I've found is that after a few cycles going in and
> out of hibernation, I lose the audio output and have to
> restart Windows in order to get it back. Audio programs
> don't complain that they can't find a playback device,
> the Windows Sound/Audio window shows the correct audio
> device, and the mixer doesn't show that it's muted. (yes,
> I've tried exercising the Mute button and also checked
> for 'reversed' operation).
> Does anyone have an educated guess as to what's going on
> here? Is there any way I can reset the audio without
> restarting Windows? It's not a big deal, I'm just
> curious as to why this happens. I suppose it could be a
> Toshiba thing, that it somehow disconnects the headphone
> output amplifier to save the battery after a certain
> length of hibernation time, but I've had the audio work
> after several days of hibernation. It seems to go away
> after a number (unknown) of hibernation in/out cycles.


The device drivers for all of the peripherals of a PC have entry points that
relate to power management. Whenever the PC changes power state, such as
turn on, turn off, hibernate, goes into suspended animation, various degrees
of sleeping, etc., these entry points are called by Windows. If the code
that backs up these entry points is defective, then symptoms such as the
ones you are experiencing may be observed. You might want to try to update
the device driver for the built-in audio interface on your laptop. Usually,
the chip vendor has the latest-greatest version.

[geoff]

Mr Soul wrote:
> It sounds like a Windows bug to me (certainly not one that they have
> tested). The only thing I can think of is to go to the Device Manager
> and see if the Audio device is enabled (it probably will be).
>
> Mike C
> http://www.pcDAW.net


I've always been mightily suspicious of the reliability of 'hibernate' mode

geoff
and yet more resources !

[Mike Rivers]

On 5/16/2011 12:04 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> Simply from a diagnosis perspective... Have you tried quitting one of the
> programs that's grown silent, then restarting it?

Of course. And also making sure that nothing else is using the sound
card (that I know of, anyway) Remember, this doesn't happen every time
the computer hibernates, only sometimes, and I don't think ever after
the first hibernation. .

> My gut feeling is that this is a BIOS problem. Have you contacted Toshiba?

I have no faith that Toshiba would have any understanding of the
problem, so no.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson

Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then

[Mike Rivers]

On 5/16/2011 12:42 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:

> Hibernate mode on Windows was a novel idea that still, after nearly 20 years,
> they've not managed to get right -- though it has gotten marginally better. In the
> olden days, it often flat out failed on the first attempt to wake up (even with no
> apps running, just the OS!), let alone multiple cycles.

I do the same thing with my studio computer (a Dell) and the office
laptop, an IBM Thinkpad. Neither has ever exhibited this symptom. So I'm
inclined to think that it's something unique to Toshiba, maybe the BIOS,
maybe memory management, maybe something else. There's an application
program that automatically reminds you when you've plugged in headphones
or an input, which I don't have running (since I'm so clever I already
know those things).


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson

Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then

[Mike Rivers]

On 5/16/2011 12:55 PM, Peter Larsen wrote:

> Crap XP audio drivers, down to W2K servicepack 4 or up to vista. There seems
> to be some kind of geas on Microsoft to always break audio whenever they
> update anything.

Vent if you want, but when it works, it's fine, and it works most of the
time, and I can always "fix" it by restarting Windows (don't even need a
hard restart).

I never use the sound card (or the computer, for that matter) for
serious recording. Most of the time it's next to the couch so I don't
have to get up if I want to search the Web to get more info about
something I've just read in the newspaper, or check the TV listings. But
now and then there'll be some audio playback involved, and sometimes
it's there and other times it isn't.

I hibernate my studio computer all the time, too, and that one normally
uses a Lynx L22, not the motherboard sound card. It's always there when
I start it from hibernation.




--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson

Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then

[Mike Rivers]

On 5/16/2011 1:04 PM, Mr Soul wrote:
> It sounds like a Windows bug to me (certainly not one that they have
> tested). The only thing I can think of is to go to the Device Manager
> and see if the Audio device is enabled (it probably will be).

There's never been an indication that the device has gone away, only the
audio output.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson

Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then

[Mike Rivers]

On 5/16/2011 3:42 PM, Arny Krueger wrote:

> You might want to try to update
> the device driver for the built-in audio interface on your laptop. Usually,
> the chip vendor has the latest-greatest version.

I might give that a try. The computer is new enough so there might be an
update. Should I look at Realtek or Toshiba?


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson

Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then

[William Sommerwerck]

>> My gut feeling is that this is a BIOS problem. Have you
>> contacted Toshiba?

> I have no faith that Toshiba would have any understanding
> of the problem, so no.

"Have you tried restarting the machine?"

"Yes, yes, I have! Die, die, you underpaid, incompetent technician!"

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> I have a Tosiba NB305 series Netbook computer here running Windows XP.
> 'Scu'se me for my simplicity, but when I'm traveling and need to edit
> some audio, I just use the built-in audio hardware and plug headphones
> into the jack on the side of the computer.
>
> I usually don't shut down Windows, but rather put it into hibernation.
> It uses practically no battery in that mode and starts up quickly when I
> want to use it again. But what I've found is that after a few cycles
> going in and out of hibernation, I lose the audio output and have to
> restart Windows in order to get it back. Audio programs don't complain
> that they can't find a playback device, the Windows Sound/Audio window
> shows the correct audio device, and the mixer doesn't show that it's
> muted. (yes, I've tried exercising the Mute button and also checked for
> 'reversed' operation).
>
> Does anyone have an educated guess as to what's going on here? Is there
> any way I can reset the audio without restarting Windows?

You might be able to disable and reenable the device. That will at
least tell you if it's the driver or the firmware/hardware ( unless
a disable/reenable fully resets the hardware, which is Unlikely).

It's an AC97 chipset, right? Might be able to find drivers,
yadda yadda.

> It's not a big
> deal, I'm just curious as to why this happens. I suppose it could be a
> Toshiba thing, that it somehow disconnects the headphone output
> amplifier to save the battery after a certain length of hibernation
> time, but I've had the audio work after several days of hibernation. It
> seems to go away after a number (unknown) of hibernation in/out cycles.
>

Hibernation is a great idea. It almost never works well.

> Your next question is about whether it does this only with the internal
> audio hardware and not when I've set up an external audio device for
> Windows playback (or even program playback if it's not the Windows
> default). I don't know, since I rarely use an external audio interface
> with this computer.

<snip>
--
Les Cargill

[RD Jones]

On May 16, 10:35*am, Mike Rivers > wrote:
> I have a Tosiba NB305 series Netbook computer here running Windows XP.
> 'Scu'se me for my simplicity, but when I'm traveling and need to edit
> some audio, I just use the built-in audio hardware and plug headphones
> into the jack on the side of the computer.
>
> I usually don't shut down Windows, but rather put it into hibernation.
> It uses practically no battery in that mode and starts up quickly when I
> want to use it again. But what I've found is that after a few cycles
> going in and out of hibernation, I lose the audio output and have to
> restart Windows in order to get it back. Audio programs don't complain
> that they can't find a playback device, the Windows Sound/Audio window
> shows the correct audio device, and the mixer doesn't show that it's
> muted. (yes, I've tried exercising the Mute button and also checked for
> 'reversed' operation).
>
> Does anyone have an educated guess as to what's going on here? Is there
> any way I can reset the audio without restarting Windows? *It's not a
> big deal, I'm just curious as to why this happens. I suppose it could be
> a Toshiba thing, that it somehow disconnects the headphone output
> amplifier to save the battery after a certain length of hibernation
> time, but I've had the audio work after several days of hibernation. It
> seems to go away after a number (unknown) of hibernation in/out cycles.
>
> Your next question is about whether it does this only with the internal
> audio hardware and not when I've set up an external audio device for
> Windows playback (or even program playback if it's not the Windows
> default). I don't know, since I rarely use an external audio interface
> with this computer.

I've noticed a vaguely similar issue with hibernation here.
IBM desktop running XP Pro with both a pci RME HDSP,
and the inbuilt (presumably AC97) stereo chip.

After the second hibernation cycle the RME tray icons are gone,
as is the sound. Onboard sound still works.

The HP laptop's sound seems to tolerate hibernation better.
It's the wireless that hangs after a couple hibernations.

rd

[Meindert Sprang]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> I have a Tosiba NB305 series Netbook computer here running Windows XP.
> 'Scu'se me for my simplicity, but when I'm traveling and need to edit
> some audio, I just use the built-in audio hardware and plug headphones
> into the jack on the side of the computer.
>
> I usually don't shut down Windows, but rather put it into hibernation.
> It uses practically no battery in that mode and starts up quickly when I
> want to use it again. But what I've found is that after a few cycles
> going in and out of hibernation, I lose the audio output and have to
> restart Windows in order to get it back.

In short: M$ has had this problem form the start and they've never been able
to get it right. My Win7 even repeatedly detects known USB serial devices
again and assigns new com ports. The solution that worked for me is to buy a
MacBook (Pro). I never shut it down. I simply close the lid and open it when
needed. It's active within 2 seconds and it has never failed anything when
coming out of sleep/hibernation. No matter how many applications that were
open at the time of closing. Apple apparently does know how to do it....

Meindert

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message

> On 5/16/2011 3:42 PM, Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> You might want to try to update
>> the device driver for the built-in audio interface on
>> your laptop. Usually, the chip vendor has the
>> latest-greatest version.

> I might give that a try. The computer is new enough so
> there might be an update. Should I look at Realtek or
> Toshiba?

Realtek is then the audio chip vendor, so they probably have the
latest-greatest. First find where the as-delivered driver is, so you can
easily roll-back the change if it blows up in your face.

Most of the drivers for a laptop are chip-vendor specific and thus not
peculiar to the laptop vendor. One common exception is the video driver,
most laptops customize this driver and you have to use theirs.


Some laptop vendors have devices of their own, such as Dell's wifi.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message

> On 5/16/2011 12:55 PM, Peter Larsen wrote:
>
>> Crap XP audio drivers, down to W2K servicepack 4 or up
>> to vista. There seems to be some kind of geas on
>> Microsoft to always break audio whenever they update
>> anything.
>
> Vent if you want, but when it works, it's fine, and it
> works most of the time, and I can always "fix" it by
> restarting Windows (don't even need a hard restart).
>
> I never use the sound card (or the computer, for that
> matter) for serious recording. Most of the time it's next
> to the couch so I don't have to get up if I want to
> search the Web to get more info about something I've just
> read in the newspaper, or check the TV listings. But now
> and then there'll be some audio playback involved, and
> sometimes it's there and other times it isn't.
> I hibernate my studio computer all the time, too, and
> that one normally uses a Lynx L22, not the motherboard
> sound card. It's always there when I start it from
> hibernation.

Lynx's drivers have always been first-rate. Hardware ain't bad, either. ;-)

I would say though that their exploitation for SOTA converter chips is a bit
in arrears. For the prices they get, they could probably have a 130 dB+
board on the market.

[Jason Warren[_2_]]

In article >, says...

>
> You might be able to disable and reenable the device. That will at
> least tell you if it's the driver or the firmware/hardware ( unless
> a disable/reenable fully resets the hardware, which is Unlikely).
>
> It's an AC97 chipset, right? Might be able to find drivers,
> yadda yadda.
>
My fairly new HP laptop occasionally forgets in the same way after returning from
hibernation. It also loses the built-in speakers sometimes if I just plug in headphones
(and there's no audio from them, either). The same thing occasionally happens when I use
the HDMI connection to my TV.

In every case, I've found that the solution is NOT to fiddle with the Windows (XP)
Control Panel settings. Instead, visit the Device Manager and disable/enable the audio
device. That works almost every time. I think, as others here have said, that it is a
driver issue.

[Mike Rivers]

On 5/16/2011 8:57 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
> You might be able to disable and reenable the device. That will at
> least tell you if it's the driver or the firmware/hardware ( unless
> a disable/reenable fully resets the hardware, which is Unlikely).

It doesn't matter what it does if it gets the audio back without
restarting Windows. I'll try to remember to try that next time it
happens. I had thought about removing the driver, but the only way I
know how to get it back is to restart the computer and let it do the
"Found new hardware" thing. That defeats the purpose, though.

> Hibernation is a great idea. It almost never works well.

I only used to use it as a safety measure when my laptop computer's
battery only lasted an hour or so but I think it was Arny who mentioned
hibernation here a while back so I started doing that instead of
shutting down. It's worked just fine on my other computers, and this
one, too, except for the audio thing, occasionally.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson

Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then

[Mike Rivers]

On 5/17/2011 12:59 PM, Jason Warren wrote:

> My fairly new HP laptop occasionally forgets in the same way after returning from
> hibernation. It also loses the built-in speakers sometimes if I just plug in headphones

Well, it's nice to know that I'm not the only one who has observed this.
I hate to ask one of those "Is this normal?" questions. <g>

I'll try disabling and re-enabling the sound card next time and see if
that brings it back.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson

Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then

[Mike Rivers]

On 5/17/2011 7:53 AM, Meindert Sprang wrote:

> In short: M$ has had this problem form the start and they've never been able
> to get it right. My Win7 even repeatedly detects known USB serial devices
> again and assigns new com ports. The solution that worked for me is to buy a
> MacBook (Pro).

My computers occasionally find old USB drives as new. Another thing that
this netbook does that's annoying is that it sometimes changes some
basic Windows things. I only know what I've caught it at, but at times
I'll have a screen saver or Windows event sounds that I have turned off.

And, no, I don't care enough about these little annoyances to buy a
Macbook Pro.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson

Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 5/16/2011 8:57 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
>> You might be able to disable and reenable the device. That will at
>> least tell you if it's the driver or the firmware/hardware ( unless
>> a disable/reenable fully resets the hardware, which is Unlikely).
>
> It doesn't matter what it does if it gets the audio back without
> restarting Windows. I'll try to remember to try that next time it
> happens. I had thought about removing the driver, but the only way I
> know how to get it back is to restart the computer and let it do the
> "Found new hardware" thing. That defeats the purpose, though.
>

Don't remove it; disable/reenable the device. That resets the driver -
or something.

>> Hibernation is a great idea. It almost never works well.
>
> I only used to use it as a safety measure when my laptop computer's
> battery only lasted an hour or so but I think it was Arny who mentioned
> hibernation here a while back so I started doing that instead of
> shutting down. It's worked just fine on my other computers, and this
> one, too, except for the audio thing, occasionally.
>
>

--
Les Cargill

[RD Jones]

On May 17, 2:30*pm, Mike Rivers > wrote:

I've just noticed that after further hibercycles that the windows
mixer
handle (tray icon) is also missing. The sound still plays, though.

rd

[Meindert Sprang]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
>
> And, no, I don't care enough about these little annoyances to buy a
> Macbook Pro.

I can understand that. My "problem" is that to me it is extremely annoying.
I develop hardware and software for living and I would be very embarassed if
my products would behave like that. I also often compare it to a car: Nobody
would accept it if their car occasionally failed during driving and the only
way to get it working again is to stop the car alongside the highway, get
out, wait a few seconds, get in and restart it again. So why do we accept
this behaviour from something like windows?

Meindert

[John Williamson]

Meindert Sprang wrote:
> "Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
> ...
>> And, no, I don't care enough about these little annoyances to buy a
>> Macbook Pro.
>
> I can understand that. My "problem" is that to me it is extremely annoying.
> I develop hardware and software for living and I would be very embarassed if
> my products would behave like that. I also often compare it to a car: Nobody
> would accept it if their car occasionally failed during driving and the only
> way to get it working again is to stop the car alongside the highway, get
> out, wait a few seconds, get in and restart it again. So why do we accept
> this behaviour from something like windows?
>
Well, I've had to do exactly that with a bus full of people before now.
It has 4 (count 'em) ECUs, all linked by a UTP databus. It turned out to
be a hardware problem confusing the firmware in the end, but still.....

I accept computer unreliability because I push the limits of what the
system will do. Windows XP with no swapfile, as there's no room on the
boot device. Video editing on a laptop......

While I might not be able to get a Mac to fall over, I have definitely
broken Linux and Windows in interesting ways just by using them.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

John Williamson wrote:

> While I might not be able to get a Mac to fall over, I have definitely
> broken Linux and Windows in interesting ways just by using them.

having to record with a laptop would put in in the hands of the gustly
greezers, other than that this hp laptop just keeps working and keeps
reliably and consistently resuming after hibernation, albeit with gargled
sound. Since I don't use it with sound and didn't get it with sound on my
mind it does what I need and what I bought it for in a very nice way.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Mike Rivers]

On 5/17/2011 10:45 PM, RD Jones wrote:
> I've just noticed that after further hibercycles that the windows
> mixer
> handle (tray icon) is also missing. The sound still plays, though.

That has happened occasionally with my other computers occasionally,
though I can't tie it to hibernation. I rarely access the volume control
so I don't notice that the icon is missing until I get no sound and I
want to check to see if it's muted. ;(


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson

Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then

[Mike Rivers]

On 5/18/2011 3:36 AM, Meindert Sprang wrote:
> Nobody
> would accept it if their car occasionally failed during driving and the only
> way to get it working again is to stop the car alongside the highway, get
> out, wait a few seconds, get in and restart it again. So why do we accept
> this behaviour from something like windows?

Probably because we don't pay nearly as much for our computers as we do
for our cars, though I'm sure some do (at both ends of the scale). Also,
people don't get killed or injured when operating a computer, so there's
no oversight.

If computers cost $20,000 and you had to get a license before using one,
we'd probably have a better system overall. Ain't free enterprise and
democracy great?.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson

Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then

[Frank Stearns]

Mike Rivers > writes:

>On 5/18/2011 3:36 AM, Meindert Sprang wrote:
>> Nobody
>> would accept it if their car occasionally failed during driving and the only
>> way to get it working again is to stop the car alongside the highway, get
>> out, wait a few seconds, get in and restart it again. So why do we accept
>> this behaviour from something like windows?

>Probably because we don't pay nearly as much for our computers as we do
>for our cars, though I'm sure some do (at both ends of the scale). Also,
>people don't get killed or injured when operating a computer, so there's
>no oversight.

>If computers cost $20,000 and you had to get a license before using one,
>we'd probably have a better system overall. Ain't free enterprise and
>democracy great?.

Back in another life I owned a "baby Sparc" Sun workstation. The thing initially had
hardware issues, but under the warranty Sun was fantastic about air-freighting
either the chassis or the single main-board that had everything on it. (The
monstrous 326 Mbyte drive -- that's mega, not giga -- sat in a large shoe box under
the desk.)

It typically would run 300 days or so without the need for a boot. Apps would
occasionally crash, but the OS didn't miss a beat. No such thing as memory leaks!

Total stability, an amazing display (even if monochrome), and the *best* keyboard I
have ever used (unfortunately not compatible with PCs).

My clients of that era had rooms full of Suns and most of them behaved the same
flawless way. The DEC machines were pretty good, too.

But here's the gotcha that most people today would never tolerate: a US$9,000 price
tag, probably $15,000 today (setting aside Moore's law for the moment).

So we wind up with commodity stuff that is el cheapo. Runs "good enough" for most
people. Makes a lot of us crazy at times, knowing what *is* possible with
computer reliability and manufacturer/dealer support....

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Trevor]

"Meindert Sprang" > wrote in message
...
>I also often compare it to a car: Nobody
> would accept it if their car occasionally failed during driving and the
> only
> way to get it working again is to stop the car alongside the highway, get
> out, wait a few seconds, get in and restart it again. So why do we accept
> this behaviour from something like windows?

Some cars DO behave like that, or worse!
(and not just old ones either)

And I have to reboot my personal video recorder far more often than my
windows computers, except there is no way to fix it with an update, because
unlike Microsoft, they don't bother writing any.

Trevor.

[Frank Stearns]

"Soundhaspriority" > writes:

>"Frank Stearns" > wrote in message
acquisition...
>>
>> Total stability, an amazing display (even if monochrome), and the *best*
>> keyboard I
>> have ever used (unfortunately not compatible with PCs).
>>
>A keyboard with elastomer switches and the Sun form factor is available
>with a PC compatible interface. I use them on all my machines. Also, for
>around $165, the design is available with keyswitches.

Really??? That's great news! Who currently carries the beasts? I remember searching
several years ago and hitting a number of dead ends.

Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Meindert Sprang]

"Frank Stearns" > wrote in message
acquisition...

> But here's the gotcha that most people today would never tolerate: a
US$9,000 price
> tag, probably $15,000 today (setting aside Moore's law for the moment).
>
> So we wind up with commodity stuff that is el cheapo. Runs "good enough"
for most
> people. Makes a lot of us crazy at times, knowing what *is* possible with
> computer reliability and manufacturer/dealer support....

A MacBook Pro is not even twice as expensive as a hi-end "windows" laptop.
OS X compares in price to Windows 7, although an OS X upgrade can be bought
for 1/5 of the price of a Windows upgrade.

Yet, there is a world of difference in stability in favour of the OS X.....
With the difference in revenues and market share between Microsoft and Apple
in favour of MS, one should expect that Windows would be more stable than OS
X.

Meindert

[Arny Krueger]

"Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message


>
> Given the longevity of the keyboards at my place, I would
> say they are built to last.
>

Do you find the longetivity of commodity keyboards to be problematical?

I have been using Chicony keyboards for years and years. They run me about
$10 at a local PC store.

They have printed keys, so A, S, E, O, and L lose their nomenclature after a
few years. But we're all supposed to touch type, right?

I've actually run one of them into the ground, which took about 6-8 years
of fairly heavy use... the 2 key is getting more and more intermittant.

I might be more picky about keyboard feel, but I have to use so many other
keyboards so much of the time and I have no control over them.

[Arny Krueger]

"Meindert Sprang" > wrote in
message

> Yet, there is a world of difference in stability in
> favour of the OS X..... With the difference in revenues
> and market share between Microsoft and Apple in favour of
> MS, one should expect that Windows would be more stable
> than OS X.

At this point Apple computers are 99.9% ordinary PC clones with a specific
set of on-board devices. And that is *a* if not *the* major source of
reliability problems with PCs, the incredibly larger base of *dfferent*
installed hardware and software.

IME Windows XP and 7 are utterly reliable provided that you have decent
hardware software and drivers runing on or under them.

I have friends and relatives with Macs and they seem to spend at last as
much time, but a lot more money on broken hardware as I do.

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor" > wrote in message
u
> "Meindert Sprang" > wrote in
> message ...
>> A MacBook Pro is not even twice as expensive as a hi-end
>> "windows" laptop.
>
> Considering they are almost identical hardware wise, that
> is a complete rip off however. And the Mac die-hards
> can't even say how much better their Motorola CPU's are
> than Intel any more! :-)

Yes, at this point a Mac is just a PC with a very limited amount of options
for hardware, particularly on the system board.

I'll give Apple credit for having generally very good taste in on-board
hardware.

But, its not the fault of MS or Intel that there are schlock shops in the
world that are creating system boards from #&%%.

[Arny Krueger]

"Les Cargill" > wrote in message

> Meindert Sprang wrote:
>> "Frank > wrote
>> in message
> <snip>
>>
>> Yet, there is a world of difference in stability in
>> favour of the OS X..... With the difference in revenues
>> and market share between Microsoft and Apple in favour
>> of MS, one should expect that Windows would be more
>> stable than OS X.

> Money cannot buy stability.

Well, money cannot buy stability does not improve once a fairly reasonable
point has been reached.

Crappy hardware can give you the runs, if you know what I mean. ;-)

> This being said, I've had XP
> systems that showed stability comparable to Linux.

Back in the day I was responsible for setting up and supporting a large
number of Windows 3.1 (!!!!) systems that were essentially perfectly stable
aside from minimal hardware and almost vanishing power failures.

I've had systems run perfectly for 10 years and then get hit by lightening.
Who knows how long they might have run?

(1) Stable hardware with stable drivers.
(2) Isolated systems on a LAN, and no WAN in sight.
(3) Well-written, stable application software.
(4) The operators were well-trained in terms of what they needed to do and
had no interest in anything else.

This was followed by similar experiences with Win95, Win98, Win2000, Win
XP....

But if these 4 points were deviated from... it could get real ugly.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article sition>,
Frank Stearns > wrote:
>"Soundhaspriority" > writes:
>
>>"Frank Stearns" > wrote in message
acquisition...
>>>
>>> Total stability, an amazing display (even if monochrome), and the *best*
>>> keyboard I
>>> have ever used (unfortunately not compatible with PCs).
>>>
>>A keyboard with elastomer switches and the Sun form factor is available
>>with a PC compatible interface. I use them on all my machines. Also, for
>>around $165, the design is available with keyswitches.
>
>Really??? That's great news! Who currently carries the beasts? I remember searching
>several years ago and hitting a number of dead ends.

What happened is that a few years ago, Sun went from the proprietary serial
interface of the Type 4 and Type 5 keyboards to using a standard USB interface
on the Type 6 keyboard.

You can get a Type 6 keyboard and mechanical ball mouse as a kit by ordering
a "US/Unix Type 6 USB country kit" from Sun, part number X3538A. You can
probably find them on ebay as well.

The keyboard only appears to be a 370-3632.

Note that there is an alternative layout Type 6 available as well, and a
Type 7. You don't want those.

>Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

I still want the old Type 3 keyboard for the Sun-3 machines. It was much
heavier and clickier than the later ones.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Frank Stearns]

"Soundhaspriority" > writes:

>"Frank Stearns" > wrote in message
acquisition...
>> "Soundhaspriority" > writes:
>>
>>>"Frank Stearns" > wrote in message
acquisition...
>>>>
>>>> Total stability, an amazing display (even if monochrome), and the *best*
>>>> keyboard I
>>>> have ever used (unfortunately not compatible with PCs).
>>>>
>>>A keyboard with elastomer switches and the Sun form factor is available
>>>with a PC compatible interface. I use them on all my machines. Also, for
>>>around $165, the design is available with keyswitches.
>>
>> Really??? That's great news! Who currently carries the beasts? I remember
>> searching
>> several years ago and hitting a number of dead ends.
>> --
>http://www.pfusystems.com/hhkeyboard/hhkeyboard.html
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Hacking_Keyboard
>http://www.amazon.com/Happy-Hacking-Keyboard-Professional2-Black/dp/B000EXZ0VC

>The "Professional" is the version with mechanical keyswitches, if you feel
>the need to duplicate the feel of the Sun keyboard. For me, the layout is
>the big thing.

Thanks for the info, Bob.

For me, it's the touch force required.

It seems that almost universally KBs need 2-3 ounces of force and for me, an
excessive amount of key travel to do the job.

Back in the olden days I used IBM Selectic typewriters and loved the incredible
speed possible with that short travel, ultra-low-force touch, even though I'm told
that some secretaries hated that, perhaps because they were used to the high-force
required with manual typewriters.

Silly secretaries! :) I'm told they're also the ones driving the location flip of
the left control key and left caps lock key. Argh!! Who uses caps lock as often as
control?? Why the awkward reach down to get the control key? What was wrong with the
old VT100 standard? Needless to say, all my machines have those two keys remapped to
be flipped. I digress.

In terms of KB force, I've found a couple different exceptions, a Memorex (of all
things) and cheapie old Keytronic. While both have more travel than I'd like, the
force level is lighter than usual, and that helps.

Perhaps of even greater interest is the mouse. The Sun meece had a mouse button push
force of 0.9 to 1.0 ounces (I measured it!). Most standard mice require 3 to 3.5
ounces. After a while, that really hurts my clickin' finger.

I have two very old Microsoft meece, and their newer wireless meece, that come in at
around 1.2 to 1.8 ounces. Better, but I still preferred the Sun mouse. Raised, long
buttons; you could vary the force you wanted by moving your finger contact point
back and forth along that long button.

Anyway.

My "if I were King" wish would be that keyboards and mice provide a simple
force-activation-required specification for easy comparison.

Thanks again for the info,

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Frank Stearns]

Les Cargill > writes:

>Meindert Sprang wrote:
>> "Frank > wrote in message
><snip>
>>
>> Yet, there is a world of difference in stability in favour of the OS X.....
>> With the difference in revenues and market share between Microsoft and Apple
>> in favour of MS, one should expect that Windows would be more stable than OS
>> X.
>>

>Money cannot buy stability. This being said, I've had XP systems that
>showed stability comparable to Linux.

Part of the issue -- and I'm sympathetic to a point -- is that everybody (SW/HW
product makers) and their duck and their duck's duck can plug something into a PC,
where the Mac is a bit more restrictive. Linux seems to invite folks willing to get
under the hood and tinker. So if something blows up, they don't mind; they just try
to figure out what went wrong and fix it.

With a wide open Windows system, and many vendors either not understanding the OS
internal rules or not playing by the rules, things go haywire. At the same time, I
fault MS for not making such a wide-open environment more bullet proof/idiot proof
when it comes to 3rd party HW/SW development. They've made some major improvements
in recent OS versions but jeez, some of that stuff should have been done from the
very beginning.

The four XP systems here are pretty stable, but from the beginning each had been
gone through and lots of start-up crapola was disabled. The DAW platform has really
been stripped down, and it (not surprisingly) is the best of the bunch.

Never used Vista, but heard it was a major step backward, whereas supposedly Win 7
is better than XP and way better than Vista.

Never used Linux but spent a lot of time on true UNIX (both major flavors). Amazing
stability.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Neil Gould]

Frank Stearns wrote:
>
> Never used Vista, but heard it was a major step backward, whereas
> supposedly Win 7 is better than XP and way better than Vista.
>
Technologically, Win 7 is Vista version 2, and neither is even remotely
similar to XP under the hood. The Vista systems that we have are as stable
and functional as the Win 7, but both Vista and Win 7 are very fat,
comparatively slow, and more restrictive than any Windows before them.

--
best,

Neil

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Meindert Sprang wrote:
> "Frank > wrote in message
<snip>
>
> Yet, there is a world of difference in stability in favour of the OS X.....
> With the difference in revenues and market share between Microsoft and Apple
> in favour of MS, one should expect that Windows would be more stable than OS
> X.
>

Money cannot buy stability. This being said, I've had XP systems that
showed stability comparable to Linux.

> Meindert
>
>

--
Les Cargill

[William Sommerwerck]

To Frank...

I learned on a manual Olympia (what a great typewriter!) and typed on my
father's Smith-Corona portable electric. Interestingly, Consumer Report's
testers considered these as having the best feel.

Men seem to like typewriters with a long keythrow (pound, pound, pound!),
while women like the short throw of the Selectric. (I'm surprised some
dislike it.) It took me years to get accustomed to the Selectric.

The original IBM PC keyboard is the greatest typing keyboard ever (manual,
electric, or computer). The long throw and strong feedback from the "bending
spring" mechanism let me type faster and more-accurately. There are at least
two companies making such keyboards, identical (or nearly so) to the IBM.

I keep meaning to buy one, but they run around $100 and there are no
cordless versions.

[Arny Krueger]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message

> Frank Stearns wrote:
>>
>> Never used Vista, but heard it was a major step
>> backward, whereas supposedly Win 7 is better than XP and
>> way better than Vista.
>>
> Technologically, Win 7 is Vista version 2, and neither is
> even remotely similar to XP under the hood. The Vista
> systems that we have are as stable and functional as the
> Win 7, but both Vista and Win 7 are very fat,
> comparatively slow, and more restrictive than any Windows
> before them.

I loaded up a Celeron laptop with 1.5 GB of RAM and a 40 GB hard drive with
win 7, and then with a 120 GB hard drive and XP. Pretty much the same
performance, even though XP had the advantage.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message
...

> This one is very nice: http://techreport.com/articles.x/5054

I doubt that it's "zippy" in any sense of the word (other than cosmetic).

Once you've typed on an IBM computer keyboard, you're never really happy
with anything else.

[DeeAa[_4_]]

On 18 touko, 11:17, John Williamson >
wrote:
>
> While I might not be able to get a Mac to fall over, I have definitely
> broken Linux and Windows in interesting ways just by using them.
>
Apparently all you need to do to get a mac to jam proper is stick in
some piece of USB gear that isn't quite standard or wrongly formatted.
I used a mac at work for a year and it was most infuriating, sometimes
the bugger would lose the mouse or something, and had to be booted
before it reappeared, or would halt completely upon putting in an USB
stick or something. Never had so many IT issues as with that damned
mac.

As for windoze's hibernate...it works well if the machine is made of
fully MS compliant parts. Very few machines are, or at least there are
some 3rd party drivers installed almost always. I write this on a
Samsung notebook and while it's not even MS compliant, hibernate works
perfectly. Sometimes it can go months without a reboot, but I tend to
reboot it sometimes anyway just in case.

[DeeAa[_4_]]

On 19 touko, 18:02, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> I loaded up a Celeron laptop with 1.5 GB of RAM and a 40 GB hard drive with
> win 7, and then with a 120 GB hard drive and XP. *Pretty much the same
> performance, even though XP had the advantage.

If the hardware is modern enough, w7 can use it much more efficiently
and usually at least seem faster than Xp on same hardware.

I have a 3,7GHz dualcore (overclocked) w/1066Mhz (overclocked)
dualchannel ram & a 1G ATI (overclocked) displaycard...and changing xp
to w7 made it so much faster and more stable it's hard to believe. It
has not crashed once except due to the displaycard starting to be on
the fringe and acting up when cold...but, am upgrading the entire PC
soon to something a bit faster&modern.

I think the biggest difference, however is not in w7 / Xp difference
in general although w7 clearly boots much faster - the overall
greatest change probably came from the old system being 32bit and the
new OS is 64bit.

[Neil Gould]

DeeAa wrote:
>
> I think the biggest difference, however is not in w7 / Xp difference
> in general although w7 clearly boots much faster - the overall
> greatest change probably came from the old system being 32bit and the
> new OS is 64bit.
>
I think the biggest difference is that Vista & w7 take better advantage of
multi-core processors than XP or earlier, so some OS-level tasks run much
faster.

--
Neil

[geoff]

Meindert Sprang wrote:
>
> Yet, there is a world of difference in stability in favour of the OS
> X..... With the difference in revenues and market share between
> Microsoft and Apple in favour of MS, one should expect that Windows
> would be more stable than OS X.

No - it's relative "openness" compromises that, both PC hardware and WIn
software-wise.

There was a mactime when you had to buy pretty much everything from Apple.

geoff

[Jason Warren[_2_]]

In article sition>,
says...

> Back in another life I owned a "baby Sparc" Sun workstation.
> the desk.)
>
> It typically would run 300 days or so without the need for a boot.

I had the same experience. There were a Windows PC and an IBM RISC box running AIX in my
office. I'd reboot the AIX box once every six months or so "just in case," but there
wasn't any real reason to do so. Software updates almost never required a restart and
they installed in seconds. The Windows machine was a typical Windows machine....

People whose only computer experince is using Windows don't know how idignant they should
be!

[William Sommerwerck]

"Jason Warren" > wrote in message
...
> In article sition>,
> says...

>> Back in another life I owned a "baby Sparc" Sun workstation.
>> the desk.)
>> It typically would run 300 days or so without the need for a boot.

> I had the same experience. There were a Windows PC and an IBM
> RISC box running AIX in my office. I'd reboot the AIX box once every
> six months or so "just in case," but there wasn't any real reason to
> do so. Software updates almost never required a restart and they
> installed in seconds. The Windows machine was a typical Windows
> machine...
> People whose only computer experince is using Windows don't know
> how idignant they should be!

This is, in my view, one of the few legitimate "major gripes" about Windows.
Its memory management is atrocious. Though I can sometimes go two or three
weeks before having to restart it, the system gradually slows down as the
swapfile expands to an unreasonable size, and memory becomes so "clogged"
that programs will crash for no obvious reason.

Would that a restart were required only once a year.

The designers either didn't/don't care, or assume all users shut down at
night and restart in the morning. My machine is on all the time.

[Bill Graham]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> This one is very nice: http://techreport.com/articles.x/5054
>
> I doubt that it's "zippy" in any sense of the word (other than
> cosmetic).
>
> Once you've typed on an IBM computer keyboard, you're never really
> happy with anything else.

The old electric typewriter keyboards had what they called a, "restoring
bail", that came up as soon as you hit a key and pushed that key (and all
the other keys) back up where they relatched. The operator felt this restore
action, and it gave their keyboards a feel that they liked. Part of the
reason for this was that they had a good positive feedback that they had
actually hit a key and the machine knew it and responded to it. Also, it was
impossible to hit more than one key at a time. The keyboards they have
today, (like the one I am typing on right now) do not have this, "action". I
can hit two keys at the same time, and it frequently types both characters
when I do so......

[Bill Graham]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >,
> William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>> "Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> This one is very nice: http://techreport.com/articles.x/5054
>>
>> I doubt that it's "zippy" in any sense of the word (other than
>> cosmetic).
>>
>> Once you've typed on an IBM computer keyboard, you're never really
>> happy with anything else.
>
> And see, the sad thing is that when the IBM PC came out, everybody
> made fun of the crappy keyboard on it. The key feel was not very
> good, and
> a lot of the keys (like the control key) were in weird places. Jerry
> Pournelle wrote in Byte complaining about "how can the people who
> came up with the Selectric make something so lousy?" Everyone
> compared it to the (much nicer) IBM 3270 and IBM 3101 terminal
> keyboards.
>
> What is sad is how much lower our standards for keyboard quality have
> dropped since then.
> --scott

Yes, but you could still take a selectric keyboard, with a restoring bail
and adapt it to a computer. Then you would have the best of both worlds.

[Bill Graham]

Neil Gould wrote:
> DeeAa wrote:
>>
>> I think the biggest difference, however is not in w7 / Xp difference
>> in general although w7 clearly boots much faster - the overall
>> greatest change probably came from the old system being 32bit and the
>> new OS is 64bit.
>>
> I think the biggest difference is that Vista & w7 take better
> advantage of multi-core processors than XP or earlier, so some
> OS-level tasks run much faster.

I have a friend who is a software engineer who says that the Windows
operating system is defective because it has a, "single point of failure"
(as he puts it.) He says the "registry" is this point.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Bill Graham" > wrote in message
...

> Yes, but you could still take a Selectric keyboard, with a restoring
> bail and adapt it to a computer. Then you would have the best of both
> worlds.

I don't know what you mean by a "restoring bail".

The IBM computer keyboards used a spring that moved fairly easily, then
developed higher resistance. The "feel" is utterly different from a
Selectric keyboard. The former gives a great deal of feedback, whereas the
Selectric has almost none.

[Bill Graham]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Bill Graham" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Yes, but you could still take a Selectric keyboard, with a restoring
>> bail and adapt it to a computer. Then you would have the best of both
>> worlds.
>
> I don't know what you mean by a "restoring bail".
>
> The IBM computer keyboards used a spring that moved fairly easily,
> then developed higher resistance. The "feel" is utterly different
> from a Selectric keyboard. The former gives a great deal of feedback,
> whereas the Selectric has almost none.

The keyboards that I worked on back in the 60's, had keys that latched, and
tripped when you depressed a key. As soon as you did this, a restoring bail
came up (two solonoids at either end brought it up) and it relatched all the
keys on the keyboard, which would remain latched unless and until you
deporessed another key. All the electric typewriters that IBM made had this
restoring bail, so they all had this feel to them.

[bob[_5_]]

On Thu, 19 May 2011 10:58:30 +0200, "Meindert Sprang"
> wrote:

>A MacBook Pro is not even twice as expensive as a hi-end "windows" laptop.
>OS X compares in price to Windows 7, although an OS X upgrade can be bought
>for 1/5 of the price of a Windows upgrade.
>
>Yet, there is a world of difference in stability in favour of the OS X.....
>With the difference in revenues and market share between Microsoft and Apple
>in favour of MS, one should expect that Windows would be more stable than OS
>X.

i'm a total rookie hobbyist, but i've been involved in 4
computer-based recording sessions. 2 protools on macs and 2 windows
(plus my mostly successful windows tinkering for years...) and the
macs messed up big time both times (once losing an entire day somehow)
and the windows machines were perfect. i think that stability thing is
from machine to machine. not mac more than pc or necessarily vice
versa either... but i'm glad yours works well. i haven't been able to
crash my xp machine in almost 6 years now.

just my 2 cents... and also related have any other windoze pc types
tried mac keyboards? i bought a mac usb keyboard and absolutely love
it. it works perfectly with the winxp machine... definitely my
favourite thing about macs.

just an observation, one really odd thing about macs is that whenever
people have problems with them, they update twitter and facebook about
it. i've never seen a facebook update about someone's pc hardrive
failing. is it just me? or have others noticed this?

[david correia]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Trevor" > wrote in message
> u
> > "Meindert Sprang" > wrote in
> > message ...
> >> A MacBook Pro is not even twice as expensive as a hi-end
> >> "windows" laptop.
> >
> > Considering they are almost identical hardware wise, that
> > is a complete rip off however. And the Mac die-hards
> > can't even say how much better their Motorola CPU's are
> > than Intel any more! :-)
>
> Yes, at this point a Mac is just a PC with a very limited amount of options
> for hardware, particularly on the system board.


You're conveniently omitting what's always made a Mac a Mac: the OS.

It's like comparing Android Pads with iPads. The hardware ain't that
different. But the OS sure is.

And speaking of limited options, is there a PC vendor shipping
Thunderbolt I/O, FireWire 800 & USB 2 standard or who's portable case is
milled from a solid piece of aluminum?

These are standard in current MacBooks, except for the previous gen
white Macbook still shipping. And the audio in and out is both digital
and analog. Standard.

Limited indeed.

(Even the tiny MacBook Air will be adding a Thunderbolt port next month.
The Air doesn't have digital audio in/out or FW 'tho. It's made to be
tiny.)


You guys are welcome to rub each other on the back and together sing
your songs of love for your PC's. But don't try and say that today, all
computers are the same. They are the same the way all cars are the same.

I personally know more than a few long-time Window's users who are
buying Macs. I bet you guys do too. The reason is simple: well made
computers, the local Apple Store, and OS X.

My brother in law, who makes his living installing huge PC networks all
over the country, a guy who always hated Macs, **** canned the HP's &
Dells and bought his wife and kids MacBooks. Something I would have
*never* imagined a few years ago.

Another brother in law, who also is a networking nerd, finally broke
down and bought his kids iPod Touches for Christmas. But he still hates
Apple & Macs ;> Said he won't buy an iPad until MSFT ships one.

We'll see ...




David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com




p.s. If I may - for decades now, I've wondered about some PC user's near
obsession with Macs. Cuz personally, I don't give a **** about PC's. I'm
happy with what I got. I don't care about a tons of things I don't own.
I don't care about boats. I don't care about European soccer, Arena
Football. I don't care about Behringer gear. Who's got the time?

It's always kinda reminded me of the famous Hindu story, the Ramayana.
In it, the enemy of Rama, a bad dude called Ravana, is always thinking
about Rama. Which of course makes him, in a bizarre way, a great devotee
of Rama.

[Trevor]

"david correia" > wrote in message
...
> You're conveniently omitting what's always made a Mac a Mac: the OS.

Right a VERY expensive flavour of Unix then.

Personally I don't give a **** about the operating system as long as the
software I need to use runs on it OK. The fact there is far more available
for Windows is a plus, as is the much lower hardware cost. What others
choose to pay for some notion of convenience to them is their own business
however.

Trevor.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

[restart required on some installations]

> This is, in my view, one of the few legitimate "major gripes" about
> Windows.

Much reduced, only driver updates and "run before log-on" services require
reboots now.

> Its memory management is atrocious.

There is a nifty lil' util that can tweak it to force unloading unused
..dll's, they are usually allowed to hang rouund after used because most
systems does tend to use them again, but if you are ram starved they DO clog
the system up.

> Though I can sometimes
> go two or three weeks before having to restart it, the system
> gradually slows down as the swapfile expands to an unreasonable size,

? - set it to no more than ram x 120% - or less even, with "enough ram"
disable or set to 512 megs.

> and memory becomes so "clogged" that programs will crash for no
> obvious reason.

Programs that crash may in fact be an error of the program, and not of the
OS.

> Would that a restart were required only once a year.

Had a guest engineeer @work yesterday, he told me about a NT4 server he had
been servicing, it had been running constantly without restart for 7 years
and had never been rebooted nor turned off since original installation.
Admittedly hobbyists boxes are a different ballgame, because they click on
web icons and install stuff they really know only the salestalk about.

> The designers either didn't/don't care, or assume all users shut down
> at night and restart in the morning. My machine is on all the time.

The last windows version that needed a daily reboot was win9x, the end of
the "95 and derivatives range". The NT range never did and all models are NT
derivatives now. It did suffer from annoying reboot requirements after any
install that necessitated re-reading the registry, but that is about fixed
by now, possibly because they learned from how the way their webserver
adjusts to changes in setup.

What problem do you solve by letting the box run 24-7? - are you on the low
side of the required CO2 release or something? - it has a lot of merit to
hibernate a box, but some boxes should indeed be turned off or left running,
but leaving them running requires that it solves a problem, otherwise it is
just senseless pollution.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Bill Graham wrote:

> Neil Gould wrote:

>> DeeAa wrote:

>>> I think the biggest difference, however is not in w7 / Xp difference
>>> in general although w7 clearly boots much faster - the overall
>>> greatest change probably came from the old system being 32bit and
>>> the new OS is 64bit.

>> I think the biggest difference is that Vista & w7 take better
>> advantage of multi-core processors than XP or earlier, so some
>> OS-level tasks run much faster.

> I have a friend who is a software engineer who says that the Windows
> operating system is defective because it has a, "single point of
> failure" (as he puts it.) He says the "registry" is this point.

It is fairly well protected so it is not really a "single point", it has
backup-versions, but yes, for a neat example of how to handle software
installation and setup AmigaOS comes to mind and yes, a win-box that has
registry corruption is not always recoverable unless you have what is
technically known as "A backup", at least of the "System Data".

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[William Sommerwerck]

"Bill Graham" > wrote in message
...

> The keyboards that I worked on back in the 60's, had keys that latched,
and
> tripped when you depressed a key. As soon as you did this, a restoring
bail
> came up (two solonoids at either end brought it up) and it relatched all
the
> keys on the keyboard, which would remain latched unless and until you
> deporessed another key. All the electric typewriters that IBM made had
this
> restoring bail, so they all had this feel to them.

Interesting. That's new to me.

I assume that mechanism was needed to prevent the mechanism from moving the
"golf ball" until the previous character had been printed.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
k...

> The last Windows version that needed a daily reboot was win9x, the end of
> the "95 and derivatives range". The NT range never did and all models are
NT
> derivatives now. It did suffer from annoying reboot requirements after any
> install that necessitated re-reading the registry, but that is about fixed
> by now, possibly because they learned from how the way their webserver
> adjusts to changes in setup.

I'm running 2000 Pro -- which is an NT4 derivative. It's highly stable,
suffering only from a slot swap file enlargement that slows things down.

I normally have many applications running. Yesterday I so "abused" the OS
with heavy graphics processing that multiple programs hung and I had to
restart.

Microsoft has never paid sufficient attention to the problems of producing a
"crash-proof" machine that never (well, hardly ever) needs to be restarted.


> What problem do you solve by letting the box run 24-7? - are you
> on the low side of the required CO2 release or something?

It solves three problems. I never have to wait for the computer to boot. The
internal temperature is more stable. The hard drives do not have to start
and stop.

I am working on the assumption that (more-) constant temperature = better
reliability. The machine is nearly 11 years old, and I've no problems. (ASUS
P4T motherboard, by the way. My next motherboard will be ASUS.)

[Meindert Sprang]

"Trevor" > wrote in message
u...
>
> "Meindert Sprang" > wrote in message
> ...
> > A MacBook Pro is not even twice as expensive as a hi-end "windows"
laptop.
>
> Considering they are almost identical hardware wise, that is a complete
rip
> off however. And the Mac die-hards can't even say how much better their
> Motorola CPU's are than Intel any more! :-)

I don't know if it is a real rip-off, but I do know that the mechanical
construction of a MacBook is far better than the average high-end laptop.
And of course, you pay for the style of the beast. They are flatter, last
longer and better build quality. So although they're more expensive, it's a
good investment. I'm not a Mac die-hard, I use Windows PC's as well, but
comparing both worlds on a day to day basis makes me believe Macs *are* of
better quality.

> > OS X compares in price to Windows 7, although an OS X upgrade can be
> > bought
> > for 1/5 of the price of a Windows upgrade.
>
> And a dozen other flavours of Linux for the PC are free!

I know, but think of the price of Linux when all developers were paid...
therefore I deliberately left Linux out of this comparison.

> But hey, we all get to spend our own money
> however we want, no need to convince yourself that you made the best
choice
> unless you really think you might not have :-)

True. To each his own truth :-)

Meindert

[Meindert Sprang]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> IME Windows XP and 7 are utterly reliable provided that you have decent
> hardware software and drivers runing on or under them.

Might be true... In my experience (my kids laptops), XP was crap and Win &
is much better. Same hardware. Wether that may be caused by a better driver
set in Win 7, I don't know. But the fact is, they're not complaining anymore
about windows grinding to a halt after a few months which I saw a lot with
XP. Not on every PC but very often on laptops.

> I have friends and relatives with Macs and they seem to spend at last as
> much time, but a lot more money on broken hardware as I do.

Mmm... different experience here. I just replaced my battery after 4 years
of every day use. No other faults.

Meindert

[Meindert Sprang]

"Les Cargill" > wrote in message
...
> Meindert Sprang wrote:
> > "Frank > wrote in message
> <snip>
> >
> > Yet, there is a world of difference in stability in favour of the OS
X.....
> > With the difference in revenues and market share between Microsoft and
Apple
> > in favour of MS, one should expect that Windows would be more stable
than OS
> > X.
> >
>
> Money cannot buy stability. This being said, I've had XP systems that
> showed stability comparable to Linux.

True. But money well spent on decent software engineers can. It's just where
you put your priorities as a company. Time-to-market and biggest market
share or good quality... If your PHB says: ship this code and you know
there are bugs, what do you do?

Meindert

[Mike Rivers]

On 5/19/2011 2:26 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> And see, the sad thing is that when the IBM PC came out, everybody made
> fun of the crappy keyboard on it. The key feel was not very good, and
> a lot of the keys (like the control key) were in weird places.

The high end word processor at the time was the IBM Displaywriter and
the original PC keyboard was designed to feel like the one n the
Displaywriter.

> Pournelle wrote in Byte complaining about "how can the people who came up
> with the Selectric make something so lousy?"

Remember that the QWERTY keyboard was designed to slow down typists so
the mechanism of a mechanical typewriter could keep up.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson

Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then

[Arny Krueger]

"david correia" > wrote in message

> In article
> >, "Arny
> Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Trevor" > wrote in message
>> u
>>> "Meindert Sprang" > wrote
>>> in message
>>> ...
>>>> A MacBook Pro is not even twice as expensive as a
>>>> hi-end "windows" laptop.
>>>
>>> Considering they are almost identical hardware wise,
>>> that is a complete rip off however. And the Mac
>>> die-hards can't even say how much better their Motorola
>>> CPU's are than Intel any more! :-)

>> Yes, at this point a Mac is just a PC with a very
>> limited amount of options for hardware, particularly on
>> the system board.

> You're conveniently omitting what's always made a Mac a
> Mac: the OS.

OS's are only really important to people who basically know only one.

Many of us who have been forced to wean themselves from their first love,
take 'em all with a grain of salt. They are not the same, but what really
matters is the apps.

> It's like comparing Android Pads with iPads. The hardware
> ain't that different. But the OS sure is.

Different, but how different and in which important ways?

> And speaking of limited options, is there a PC vendor
> shipping Thunderbolt I/O, FireWire 800 & USB 2 standard
> or who's portable case is milled from a solid piece of
> aluminum?

Who cares? Obviously, you've got one or more MacIntosh IVs plugged into
both arms. Once a Mac true believer, always a true believer, guess.

No USB3 support? Send it back!

> These are standard in current MacBooks, except for the
> previous gen white Macbook still shipping. And the audio
> in and out is both digital and analog. Standard.

They are probably all 2-channel, except maybe the digital output, right?

> Limited indeed.

Unlike many people I still count my change when I break a $20. One doesn't
get a lot of change back at the Mac store.

If you want to go the high end route, be my guest. Not my gig in life.

> (Even the tiny MacBook Air will be adding a Thunderbolt
> port next month. The Air doesn't have digital audio
> in/out or FW 'tho. It's made to be tiny.)

If you haven't noticed, Thunderbolt ports are Apple's new proprietary
gimmick. How long before M-Audio supports them?

The first question about Thundebolt on this forum is, how does it relate to
audio? I can't its speed having any audio purpose for audio as we now know
it.

> You guys are welcome to rub each other on the back and
> together sing your songs of love for your PC's. But don't
> try and say that today, all computers are the same. They
> are the same the way all cars are the same.

I've never said that all computers are the same, I'll leave you to burn with
that straw man. They are all different.

> I personally know more than a few long-time Window's
> users who are buying Macs. I bet you guys do too. The
> reason is simple: well made computers, the local Apple
> Store, and OS X.

> My brother in law, who makes his living installing huge
> PC networks all over the country, a guy who always hated
> Macs, **** canned the HP's & Dells and bought his wife
> and kids MacBooks. Something I would have *never*
> imagined a few years ago.

He must be rolling in the cash. Good for him.

> Another brother in law, who also is a networking nerd,
> finally broke down and bought his kids iPod Touches for
> Christmas. But he still hates Apple & Macs ;> Said he
> won't buy an iPad until MSFT ships one.

> We'll see ...


We've been through Apple crazes before. There was a big one after the
introduction of the Mac. Like many such things, it passed.

Apple has a good chance of being a one horse show, and that one horse's name
is Steve Jobs. Anybody looked at his medical records lately?

[Arny Krueger]

"Bill Graham" > wrote in message

> Neil Gould wrote:
>> DeeAa wrote:
>>>
>>> I think the biggest difference, however is not in w7 /
>>> Xp difference in general although w7 clearly boots much
>>> faster - the overall greatest change probably came from
>>> the old system being 32bit and the new OS is 64bit.

>> I think the biggest difference is that Vista & w7 take
>> better advantage of multi-core processors than XP or
>> earlier, so some OS-level tasks run much faster.

> I have a friend who is a software engineer who says that
> the Windows operating system is defective because it has
> a, "single point of failure" (as he puts it.) He says the
> "registry" is this point.

I'm trying to figure out what he wants. Does he want multiple, redundant
in-RAM registries? Why?

If you don't know, the registry on a Windows system that has been
operational for any amount of time has been backed up on disk many, many
times. The backups are mostly a little different, but only a little.

Redundant disk is readily available for windows, if that is what you want.

Is your friend really aware of his options?

[Neil Gould]

Bill Graham wrote:
> Neil Gould wrote:
>> DeeAa wrote:
>>>
>>> I think the biggest difference, however is not in w7 / Xp difference
>>> in general although w7 clearly boots much faster - the overall
>>> greatest change probably came from the old system being 32bit and
>>> the new OS is 64bit.
>>>
>> I think the biggest difference is that Vista & w7 take better
>> advantage of multi-core processors than XP or earlier, so some
>> OS-level tasks run much faster.
>
> I have a friend who is a software engineer who says that the Windows
> operating system is defective because it has a, "single point of
> failure" (as he puts it.) He says the "registry" is this point.
>
Considering that any component of hardware or software can fail at any given
time, the real "single point of failure" is the person that doesn't create a
backup. The registry is very easy to back up, as is the system configuration
and all relevant data. Doing so eliminates your friend's issue altogether.

--
Neil

[Scott Dorsey]

Bill Graham > wrote:
>Neil Gould wrote:
>> DeeAa wrote:
>>>
>>> I think the biggest difference, however is not in w7 / Xp difference
>>> in general although w7 clearly boots much faster - the overall
>>> greatest change probably came from the old system being 32bit and the
>>> new OS is 64bit.
>>>
>> I think the biggest difference is that Vista & w7 take better
>> advantage of multi-core processors than XP or earlier, so some
>> OS-level tasks run much faster.
>
>I have a friend who is a software engineer who says that the Windows
>operating system is defective because it has a, "single point of failure"
>(as he puts it.) He says the "registry" is this point.

That's an odd way of looking at it.

The real issue with using the registry to store the machine state is that
it duplicates other information which is also stored in the filesystem.
When they get out of synch, all kinds of evil things happen.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...

>> Pournelle wrote in Byte complaining "How can the people
>> who came up with the Selectric make something so lousy?"

Jerry must have been a "sissy-Selectric" typist -- not a real man, who used
a Smith-Corona.


> Remember that the QWERTY keyboard was designed to slow
> down typists so the mechanism of a mechanical typewriter could
> keep up.

I'm not sure I understand your response. But...

1. You used to be able to get Dvorak keyboards. Or the OS would permit
remapping your existing keyboard's output.

2. A Selectric /is/ a mechanical typewriter. So are electric typewriters. So
are daisy-wheel typewriters.

3. A Selectric has different mechanical limitations than a typebar
typewriter. The principal one is that the ball has to return to its "home"
position before it can move again.
One would assume that, if the keys are "unlocked" as soon as the ball
returns, then the optimum design of the ball's layout would put the
most-used letters as close as possible (in combined rotation and tilt) from
the home position.

[Neil Gould]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Bill Graham > wrote:
>> Neil Gould wrote:
>>> DeeAa wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think the biggest difference, however is not in w7 / Xp
>>>> difference in general although w7 clearly boots much faster - the
>>>> overall greatest change probably came from the old system being
>>>> 32bit and the new OS is 64bit.
>>>>
>>> I think the biggest difference is that Vista & w7 take better
>>> advantage of multi-core processors than XP or earlier, so some
>>> OS-level tasks run much faster.
>>
>> I have a friend who is a software engineer who says that the Windows
>> operating system is defective because it has a, "single point of
>> failure" (as he puts it.) He says the "registry" is this point.
>
> That's an odd way of looking at it.
>
> The real issue with using the registry to store the machine state is
> that it duplicates other information which is also stored in the
> filesystem. When they get out of synch, all kinds of evil things
> happen. --scott
>
I don't see any evidence that Windows' registry stores the machine state,
i.e. the transitory status of RAM contents or app functioning. Also, the
filesystem takes precedence over the registry for information that might be
considered duplicated, for example where things actually are located on a
disc.

As I see it, the biggest problem with the registry is that everybody's app
can write crap into it that doesn't get maintained or cleaned up when the
app is updated or uninstalled. The better PC makers know this, and provide a
way to back up the registry and create restore points every time a new app
is installed, but the savvy user can do this whenever they want.

--
best,

Neil

[William Sommerwerck]

"Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message
...
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
> ...

>>> What problem do you solve by letting the box run 24-7? - are you
>>> on the low side of the required CO2 release or something?

>> It solves three problems. I never have to wait for the computer to boot.
>> The internal temperature is more stable. The hard drives do not have
>> to start and stop.

> > I am working on the assumption that (more-) constant temperature =
>> better reliability. The machine is nearly 11 years old, and I've no
>> problems. (ASUS P4T motherboard, by the way. My next motherboard
>> will be ASUS.)

> William,
> You should treat yourself to a new system. ASUS has an "upper class"
> of desktop motherboard that use all-organic electros. Win7 has a new
> low power state that it wakes up from in ~8 seconds.

I need a new machine, if only to run newer software that doesn't run under
W2K. * Alas, I have no money. I'm doing contract work right now, and if my
condo association is willing to hold off foreclosing for unpaid fees,
perhaps I'll get a new one.

What do you mean by "all-organic electros"? Regardless, I intend to get a
machine with an SSD for the operating system. (The rest can be conventional
disk drives.)

* I considered installing W7 on this machine, but decided that the general
obsolescence of the hardware didn't justify it. And it can't hurt to have a
backup machine.


> Different component parts of the computer respond differently to your
> strategy:
> 1. The solder joints love it.
> 2. The semiconductor junctions in the CPU and RAM slowly diffuse.
> At one point, power-on life of RAM was thought to be 7 years.
> 3. The hard drives are happy.
> 4. The electrolytics hate it. Many of the bypass capacitors on the boards
> are redundant, so if you inspect the motherboard, you might be surprised
to
> find some of them are already bulging.

Just looked. (I leave the side cover off, for easy access to the backup hard
drive.) Don't see any bulges.

I never intended to keep the computer more than about 10 years. I got a lot
of good service out of this motherboard.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Meindert Sprang wrote:
> "Les > wrote in message
> ...
>> Meindert Sprang wrote:
>>> "Frank > wrote in message
>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Yet, there is a world of difference in stability in favour of the OS
> X.....
>>> With the difference in revenues and market share between Microsoft and
> Apple
>>> in favour of MS, one should expect that Windows would be more stable
> than OS
>>> X.
>>>
>>
>> Money cannot buy stability. This being said, I've had XP systems that
>> showed stability comparable to Linux.
>
> True. But money well spent on decent software engineers can.

Emphasis "can". SFAIK, Brook's "Mythical Man Month" still holds, and
most software defects of any account have little to do with programming
per se. They have more to do with the ... political economy of things.

> It's just where
> you put your priorities as a company. Time-to-market and biggest market
> share or good quality... If your PHB says: ship this code and you know
> there are bugs, what do you do?
>

That depends on the bugs, you, the customer and the PHB.

> Meindert
>
>

--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

Neil Gould > wrote:
>> The real issue with using the registry to store the machine state is
>> that it duplicates other information which is also stored in the
>> filesystem. When they get out of synch, all kinds of evil things
>> happen.
>>
>I don't see any evidence that Windows' registry stores the machine state,
>i.e. the transitory status of RAM contents or app functioning. Also, the
>filesystem takes precedence over the registry for information that might be
>considered duplicated, for example where things actually are located on a
>disc.

The machine state is everything persistent about the machine. Not just
the CPU state, not just the data in memory, but all parts of the machine
including the disks.

When you store stuff in two places at once, the chance for synchronization
issues exists, and that often happens.

>As I see it, the biggest problem with the registry is that everybody's app
>can write crap into it that doesn't get maintained or cleaned up when the
>app is updated or uninstalled. The better PC makers know this, and provide a
>way to back up the registry and create restore points every time a new app
>is installed, but the savvy user can do this whenever they want.

That's also a problem, but that's a problem with exists with filesystems as
well if you don't watch out.
--scott


"If you don't know what is wrong with the machine, tell them that it has
registry corruption. Because you'll never be wrong if you say that, and
it might actually have some bearing on the problem, you never know."
-- dave the IT guy
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Neil Gould]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Neil Gould > wrote:
>>> The real issue with using the registry to store the machine state is
>>> that it duplicates other information which is also stored in the
>>> filesystem. When they get out of synch, all kinds of evil things
>>> happen.
>>>
>> I don't see any evidence that Windows' registry stores the machine
>> state, i.e. the transitory status of RAM contents or app
>> functioning. Also, the filesystem takes precedence over the registry
>> for information that might be considered duplicated, for example
>> where things actually are located on a disc.
>
> The machine state is everything persistent about the machine. Not
> just the CPU state, not just the data in memory, but all parts of the
> machine including the disks.
>
Yes, I know that, I also know that Windows' registry doesn't store the CPU
state, data in memory, or hardware status info.

> When you store stuff in two places at once, the chance for
> synchronization issues exists, and that often happens.
>
While that is a generically true statement, I've not seen that problem occur
as a result of registry vs. filesystem information. OTOH, I have seen it as
a result of registry vs. application information, where the root of the
problem is that the application information is out of sync with the
registry. But, in such cases, it is usually the application or some action
by the user such as moving critical files that has screwed up. So, I'd add
that there are *more* than two places that critical information is kept,
since apps still use .ini files or the equivalent to store operational data.

--

Neil

[hank alrich]

david correia > wrote:

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > "Trevor" > wrote in message
> > u
> > > "Meindert Sprang" > wrote in
> > > message ...
> > >> A MacBook Pro is not even twice as expensive as a hi-end
> > >> "windows" laptop.
> > >
> > > Considering they are almost identical hardware wise, that
> > > is a complete rip off however. And the Mac die-hards
> > > can't even say how much better their Motorola CPU's are
> > > than Intel any more! :-)
> >
> > Yes, at this point a Mac is just a PC with a very limited amount of options
> > for hardware, particularly on the system board.
>
>
> You're conveniently omitting what's always made a Mac a Mac: the OS.
>
> It's like comparing Android Pads with iPads. The hardware ain't that
> different. But the OS sure is.
>
> And speaking of limited options, is there a PC vendor shipping
> Thunderbolt I/O, FireWire 800 & USB 2 standard or who's portable case is
> milled from a solid piece of aluminum?

Not to metnion that current Macs run Windows well, according to a
son-in-law who had his company get him the fastest Mac available last
year, because it ran Windows faster than any of the other PC's they'd
assembled for his work. (His company has little customers like Google,
Amazon, etc.)

> These are standard in current MacBooks, except for the previous gen
> white Macbook still shipping. And the audio in and out is both digital
> and analog. Standard.
>
> Limited indeed.
>
> (Even the tiny MacBook Air will be adding a Thunderbolt port next month.
> The Air doesn't have digital audio in/out or FW 'tho. It's made to be
> tiny.)
>
>
> You guys are welcome to rub each other on the back and together sing
> your songs of love for your PC's. But don't try and say that today, all
> computers are the same. They are the same the way all cars are the same.
>
> I personally know more than a few long-time Window's users who are
> buying Macs. I bet you guys do too. The reason is simple: well made
> computers, the local Apple Store, and OS X.
>
> My brother in law, who makes his living installing huge PC networks all
> over the country, a guy who always hated Macs, **** canned the HP's &
> Dells and bought his wife and kids MacBooks. Something I would have
> *never* imagined a few years ago.
>
> Another brother in law, who also is a networking nerd, finally broke
> down and bought his kids iPod Touches for Christmas. But he still hates
> Apple & Macs ;> Said he won't buy an iPad until MSFT ships one.
>
> We'll see ...
>
>
>
>
> David Correia
> www.Celebrationsound.com
>
>
>
>
> p.s. If I may - for decades now, I've wondered about some PC user's near
> obsession with Macs. Cuz personally, I don't give a **** about PC's. I'm
> happy with what I got. I don't care about a tons of things I don't own.
> I don't care about boats. I don't care about European soccer, Arena
> Football. I don't care about Behringer gear. Who's got the time?
>
> It's always kinda reminded me of the famous Hindu story, the Ramayana.
> In it, the enemy of Rama, a bad dude called Ravana, is always thinking
> about Rama. Which of course makes him, in a bizarre way, a great devotee
> of Rama.


--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[hank alrich]

Trevor > wrote:

> "david correia" > wrote in message
> ...
> > You're conveniently omitting what's always made a Mac a Mac: the OS.
>
> Right a VERY expensive flavour of Unix then.
>
> Personally I don't give a **** about the operating system as long as the
> software I need to use runs on it OK. The fact there is far more available
> for Windows is a plus, as is the much lower hardware cost. What others
> choose to pay for some notion of convenience to them is their own business
> however.
>
> Trevor.

As has been said, on the Windows side there are fifty thousand apps
you'll never use, while on the Mac side there are only ten thousand apps
you'll never use.

Since Macs now run Windows much of what applied to thoughts of app
shortages on the Mac side is no longer apt.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[david correia]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "david correia" > wrote in message
>
> > In article
> > >, "Arny
> > Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Trevor" > wrote in message
> >> u
> >>> "Meindert Sprang" > wrote
> >>> in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> A MacBook Pro is not even twice as expensive as a
> >>>> hi-end "windows" laptop.
> >>>
> >>> Considering they are almost identical hardware wise,
> >>> that is a complete rip off however. And the Mac
> >>> die-hards can't even say how much better their Motorola
> >>> CPU's are than Intel any more! :-)
>
> >> Yes, at this point a Mac is just a PC with a very
> >> limited amount of options for hardware, particularly on
> >> the system board.
>
> > You're conveniently omitting what's always made a Mac a
> > Mac: the OS.
>
> OS's are only really important to people who basically know only one.


Silly comment. What tiny group of people is that, 95% of the world's
population?


> Many of us who have been forced to wean themselves from their first love,
> take 'em all with a grain of salt. They are not the same, but what really
> matters is the apps.

Apps matter on Pads and Phones. Not so for computers.

Except for very specialized programs, Windows & OS X got what most folks
want. Which pretty much is MSFT Office, a browser, & email.

>
> > It's like comparing Android Pads with iPads. The hardware
> > ain't that different. But the OS sure is.
>
> Different, but how different and in which important ways?


One of them isn't beta software ;>


>
> > And speaking of limited options, is there a PC vendor
> > shipping Thunderbolt I/O, FireWire 800 & USB 2 standard
> > or who's portable case is milled from a solid piece of
> > aluminum?
>
> Who cares? Obviously, you've got one or more MacIntosh IVs plugged into
> both arms. Once a Mac true believer, always a true believer, guess.
>
> No USB3 support? Send it back!
>
> > These are standard in current MacBooks, except for the
> > previous gen white Macbook still shipping. And the audio
> > in and out is both digital and analog. Standard.
>
> They are probably all 2-channel, except maybe the digital output, right?
>
> > Limited indeed.
>
> Unlike many people I still count my change when I break a $20. One doesn't
> get a lot of change back at the Mac store.
>
> If you want to go the high end route, be my guest. Not my gig in life.
>
> > (Even the tiny MacBook Air will be adding a Thunderbolt
> > port next month. The Air doesn't have digital audio
> > in/out or FW 'tho. It's made to be tiny.)
>
> If you haven't noticed, Thunderbolt ports are Apple's new proprietary
> gimmick. How long before M-Audio supports them?


I thought you were up to speed on computer technology? ;> Thunderbolt is
not Apple's proprietary gimmick. It's Intel's.


>
> The first question about Thundebolt on this forum is, how does it relate to
> audio? I can't its speed having any audio purpose for audio as we now know
> it.

Thunderbolt is like having a 4x PCIe slot along with a whole buncha
other pluses that you plug in with a cable. No slot.

It's a mother****er for audio. Interfaces have been announced by Apogee
and Motu. Digi will be all over it, as PT 9 supports 3rd party
interfaces.

Portable computers will finally be able to do everything that today's
fully loaded, expensive Pro Tools HD systems can. And it will cost less.

>
> > You guys are welcome to rub each other on the back and
> > together sing your songs of love for your PC's. But don't
> > try and say that today, all computers are the same. They
> > are the same the way all cars are the same.
>
> I've never said that all computers are the same, I'll leave you to burn with
> that straw man. They are all different.
>
> > I personally know more than a few long-time Window's
> > users who are buying Macs. I bet you guys do too. The
> > reason is simple: well made computers, the local Apple
> > Store, and OS X.
>
> > My brother in law, who makes his living installing huge
> > PC networks all over the country, a guy who always hated
> > Macs, **** canned the HP's & Dells and bought his wife
> > and kids MacBooks. Something I would have *never*
> > imagined a few years ago.
>
> He must be rolling in the cash. Good for him.
>
> > Another brother in law, who also is a networking nerd,
> > finally broke down and bought his kids iPod Touches for
> > Christmas. But he still hates Apple & Macs ;> Said he
> > won't buy an iPad until MSFT ships one.
>
> > We'll see ...
>
>
> We've been through Apple crazes before. There was a big one after the
> introduction of the Mac. Like many such things, it passed.


C'mon. Apple has never remotely been the world's 2nd largest company by
valuation before. Not many companies have.


>
> Apple has a good chance of being a one horse show, and that one horse's name
> is Steve Jobs. Anybody looked at his medical records lately?


Jobs has sired a host of strong foals. Apple is now Macs, iPods,
iPhones, iPads, iTunes, AppStores, real stores, & who knows what's next.
Apple makes much more money today from iPhones than from Macs.

The question about Jobs is an interesting one. Many believe his dna has
been woven deeply into the company over the past 14 years, and that it
will stay strong well past him.

But fact of the matter is that in the world of technology, there is
always change. Google is making a big move. Facebook continues to grow.
It's part of what makes following tech so interesting.

Who woulda thunk when Jobs came back to Apple that it's stock valuation
would someday be the 2nd largest in the world, and well past MSFT?

Not me.




David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com

[Bill Graham]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Bill Graham" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> The keyboards that I worked on back in the 60's, had keys that
>> latched, and tripped when you depressed a key. As soon as you did
>> this, a restoring bail came up (two solonoids at either end brought
>> it up) and it relatched all the keys on the keyboard, which would
>> remain latched unless and until you deporessed another key. All the
>> electric typewriters that IBM made had this restoring bail, so they
>> all had this feel to them.
>
> Interesting. That's new to me.
>
> I assume that mechanism was needed to prevent the mechanism from
> moving the "golf ball" until the previous character had been printed.

Yes. I never worked on Selectrics. I was in the Data Processing Division,
and not the Typewriter Division. But I worked on keypunches and verifiers,
which had keyboards.
This was a very iunteresting era. Mechanics was slowly giving way to
electronics. I saw the demise of the one, and the introduction of the other.

[Bill Graham]

Neil Gould wrote:
> Bill Graham wrote:
>> Neil Gould wrote:
>>> DeeAa wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think the biggest difference, however is not in w7 / Xp
>>>> difference in general although w7 clearly boots much faster - the
>>>> overall greatest change probably came from the old system being
>>>> 32bit and the new OS is 64bit.
>>>>
>>> I think the biggest difference is that Vista & w7 take better
>>> advantage of multi-core processors than XP or earlier, so some
>>> OS-level tasks run much faster.
>>
>> I have a friend who is a software engineer who says that the Windows
>> operating system is defective because it has a, "single point of
>> failure" (as he puts it.) He says the "registry" is this point.
>>
> Considering that any component of hardware or software can fail at
> any given time, the real "single point of failure" is the person that
> doesn't create a backup. The registry is very easy to back up, as is
> the system configuration and all relevant data. Doing so eliminates
> your friend's issue altogether.

Next time I see him, I will ask him about this. I can't comment further,
because I am not familiar with the operating system.

[Trevor]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> As has been said, on the Windows side there are fifty thousand apps
> you'll never use, while on the Mac side there are only ten thousand apps
> you'll never use.

Right, a 500% better chance of finding the ones you will use! :-)

Of course some people never use anything other than a web browser, and even
OSX is far more than they need.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Meindert Sprang" > wrote in message
...
> I don't know if it is a real rip-off, but I do know that the mechanical
> construction of a MacBook is far better than the average high-end laptop.

Not on a dollar equivalent basis. In any case 80% of the hardware is the
same off the shelf parts as used by pretty much every computer. BUT if you
want a *truly* ruggedised case etc, there are quite a few PC's to choose
from and *NO* Mac's.


> And of course, you pay for the style of the beast. They are flatter, last
> longer and better build quality.

In your opinion, and compared to PC's half the price anyway. There are PC
clones FAR more heavy duty than anything Apple ever made, if that is what
you really need.


> So although they're more expensive, it's a
> good investment.

As I said, you are welcome to your choice, frankly all my computers were
absolete before I threw them away in the last 30 years, NONE were tossed
because they were "ïnferior build quality" and none were Mac's. I do know
others who have tossed their Mac's because they were no longer worth
repairing however. That is something that is FAR easier and cheaper to do
for most PC clones.


I>'m not a Mac die-hard, I use Windows PC's as well, but
> comparing both worlds on a day to day basis makes me believe Macs *are* of
> better quality.

The only Mac I own was given to me, and I've yet to find any appeal. But you
are welcome to your opinion.


>> > OS X compares in price to Windows 7, although an OS X upgrade can be
>> > bought
>> > for 1/5 of the price of a Windows upgrade.
>>
>> And a dozen other flavours of Linux for the PC are free!
>
> I know, but think of the price of Linux when all developers were paid...
> therefore I deliberately left Linux out of this comparison.

Doesn't seem like a valid reason to me. The ONLY reason I don't use it all
the time is not all software I want will work on it. And not all hardware
either. But then I have plenty of devices that don't support the Mac either.
Even my new GPS requires a PC to update the maps. Amazing how many companies
think Mac and Linux support is not worth their effort.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Meindert Sprang" > wrote in message
...
>> I have friends and relatives with Macs and they seem to spend at last as
>> much time, but a lot more money on broken hardware as I do.

Right, just like the original purchase cost, Mac repairs usually fetch more
money, as do any non PC standard parts. Even a memory backup battery for an
old Mac is about 5 times the price of a PC one here. And how about Mac
keyboards? You can get cheap PC ones for $4, not so Mac ones IME.


> Mmm... different experience here. I just replaced my battery after 4 years
> of every day use. No other faults.

And my 4 YO laptop still has the original battery, no faults whatsoever. It
was MUCH cheaper to buy than a Mac too, and has already paid for itself even
if I were to scrap it tomorrow. Probably to get the latest toy, rather than
because of failure though. Mac's become obsolete too, they just cost more to
replace.

Trevor

[Trevor]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> No USB3 support? Send it back!


Well the iPad's have NO USB ports at all !(or thunderbolt) And I really love
how Apple change interfaces more often than most people change socks, just
so they can sell you new peripherals every time you buy a new iPhone, iPad,
iPod, iMac etc. No shortage of iGullible people it seems.

> If you haven't noticed, Thunderbolt ports are Apple's new proprietary
> gimmick. How long before M-Audio supports them?

How long before anybody supports them and Apple changes to yet another
standard once again? The only thing you can hope for is that some third
party company provides cheap thunderbolt to USB and F/W adapters in the
meantime.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"david correia" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> OS's are only really important to people who basically know only one.
>
>
> Silly comment. What tiny group of people is that, 95% of the world's
> population?

Nope Far more than 5% don't know ANY!
But at least 5% of those who are computer literate can use more than one OS,
including nearly every western teenager alive!


> Apps matter on Pads and Phones. Not so for computers.

App(lication), program, a rose by any other name....
The apps/programs matter FAR more than the OS IMO, the OS job is simply to
run the programs on the hardware, nothing more.


> Except for very specialized programs, Windows & OS X got what most folks
> want. Which pretty much is MSFT Office, a browser, & email.

**** this is rec.audio.pro, I would assume most here have some use for an
audio editor at least! And nearly everyone is into photo editing or even
video editing these days.


>> > It's like comparing Android Pads with iPads. The hardware
>> > ain't that different. But the OS sure is.
>>
>> Different, but how different and in which important ways?
>
>
> One of them isn't beta software ;>

Which one is still Alpha then? :-)


> Thunderbolt is not Apple's proprietary gimmick. It's Intel's.

Right, but watch all PC clones that provide it include USB as well for the
forseeable future! Why can't Apple do that?
(Where's the thunderbolt port on an iPad BTW?)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> Not to metnion that current Macs run Windows

And PC's can run OSX too. They call them Hackintoshes. Not so much demand
though, must be more need to run Windows programs on a Mac than vice versa!
:-)

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

Trevor > wrote:
>"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
>> As has been said, on the Windows side there are fifty thousand apps
>> you'll never use, while on the Mac side there are only ten thousand apps
>> you'll never use.
>
>Right, a 500% better chance of finding the ones you will use! :-)
>
>Of course some people never use anything other than a web browser, and even
>OSX is far more than they need.

I pretty much spend my time only on the command line and mostly use the
regular command line tools. While the original OS9 had no command line
and "never would," OSX actually has an excellent set of shells available.

The Windows command line is pretty damn sad, although now that Windows 7
is coming with PowerShell, that actually is usable. A little weird, but
you can actually do work from it and use applications.

Part of what happened here is that Apple, with OSX, decided to throw
away support of legacy code in exchange for a far more elegant
redesign. Microsoft has so far avoided that although they're taking
a few tiny steps in that direction with Windows 7. Things are getting
better.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Trevor > wrote:
>"Meindert Sprang" > wrote in message
...
>> I don't know if it is a real rip-off, but I do know that the mechanical
>> construction of a MacBook is far better than the average high-end laptop.
>
>Not on a dollar equivalent basis. In any case 80% of the hardware is the
>same off the shelf parts as used by pretty much every computer. BUT if you
>want a *truly* ruggedised case etc, there are quite a few PC's to choose
>from and *NO* Mac's.

Actually, there are a couple of companies out there that take Macs and
built them into ruggedized field cases. I don't think any of them will
meet mil specs because they still don't use proper solder, but there is
a viable ruggedizing aftermarket out there.

>> And of course, you pay for the style of the beast. They are flatter, last
>> longer and better build quality.
>
>In your opinion, and compared to PC's half the price anyway. There are PC
>clones FAR more heavy duty than anything Apple ever made, if that is what
>you really need.

Yes, they're expensive too, though. Life is like that.

>Doesn't seem like a valid reason to me. The ONLY reason I don't use it all
>the time is not all software I want will work on it. And not all hardware
>either. But then I have plenty of devices that don't support the Mac either.
>Even my new GPS requires a PC to update the maps. Amazing how many companies
>think Mac and Linux support is not worth their effort.

It is very frustrating. I am currently running a data logging system whose
server runs Linux... but the Linux server can be configured only from an
application on a remote machine running Windows.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[david correia]

In article >,
"Trevor" > wrote:

> > Thunderbolt is not Apple's proprietary gimmick. It's Intel's.
>
> Right, but watch all PC clones that provide it include USB as well for the
> forseeable future! Why can't Apple do that?


Dude. Take a look on the back of the new Macbooks & iMacs:

Ethernet, Thunderbolt, Firewire 800, USB 2.0, SDXC Card slot and analog
and digital in and out.

Geez.

Speaking of the real world, this technology has been shipping since
February & it's still not available on any PC. HP just said they aren't
interested. Probably because it will cost them a couple extra dollars
per PC.



David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com

[hank alrich]

Trevor > wrote:

> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Not to metnion that current Macs run Windows
>
> And PC's can run OSX too. They call them Hackintoshes. Not so much demand
> though, must be more need to run Windows programs on a Mac than vice versa!
> :-)
>
> Trevor.

It's nowhere near likerunning Windows on a Mac, which requires no
hacking at all.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Meindert Sprang]

"Trevor" > wrote in message
u...
> "Meindert Sprang" > wrote in message
> ...
> Right, just like the original purchase cost, Mac repairs usually fetch
more
> money, as do any non PC standard parts. Even a memory backup battery for
an
> old Mac is about 5 times the price of a PC one here. And how about Mac
> keyboards? You can get cheap PC ones for $4, not so Mac ones IME.

I recently replaced my harddisk with a bigger one, just an ordinary harddisk
for 65 euro's, nothing special. I also added 1GB of memory, just an standard
SO DIMM.....
>
> > Mmm... different experience here. I just replaced my battery after 4
years
> > of every day use. No other faults.
>
> And my 4 YO laptop still has the original battery, no faults whatsoever.
It
> was MUCH cheaper to buy than a Mac too

Depends on your use. My ordinary Win laptop needed a new battery way sooner.
Same goes for the laptop of my son. But if you always run it from the power
supply, batteries could last for decades....

Meindert

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Actually, there are a couple of companies out there that take Macs and
> built them into ruggedized field cases. I don't think any of them will
> meet mil specs because they still don't use proper solder, but there is
> a viable ruggedizing aftermarket out there.
>
> Yes, they're expensive too, though. Life is like that.

Right, I''m betting on a similarly rugged PC clone still being cheaper than
a post ruggedised Mac. You don't have to pay for bits they throw away for a
start.


> It is very frustrating. I am currently running a data logging system
> whose
> server runs Linux... but the Linux server can be configured only from an
> application on a remote machine running Windows.

Yep, all to common unfortunately.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"david correia" > wrote in message
...
> Dude. Take a look on the back of the new Macbooks & iMacs:
>
> Ethernet, Thunderbolt, Firewire 800, USB 2.0, SDXC Card slot and analog
> and digital in and out.

OK, I'm glad Apple is finally giving consumers what they need in ONE of
their products at least. Except for USB3 anyway!


> Speaking of the real world, this technology has been shipping since
> February & it's still not available on any PC. HP just said they aren't
> interested. Probably because it will cost them a couple extra dollars
> per PC.

BFD, by the time peripherals are out there, and any demand from customers
actually arises, all the PC clones will start adding it. At the moment no
one cares.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
>> > Not to metnion that current Macs run Windows
>>
>> And PC's can run OSX too. They call them Hackintoshes. Not so much demand
>> though, must be more need to run Windows programs on a Mac than vice
>> versa!
>> :-)
>
> It's nowhere near likerunning Windows on a Mac, which requires no
> hacking at all.

Only because there is more demand from people willing to pay for it,
obviously there must be more need to do so!
I can't see how that is a good thing myself, but as I said everyone is
welcome to their own choices.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Meindert Sprang" > wrote in message
...
>> Right, just like the original purchase cost, Mac repairs usually fetch
> more
>> money, as do any non PC standard parts. Even a memory backup battery for
> an
>> old Mac is about 5 times the price of a PC one here. And how about Mac
>> keyboards? You can get cheap PC ones for $4, not so Mac ones IME.
>
> I recently replaced my harddisk with a bigger one, just an ordinary
> harddisk
> for 65 euro's, nothing special. I also added 1GB of memory, just an
> standard
> SO DIMM.....

Right, as I said LOTS of the parts are standard off the shelf bits and yet
a Mac still costs far more. Youre hardly justifying the Macs extra expense
here, or their dealers extra repair charges :-)
(Try replacing an iMac motherboard though and compare it to the cost of a PC
one :-(


> Depends on your use. My ordinary Win laptop needed a new battery way
> sooner.
> Same goes for the laptop of my son.

Right, and batteries for Macs are NO different, they use the same technology
and last about the same given identical usage patterns.
iPods actually have a reputation for batteries failing sooner than their
cheaper clones in fact, and still cost more to replace.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"david correia" > wrote in message
...
> I just bought 2 PRAM batteries for a couple ancient Macs for $6. Is that
> too much?

They are $15 in the shops here, compared to $2 or $3 for a PC one.


> Sorry, I don't know how you can make this blanket statement. A couple
> years ago, my son & I brought his well past warranty Macbook in to an
> Apple Store for repair, as it wouldn't boot. Because a component inside
> had proven over time to be problematic, & it was in their service data
> base, & even tho this was a couple years later, they fixed it for free.
> I was stunned. I still am. (Hey, I'm the dad, I'm the one paying ;>)

So am I, I know lots of unhappy iPod users with no such luck. But one
instance of good service is hardly a reason to pay twice as much for me.


> You think Best Buy woulda fixed that computer for free? If you think
> Dell woulda fixed their own box, punch 'Dell class action lawsuit' into
> Google. You won't know which one to start reading about.

Right no argument from me, but YOU think Apple is completely without unhappy
customers too. You are deluded.


>> And how about Mac
>> keyboards? You can get cheap PC ones for $4, not so Mac ones IME.
>
> Buddy. Just plug in your cheap ass PC kb. The Mac won't give a ****, as
> long as it's USB.

I have, but where is the Mac key, pretty essential for using a Mac I think.
At least a standard USB mouse works OK though.

Trevor.

[hank alrich]

Trevor > wrote:

> OK, I'm glad Apple is finally giving consumers what they need in ONE of
> their products at least. Except for USB3 anyway!

Given the rate at which Apple has been growing its computer market,
that's a very funny remark.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[hank alrich]

Trevor > wrote:

> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> > Not to metnion that current Macs run Windows
> >>
> >> And PC's can run OSX too. They call them Hackintoshes. Not so much demand
> >> though, must be more need to run Windows programs on a Mac than vice
> >> versa!
> >> :-)
> >
> > It's nowhere near likerunning Windows on a Mac, which requires no
> > hacking at all.
>
> Only because there is more demand from people willing to pay for it,
> obviously there must be more need to do so!
> I can't see how that is a good thing myself, but as I said everyone is
> welcome to their own choices.
>
> Trevor.

For those professional sound reinforcement buddies of mine who had been
hauling two laptops to cover the apps they needed for their live sound
work, it's a very big deal. Now they just carry the Mac and still run
all the apps they need. When I think about that for a minute I think I
see that there are now more apps for the Mac than for Windows, seeing as
how the Windows apps will run on a Mac.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Trevor]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
>> OK, I'm glad Apple is finally giving consumers what they need in ONE of
>> their products at least. Except for USB3 anyway!
>
> Given the rate at which Apple has been growing its computer market,
> that's a very funny remark.

In what way? They are still a small percentage of the PC market, and
everyone I know that has an iPad thinks it should have a USB port. And how
many Thunderbolt devices are available compared to USB3 anyway?
(Not that the iPad has that either!)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> For those professional sound reinforcement buddies of mine who had been
> hauling two laptops to cover the apps they needed for their live sound
> work, it's a very big deal.

Well I've never even owned a Mac laptop, and never missed it at all!


> Now they just carry the Mac and still run
> all the apps they need. When I think about that for a minute I think I
> see that there are now more apps for the Mac than for Windows, seeing as
> how the Windows apps will run on a Mac.

And as I said, the Mac apps will run on a PC, so what!

Trevor.

[david correia]

In article >,
"Trevor" > wrote:

>
> "david correia" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I just bought 2 PRAM batteries for a couple ancient Macs for $6. Is that
> > too much?
>
> They are $15 in the shops here, compared to $2 or $3 for a PC one.


Do they have Radio Shacks where you are?

>
>
> > Sorry, I don't know how you can make this blanket statement. A couple
> > years ago, my son & I brought his well past warranty Macbook in to an
> > Apple Store for repair, as it wouldn't boot. Because a component inside
> > had proven over time to be problematic, & it was in their service data
> > base, & even tho this was a couple years later, they fixed it for free.
> > I was stunned. I still am. (Hey, I'm the dad, I'm the one paying ;>)
>
> So am I, I know lots of unhappy iPod users with no such luck. But one
> instance of good service is hardly a reason to pay twice as much for me.
>
>
> > You think Best Buy woulda fixed that computer for free? If you think
> > Dell woulda fixed their own box, punch 'Dell class action lawsuit' into
> > Google. You won't know which one to start reading about.
>
> Right no argument from me, but YOU think Apple is completely without unhappy
> customers too. You are deluded.


I think Apple is completely without unhappy customers??? Wow. I must be
pretty ****ing stupid, eh?



> >> And how about Mac
> >> keyboards? You can get cheap PC ones for $4, not so Mac ones IME.
> >
> > Buddy. Just plug in your cheap ass PC kb. The Mac won't give a ****, as
> > long as it's USB.
>
> I have, but where is the Mac key, pretty essential for using a Mac I think.
> At least a standard USB mouse works OK though.
>
> Trevor.


What the hell is the Mac key??? Even Google didn't know what it was.

Hey Trevor, love your PC 24/7. And enjoy rooting against everything
designed in Cupertino. Heck, I hated MSFT for a long time. I used to
hate the NY Yankees but now I just don't like them. I gotta admit, I
even like the new Bill Gates. Never thought that would happen.

But here on rap, don't pretend that when it comes to Macs, that you know
very much. Other than you really don't like them.





David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com

[John Williamson]

david correia wrote:
(Apple keyboards)
>
>
> What the hell is the Mac key??? Even Google didn't know what it was.
>
Officially, it's called the Command Key:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apple_Modifier_Keys.jpg

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Steve King]

"david correia" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Trevor" > wrote:
>
>>
>> "david correia" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > I just bought 2 PRAM batteries for a couple ancient Macs for $6. Is
>> > that
>> > too much?
>>
>> They are $15 in the shops here, compared to $2 or $3 for a PC one.
>
>
> Do they have Radio Shacks where you are?
>
>>
>>
>> > Sorry, I don't know how you can make this blanket statement. A couple
>> > years ago, my son & I brought his well past warranty Macbook in to an
>> > Apple Store for repair, as it wouldn't boot. Because a component inside
>> > had proven over time to be problematic, & it was in their service data
>> > base, & even tho this was a couple years later, they fixed it for free.
>> > I was stunned. I still am. (Hey, I'm the dad, I'm the one paying ;>)
>>
>> So am I, I know lots of unhappy iPod users with no such luck. But one
>> instance of good service is hardly a reason to pay twice as much for me.
>>
>>
>> > You think Best Buy woulda fixed that computer for free? If you think
>> > Dell woulda fixed their own box, punch 'Dell class action lawsuit' into
>> > Google. You won't know which one to start reading about.
>>
>> Right no argument from me, but YOU think Apple is completely without
>> unhappy
>> customers too. You are deluded.
>
>
> I think Apple is completely without unhappy customers??? Wow. I must be
> pretty ****ing stupid, eh?
>
>
>
>> >> And how about Mac
>> >> keyboards? You can get cheap PC ones for $4, not so Mac ones IME.
>> >
>> > Buddy. Just plug in your cheap ass PC kb. The Mac won't give a ****, as
>> > long as it's USB.
>>
>> I have, but where is the Mac key, pretty essential for using a Mac I
>> think.
>> At least a standard USB mouse works OK though.
>>
>> Trevor.
>
>
> What the hell is the Mac key??? Even Google didn't know what it was.
>
> Hey Trevor, love your PC 24/7. And enjoy rooting against everything
> designed in Cupertino. Heck, I hated MSFT for a long time. I used to
> hate the NY Yankees but now I just don't like them. I gotta admit, I
> even like the new Bill Gates. Never thought that would happen.
>
> But here on rap, don't pretend that when it comes to Macs, that you know
> very much. Other than you really don't like them.
>
>
>
>
>
> David Correia
> www.Celebrationsound.com

Recent research found that Mac afficianados, when thinking about their Macs,
cause the same parts of their brains to 'light up' as do, when very
religious people contemplate their God. Read it in the news paper last
week. Don't recall the cite. Just sayin'. I particularly think about
these things at my video editor's place when he has to re-boot after an FCP
crash and when he had to replace a generic DVD drive ($38 on line) at Apple
authorized repair at a cost of $400. To me all computers are just tools and
all inspire me to want to beat them with a ball bat about equally.

Steve King

[david correia]

In article >,
"Steve King" > wrote:

> "david correia" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Trevor" > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "david correia" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > I just bought 2 PRAM batteries for a couple ancient Macs for $6. Is
> >> > that
> >> > too much?
> >>
> >> They are $15 in the shops here, compared to $2 or $3 for a PC one.
> >
> >
> > Do they have Radio Shacks where you are?
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> > Sorry, I don't know how you can make this blanket statement. A couple
> >> > years ago, my son & I brought his well past warranty Macbook in to an
> >> > Apple Store for repair, as it wouldn't boot. Because a component inside
> >> > had proven over time to be problematic, & it was in their service data
> >> > base, & even tho this was a couple years later, they fixed it for free.
> >> > I was stunned. I still am. (Hey, I'm the dad, I'm the one paying ;>)
> >>
> >> So am I, I know lots of unhappy iPod users with no such luck. But one
> >> instance of good service is hardly a reason to pay twice as much for me.
> >>
> >>
> >> > You think Best Buy woulda fixed that computer for free? If you think
> >> > Dell woulda fixed their own box, punch 'Dell class action lawsuit' into
> >> > Google. You won't know which one to start reading about.
> >>
> >> Right no argument from me, but YOU think Apple is completely without
> >> unhappy
> >> customers too. You are deluded.
> >
> >
> > I think Apple is completely without unhappy customers??? Wow. I must be
> > pretty ****ing stupid, eh?
> >
> >
> >
> >> >> And how about Mac
> >> >> keyboards? You can get cheap PC ones for $4, not so Mac ones IME.
> >> >
> >> > Buddy. Just plug in your cheap ass PC kb. The Mac won't give a ****, as
> >> > long as it's USB.
> >>
> >> I have, but where is the Mac key, pretty essential for using a Mac I
> >> think.
> >> At least a standard USB mouse works OK though.
> >>
> >> Trevor.
> >
> >
> > What the hell is the Mac key??? Even Google didn't know what it was.
> >
> > Hey Trevor, love your PC 24/7. And enjoy rooting against everything
> > designed in Cupertino. Heck, I hated MSFT for a long time. I used to
> > hate the NY Yankees but now I just don't like them. I gotta admit, I
> > even like the new Bill Gates. Never thought that would happen.
> >
> > But here on rap, don't pretend that when it comes to Macs, that you know
> > very much. Other than you really don't like them.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > David Correia
> > www.Celebrationsound.com
>
> Recent research found that Mac afficianados, when thinking about their Macs,
> cause the same parts of their brains to 'light up' as do, when very
> religious people contemplate their God. Read it in the news paper last
> week. Don't recall the cite. Just sayin'. I particularly think about
> these things at my video editor's place when he has to re-boot after an FCP
> crash and when he had to replace a generic DVD drive ($38 on line) at Apple
> authorized repair at a cost of $400. To me all computers are just tools and
> all inspire me to want to beat them with a ball bat about equally.
>
> Steve King



Ever see the Apple Store they built on the Upper West Side in NYC? Looks
like a Crystal Cathedral to me.

Hey, both sides have their lit up users. Make that 3 sides if you add
Linux. Sometimes in this forum - and against my better judgement I might
add - I'll call out some really blatant bull****.

As time goes on, more and more people don't give a fig about what other
people use. Which is as it should be. I wish someday we could say the
same about religion.

No way of course. Kumbaya.



David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Steve King wrote:
> "david > wrote in message
> ...
>> In >,
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "david > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> I just bought 2 PRAM batteries for a couple ancient Macs for $6. Is
>>>> that
>>>> too much?
>>>
>>> They are $15 in the shops here, compared to $2 or $3 for a PC one.
>>
>>
>> Do they have Radio Shacks where you are?
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Sorry, I don't know how you can make this blanket statement. A couple
>>>> years ago, my son& I brought his well past warranty Macbook in to an
>>>> Apple Store for repair, as it wouldn't boot. Because a component inside
>>>> had proven over time to be problematic,& it was in their service data
>>>> base,& even tho this was a couple years later, they fixed it for free.
>>>> I was stunned. I still am. (Hey, I'm the dad, I'm the one paying ;>)
>>>
>>> So am I, I know lots of unhappy iPod users with no such luck. But one
>>> instance of good service is hardly a reason to pay twice as much for me.
>>>
>>>
>>>> You think Best Buy woulda fixed that computer for free? If you think
>>>> Dell woulda fixed their own box, punch 'Dell class action lawsuit' into
>>>> Google. You won't know which one to start reading about.
>>>
>>> Right no argument from me, but YOU think Apple is completely without
>>> unhappy
>>> customers too. You are deluded.
>>
>>
>> I think Apple is completely without unhappy customers??? Wow. I must be
>> pretty ****ing stupid, eh?
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> And how about Mac
>>>>> keyboards? You can get cheap PC ones for $4, not so Mac ones IME.
>>>>
>>>> Buddy. Just plug in your cheap ass PC kb. The Mac won't give a ****, as
>>>> long as it's USB.
>>>
>>> I have, but where is the Mac key, pretty essential for using a Mac I
>>> think.
>>> At least a standard USB mouse works OK though.
>>>
>>> Trevor.
>>
>>
>> What the hell is the Mac key??? Even Google didn't know what it was.
>>
>> Hey Trevor, love your PC 24/7. And enjoy rooting against everything
>> designed in Cupertino. Heck, I hated MSFT for a long time. I used to
>> hate the NY Yankees but now I just don't like them. I gotta admit, I
>> even like the new Bill Gates. Never thought that would happen.
>>
>> But here on rap, don't pretend that when it comes to Macs, that you know
>> very much. Other than you really don't like them.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> David Correia
>> www.Celebrationsound.com
>
> Recent research found that Mac afficianados, when thinking about their Macs,
> cause the same parts of their brains to 'light up' as do, when very
> religious people contemplate their God. Read it in the news paper last
> week. Don't recall the cite. Just sayin'.

Well, if I read Jobs right, he pretty much built
the company to do that very thing.

That's impressive. Doesn't work on me, though. If
you can build something that inspires rapturous joy, you done
something...

> I particularly think about
> these things at my video editor's place when he has to re-boot after an FCP
> crash and when he had to replace a generic DVD drive ($38 on line) at Apple
> authorized repair at a cost of $400. To me all computers are just tools and
> all inspire me to want to beat them with a ball bat about equally.
>

I maintain a scornful sort of rational ignorance
about Macs :) Costs too much to join the club....

> Steve King
>
>

--
Les Cargill

[david correia]

In article >,
Les Cargill > wrote:

> > I particularly think about
> > these things at my video editor's place when he has to re-boot after an FCP
> > crash and when he had to replace a generic DVD drive ($38 on line) at Apple
> > authorized repair at a cost of $400. To me all computers are just tools and
> > all inspire me to want to beat them with a ball bat about equally.
> >
>
> I maintain a scornful sort of rational ignorance
> about Macs :) Costs too much to join the club....


Authorized or not, I have no idea who the guy paid $400 for a DVD drive,
but I can tell you it wasn't an Apple Store.

And I don't think ya need to be Einstein to realize the repair place is
****ing him. And I'm also sure that Best Buy repair departments nation
wide are ****ing lotsa PC (& Mac) users every day.





David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com

[Trevor]

"david correia" > wrote in message
...
>> They are $15 in the shops here, compared to $2 or $3 for a PC one.
>
> Do they have Radio Shacks where you are?

A mini version called Tandy, but they have little and are expensive too, as
are the rest of the electronic stores. Non Apple computer shops here are FAR
cheaper for everything computer related, and I bet even YOU don't buy hard
drives, memory sticks etc for your Mac from a genuine Apple approved
retailer do you? :-)


> I think Apple is completely without unhappy customers??? Wow. I must be
> pretty ****ing stupid, eh?

If so then yes.


> What the hell is the Mac key??? Even Google didn't know what it was.

I guess that would be the command key then, and the PC control key doesn't
work.


> Hey Trevor, love your PC 24/7.

Not at all. There are far better computers than PC clones OR anything Apple
has ever built!


> But here on rap, don't pretend that when it comes to Macs, that you know
> very much. Other than you really don't like them.

Right, I said that all along. What YOU still haven't shown is the reason I
should pay twice as much for a Mac just because you prefer them? YOU seem to
be the one with blinkers IMO.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Steve King" > wrote in message
...
> Recent research found that Mac afficianados, when thinking about their
> Macs, cause the same parts of their brains to 'light up' as do, when very
> religious people contemplate their God.

Now that I can believe! And are as defensive as other religious zealots. :-(


> I particularly think about these things at my video editor's place when he
> has to re-boot after an FCP crash and when he had to replace a generic DVD
> drive ($38 on line) at Apple authorized repair at a cost of $400.

Every time I hear things like that it makes me glad I don't own one, but
then that's the reason why I don't in the first place. At least he could
have replaced it himself with a generic one in this case, not so with some
of the other parts however.


>To me all computers are just tools and all inspire me to want to beat them
>with a ball bat about equally.

Agreed. But when you do it's nice to know it only costs half as much to
replace! :-)

Trevor.

[Steve King]

"Trevor" > wrote in message
u...
>
> "Steve King" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Recent research found that Mac afficianados, when thinking about their
>> Macs, cause the same parts of their brains to 'light up' as do, when very
>> religious people contemplate their God.
>
> Now that I can believe! And are as defensive as other religious zealots.
> :-(
>
>
>> I particularly think about these things at my video editor's place when
>> he has to re-boot after an FCP crash and when he had to replace a generic
>> DVD drive ($38 on line) at Apple authorized repair at a cost of $400.
>
> Every time I hear things like that it makes me glad I don't own one, but
> then that's the reason why I don't in the first place. At least he could
> have replaced it himself with a generic one in this case, not so with some
> of the other parts however.

That's what happened. The $400 was a quote not from an Apple store, but an
'authorized' service shop. I wasn't there, so.... However, I did take the
G5 tower case apart and installed a Panasonic DVD burner that was on Apple's
list of okay models. The G5 case was a thing of beauty. Best engineered
case and internal wiring set up I've seen.

Steve King

[Arny Krueger]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> Trevor > wrote:
>
>> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> > Not to metnion that current Macs run Windows
>> >>
>> >> And PC's can run OSX too. They call them Hackintoshes. Not so much
>> >> demand
>> >> though, must be more need to run Windows programs on a Mac than vice
>> >> versa!
>> >> :-)
>> >
>> > It's nowhere near likerunning Windows on a Mac, which requires no
>> > hacking at all.
>>
>> Only because there is more demand from people willing to pay for it,
>> obviously there must be more need to do so!
>> I can't see how that is a good thing myself, but as I said everyone is
>> welcome to their own choices.
>>
>> Trevor.
>
> For those professional sound reinforcement buddies of mine who had been
> hauling two laptops to cover the apps they needed for their live sound
> work, it's a very big deal. Now they just carry the Mac and still run
> all the apps they need. When I think about that for a minute I think I
> see that there are now more apps for the Mac than for Windows, seeing as
> how the Windows apps will run on a Mac.

The statement that someone had to carry two PC laptops to cover the apps
they need to do live sound is generally incomprehensible. On the face of
it, it is patently absurd. But rather than dismissing this incredible,
unbeliveable claim out of hand, I'll patently wait for a reasonable
explanation. ;-)

What did he have, 2 386-SX laptops from the 1980s?

[hank alrich]

Arny Krueger > wrote:

> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Trevor > wrote:
> >
> >> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> > Not to metnion that current Macs run Windows
> >> >>
> >> >> And PC's can run OSX too. They call them Hackintoshes. Not so much
> >> >> demand
> >> >> though, must be more need to run Windows programs on a Mac than vice
> >> >> versa!
> >> >> :-)
> >> >
> >> > It's nowhere near likerunning Windows on a Mac, which requires no
> >> > hacking at all.
> >>
> >> Only because there is more demand from people willing to pay for it,
> >> obviously there must be more need to do so!
> >> I can't see how that is a good thing myself, but as I said everyone is
> >> welcome to their own choices.
> >>
> >> Trevor.
> >
> > For those professional sound reinforcement buddies of mine who had been
> > hauling two laptops to cover the apps they needed for their live sound
> > work, it's a very big deal. Now they just carry the Mac and still run
> > all the apps they need. When I think about that for a minute I think I
> > see that there are now more apps for the Mac than for Windows, seeing as
> > how the Windows apps will run on a Mac.
>
> The statement that someone had to carry two PC laptops to cover the apps
> they need to do live sound is generally incomprehensible.

One was a WIndows machine and the other was a Mac and the reality is
that in high end audio work there are applications and devices that are
specific tot the platform. Spectra Foo Complete runs only on the Mac,
for example. Some big system control apps run only on the PC side. Etc.

> On the face of
> it, it is patently absurd. But rather than dismissing this incredible,
> unbeliveable claim out of hand, I'll patently wait for a reasonable
> explanation. ;-)
>
> What did he have, 2 386-SX laptops from the 1980s?

On the face of it this is about an area of SR in which you are not
knowledgeable.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Arny Krueger]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>
>> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Trevor > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >> > Not to metnion that current Macs run Windows
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And PC's can run OSX too. They call them Hackintoshes. Not so much
>> >> >> demand
>> >> >> though, must be more need to run Windows programs on a Mac than
>> >> >> vice
>> >> >> versa!
>> >> >> :-)
>> >> >
>> >> > It's nowhere near likerunning Windows on a Mac, which requires no
>> >> > hacking at all.
>> >>
>> >> Only because there is more demand from people willing to pay for it,
>> >> obviously there must be more need to do so!
>> >> I can't see how that is a good thing myself, but as I said everyone
>> >> is
>> >> welcome to their own choices.
>> >>
>> >> Trevor.
>> >
>> > For those professional sound reinforcement buddies of mine who had been
>> > hauling two laptops to cover the apps they needed for their live sound
>> > work, it's a very big deal. Now they just carry the Mac and still run
>> > all the apps they need. When I think about that for a minute I think I
>> > see that there are now more apps for the Mac than for Windows, seeing
>> > as
>> > how the Windows apps will run on a Mac.

>> The statement that someone had to carry two PC laptops to cover the apps
>> they need to do live sound is generally incomprehensible.

> One was a WIndows machine and the other was a Mac and the reality is
> that in high end audio work there are applications and devices that are
> specific tot the platform. Spectra Foo Complete runs only on the Mac,
> for example. Some big system control apps run only on the PC side. Etc.

OK, so the guy couldn't bring himself to use a compatible windows app &
hardware that no doubt exists but somehow didn't suit his fancy. That's a
choice he gets to make, but its not due to any failing of windows. It's a
one in a hundred call.

There was this ticking clock, waiting for the app that only existed on one
platform to exist on both and allow him to pick one platform or the other.

This happens to a miniscule fraction of everybody in any paticular
occupation, including live sound. You probably have to be either unlucky or
very bull-headed to even get into these shoes.

>> On the face of
>> it, it is patently absurd. But rather than dismissing this incredible,
>> unbeliveable claim out of hand, I'll patently wait for a reasonable
>> explanation. ;-)

> On the face of it this is about an area of SR in which you are not
> knowledgeable.

As usual Hank, you are very full of your own wisdom, and can't imagine how
anybody else could be as smart as you.

I've known about SpectraFoo for the better part of a decade, even seen it
run live several times. Some Mac addict even made me look at the
pre-delivery announcment and to this day, I can't imagine what the
excitement is all about. As the story goes: no magic. I wonder how many
people have done live sound for all of their lives and somehow never done it
using a Mac?

[hank alrich]

Arny Krueger > wrote:

> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Arny Krueger > wrote:
> >
> >> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > Trevor > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> > Not to metnion that current Macs run Windows
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> And PC's can run OSX too. They call them Hackintoshes. Not so much
> >> >> >> demand
> >> >> >> though, must be more need to run Windows programs on a Mac than
> >> >> >> vice
> >> >> >> versa!
> >> >> >> :-)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It's nowhere near likerunning Windows on a Mac, which requires no
> >> >> > hacking at all.
> >> >>
> >> >> Only because there is more demand from people willing to pay for it,
> >> >> obviously there must be more need to do so!
> >> >> I can't see how that is a good thing myself, but as I said everyone
> >> >> is
> >> >> welcome to their own choices.
> >> >>
> >> >> Trevor.
> >> >
> >> > For those professional sound reinforcement buddies of mine who had been
> >> > hauling two laptops to cover the apps they needed for their live sound
> >> > work, it's a very big deal. Now they just carry the Mac and still run
> >> > all the apps they need. When I think about that for a minute I think I
> >> > see that there are now more apps for the Mac than for Windows, seeing
> >> > as
> >> > how the Windows apps will run on a Mac.
>
> >> The statement that someone had to carry two PC laptops to cover the apps
> >> they need to do live sound is generally incomprehensible.
>
> > One was a WIndows machine and the other was a Mac and the reality is
> > that in high end audio work there are applications and devices that are
> > specific tot the platform. Spectra Foo Complete runs only on the Mac,
> > for example. Some big system control apps run only on the PC side. Etc.
>
> OK, so the guy couldn't bring himself to use a compatible windows app &
> hardware that no doubt exists but somehow didn't suit his fancy.

Their "fancy" was o use the app and devices they considered the very
best in the field wor work worldwide. This is not something of which you
know anything, at all.

> That's a
> choice he gets to make, but its not due to any failing of windows. It's a
> one in a hundred call.
>
> There was this ticking clock, waiting for the app that only existed on one
> platform to exist on both and allow him to pick one platform or the other.
>
> This happens to a miniscule fraction of everybody in any paticular
> occupation, including live sound. You probably have to be either unlucky or
> very bull-headed to even get into these shoes.
>
> >> On the face of
> >> it, it is patently absurd. But rather than dismissing this incredible,
> >> unbeliveable claim out of hand, I'll patently wait for a reasonable
> >> explanation. ;-)
>
> > On the face of it this is about an area of SR in which you are not
> > knowledgeable.
>
> As usual Hank, you are very full of your own wisdom, and can't imagine how
> anybody else could be as smart as you.
>
> I've known about SpectraFoo for the better part of a decade, even seen it
> run live several times. Some Mac addict even made me look at the
> pre-delivery announcment and to this day, I can't imagine what the
> excitement is all about. As the story goes: no magic. I wonder how many
> people have done live sound for all of their lives and somehow never done it
> using a Mac?


--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[david correia]

In article >,
"Trevor" > wrote:

> > Hey Trevor, love your PC 24/7.
>
> Not at all. There are far better computers than PC clones OR anything Apple
> has ever built!
>

Far better? That's a laugh. Have you ever seen the inside of a Mac Pro???

And who makes a "far better" laptop? Do you know that 90% of all $1,000+
portables sold are Macs?

*All* Macbooks today, except for the older white model, are milled from
a solid piece of aluminum. Pretty incredible if you ask me. Especially
poignant is the fact that not a single PC maker has spent the big money
to be able to offer the same.

And of course, we ain't even talking OS's, which of course one can't
overlook. I'm sure you're happy with Windows. But very few would say
that Windows today is a better OS than OS X. Which is one of many
reasons why Ballmer is out there this week, traveling the world and
pounding the table about Windows 8.

MSFT actually had to issue a retraction of some of his claims, which is
quite bizarre. I'd guess that he will be a goner in a year or so. Which
imo would be good for you Windows guys.




David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com

[William Sommerwerck]

"david correia" > wrote in message
...

> And who makes a "far better" laptop? Do you know that 90%
> of all $1,000+ portables sold are Macs?

Given the relative market share, I doubt that, even allowing for the high
percentage of relatively cheap PC notebooks, and the generally higher prices
of Macs.

Do you have a reference?


> *All* Macbooks today, except for the older white model, are milled from
> a solid piece of aluminum. Pretty incredible if you ask me. Especially
> poignant is the fact that not a single PC maker has spent the big money
> to be able to offer the same.

There is only one Mac manufacturer, who competes with no one.


> And of course, we ain't even talking OS's, which of course one can't
> overlook. I'm sure you're happy with Windows. But very few would say
> that Windows today is a better OS than OS X. Which is one of many
> reasons why Ballmer is out there this week, traveling the world and
> pounding the table about Windows 8.

> MSFT actually had to issue a retraction of some of his claims, which is
> quite bizarre. I'd guess that he will be a goner in a year or so. Which
> IMO would be good for you Windows guys.

Ballmer isn't very bright. He fails to understand why Apple is such a
success. It isn't just that Apple lies through the teeth about its
products...

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> "david correia" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > And who makes a "far better" laptop? Do you know that 90%
> > of all $1,000+ portables sold are Macs?
>
> Given the relative market share, I doubt that, even allowing for the high
> percentage of relatively cheap PC notebooks, and the generally higher prices
> of Macs.
>
> Do you have a reference?
>
>
> > *All* Macbooks today, except for the older white model, are milled from
> > a solid piece of aluminum. Pretty incredible if you ask me. Especially
> > poignant is the fact that not a single PC maker has spent the big money
> > to be able to offer the same.
>
> There is only one Mac manufacturer, who competes with no one.

Apple competes with all other personal computer manufacturers, and with
M$ around the OS's. And it has been doing that well lately.

> > And of course, we ain't even talking OS's, which of course one can't
> > overlook. I'm sure you're happy with Windows. But very few would say
> > that Windows today is a better OS than OS X. Which is one of many
> > reasons why Ballmer is out there this week, traveling the world and
> > pounding the table about Windows 8.
>
> > MSFT actually had to issue a retraction of some of his claims, which is
> > quite bizarre. I'd guess that he will be a goner in a year or so. Which
> > IMO would be good for you Windows guys.
>
> Ballmer isn't very bright. He fails to understand why Apple is such a
> success. It isn't just that Apple lies through the teeth about its
> products...

Apple's products have worked as represented for me.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Bill Graham]

Les Cargill wrote:
> Some comedy show actually made a joke out of "my iPhone
> could stop a bullet" - one actually did (in a fictional
> fashion). So you never know :)

Sounds like Woody Allen's story about how his father gave him the family
bullet when he left home as a young man. "Here is the family bullet son. It
has been in our family for generations. Always keep it with you so it can
comfort you in times of stress." So, Woody put it in his breast pocket and
carried it with him always. Then, one day, an enraged preacher hurled a
bible at him, and it struck him in the chest. And, if it weren't for that
bullet, it would have killed him.....

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

david correia wrote:
> In >,
> > wrote:
>
>>> Hey Trevor, love your PC 24/7.
>>
>> Not at all. There are far better computers than PC clones OR anything Apple
>> has ever built!
>>
>
> Far better? That's a laugh. Have you ever seen the inside of a Mac Pro???
>
> And who makes a "far better" laptop? Do you know that 90% of all $1,000+
> portables sold are Macs?
>
> *All* Macbooks today, except for the older white model, are milled from
> a solid piece of aluminum. Pretty incredible if you ask me. Especially
> poignant is the fact that not a single PC maker has spent the big money
> to be able to offer the same.
>

That is actually fairly goofy :) Er, at least I can't think of a
good engineering reason for it, anyhoo. But see, you like that sort of
thing. That's what Apple appeals to.

Some comedy show actually made a joke out of "my iPhone
could stop a bullet" - one actually did (in a fictional
fashion). So you never know :)

> And of course, we ain't even talking OS's, which of course one can't
> overlook. I'm sure you're happy with Windows. But very few would say
> that Windows today is a better OS than OS X. Which is one of many
> reasons why Ballmer is out there this week, traveling the world and
> pounding the table about Windows 8.
>

I would say that Windows 7 is close enough to perfect for me. But I'm
kind of cast in amber around the year 2000 w.r.t. music computing,
anyway.

> MSFT actually had to issue a retraction of some of his claims, which is
> quite bizarre. I'd guess that he will be a goner in a year or so. Which
> imo would be good for you Windows guys.
>

Indeed. But the "Developers! Developers! Developers!"
might miss him : )

>
>
>
> David Correia
> www.Celebrationsound.com

--
Les Cargill

[hank alrich]

Les Cargill > wrote:

> david correia wrote:
> > In >,
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>> Hey Trevor, love your PC 24/7.
> >>
> >> Not at all. There are far better computers than PC clones OR anything Apple
> >> has ever built!
> >>
> >
> > Far better? That's a laugh. Have you ever seen the inside of a Mac Pro???
> >
> > And who makes a "far better" laptop? Do you know that 90% of all $1,000+
> > portables sold are Macs?
> >
> > *All* Macbooks today, except for the older white model, are milled from
> > a solid piece of aluminum. Pretty incredible if you ask me. Especially
> > poignant is the fact that not a single PC maker has spent the big money
> > to be able to offer the same.
> >
>
> That is actually fairly goofy :) Er, at least I can't think of a
> good engineering reason for it, anyhoo. But see, you like that sort of
> thing. That's what Apple appeals to.

Seems like such a chassis might be good at distributing and dissipating
heat.

> Some comedy show actually made a joke out of "my iPhone
> could stop a bullet" - one actually did (in a fictional
> fashion). So you never know :)
>
> > And of course, we ain't even talking OS's, which of course one can't
> > overlook. I'm sure you're happy with Windows. But very few would say
> > that Windows today is a better OS than OS X. Which is one of many
> > reasons why Ballmer is out there this week, traveling the world and
> > pounding the table about Windows 8.
> >
>
> I would say that Windows 7 is close enough to perfect for me. But I'm
> kind of cast in amber around the year 2000 w.r.t. music computing,
> anyway.
>
> > MSFT actually had to issue a retraction of some of his claims, which is
> > quite bizarre. I'd guess that he will be a goner in a year or so. Which
> > imo would be good for you Windows guys.
> >
>
> Indeed. But the "Developers! Developers! Developers!"
> might miss him : )
>
> >
> >
> >
> > David Correia
> > www.Celebrationsound.com
>
> --
> Les Cargill


--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[hank alrich]

Les Cargill > wrote:

> Yeah, could be. I'd bet it's more of an art statement, though.

Hey, it gives Sony something to do, trying to copy the look.

I got almost seven years out of my previous Mac laptop. If I hadn't
dropped it on the concrete floor of ABIA when the strap on the bag it
was in broke, I'd still be using it.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

hank alrich wrote:
> Les > wrote:
>
>> david correia wrote:
>>> In >,
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Hey Trevor, love your PC 24/7.
>>>>
>>>> Not at all. There are far better computers than PC clones OR anything Apple
>>>> has ever built!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Far better? That's a laugh. Have you ever seen the inside of a Mac Pro???
>>>
>>> And who makes a "far better" laptop? Do you know that 90% of all $1,000+
>>> portables sold are Macs?
>>>
>>> *All* Macbooks today, except for the older white model, are milled from
>>> a solid piece of aluminum. Pretty incredible if you ask me. Especially
>>> poignant is the fact that not a single PC maker has spent the big money
>>> to be able to offer the same.
>>>
>>
>> That is actually fairly goofy :) Er, at least I can't think of a
>> good engineering reason for it, anyhoo. But see, you like that sort of
>> thing. That's what Apple appeals to.
>
> Seems like such a chassis might be good at distributing and dissipating
> heat.
>

Yeah, could be. I'd bet it's more of an art statement, though.

>> Some comedy show actually made a joke out of "my iPhone
>> could stop a bullet" - one actually did (in a fictional
>> fashion). So you never know :)
>>
>>> And of course, we ain't even talking OS's, which of course one can't
>>> overlook. I'm sure you're happy with Windows. But very few would say
>>> that Windows today is a better OS than OS X. Which is one of many
>>> reasons why Ballmer is out there this week, traveling the world and
>>> pounding the table about Windows 8.
>>>
>>
>> I would say that Windows 7 is close enough to perfect for me. But I'm
>> kind of cast in amber around the year 2000 w.r.t. music computing,
>> anyway.
>>
>>> MSFT actually had to issue a retraction of some of his claims, which is
>>> quite bizarre. I'd guess that he will be a goner in a year or so. Which
>>> imo would be good for you Windows guys.
>>>
>>
>> Indeed. But the "Developers! Developers! Developers!"
>> might miss him : )
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> David Correia
>>> www.Celebrationsound.com
>>
>> --
>> Les Cargill
>
>

--
Les Cargill

[Trevor]

"david correia" > wrote in message
...
>> Not at all. There are far better computers than PC clones OR anything
>> Apple
>> has ever built!
>>
>
> Far better? That's a laugh. Have you ever seen the inside of a Mac Pro???

So you've never seen inside anything but toys, no surprise I guess.


> And who makes a "far better" laptop? Do you know that 90% of all $1,000+
> portables sold are Macs?

Nope, because that's a total load of bull**** I doub't even Apple would have
the nerve to claim.


> *All* Macbooks today, except for the older white model, are milled from
> a solid piece of aluminum. Pretty incredible if you ask me. Especially
> poignant is the fact that not a single PC maker has spent the big money
> to be able to offer the same.

Because a bit of solid aluminium doesn't make a PC any more reliable or
indestructable. There are in fact PC clones with carbon fibre cases if
that's what floats your boat. And military grade computers to put any
consumer Mac to shame. The case being only one minor part of what makes a
computer really rugged after all.


> And of course, we ain't even talking OS's, which of course one can't
> overlook. I'm sure you're happy with Windows.

It does the job for most of my purposes. The rest aren't done by OSX.


>But very few would say
> that Windows today is a better OS than OS X.


Or that OSX is the ultimate operating system. Other flavours of Unix are
just as good or better IMO. But then real computer users know what a command
line is, and how to write their own programs. :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "david correia" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> And who makes a "far better" laptop? Do you know that 90%
>> of all $1,000+ portables sold are Macs?
>
>
> Do you have a reference?

You're kidding right, he made it up and went way OTT!

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> Apple's products have worked as represented for me.

As have PC clones for many users. So what?

Trevor.

[William Sommerwerck]

>> *All* Macbooks today, except for the older white model, are milled
>> from a solid piece of aluminum. Pretty incredible if you ask me.
>> Especially poignant is the fact that not a single PC maker has
>> spent the big money to be able to offer the same.

> Because a bit of solid aluminium doesn't make a PC any more reliable
> or indestructable [sic]. There are in fact PC clones with carbon fibre
> cases, if that's what floats your boat. And military grade computers to
> put any consumer Mac to shame. The case being only one minor part
> of what makes a computer really rugged after all.

That's much too simplistic an answer.

A metal case has design and assembly advantages that partly offset the
(presumed) higher cost of manufacturing. And it provides RFI/EFI shielding
automatically.

With respect to damage from dropping... A plastic computer might survive a
drop, while a metal computer could be damaged beyond economical repair.

The nice thing about "good" plastics is that they flex and (often) absorb
energy without breaking. Metal can be dented or bent. And because metal is
less lossy than plastic, more of the energy from the drop passes through to
the guts. And... because metal products are often more massive, there is
more energy to be passed.

Some years ago, while getting out of my car, I dropped an Olympus ZLR on the
asphalt. The camera simply bounced, and continued working, without even any
cosmetic damage. I don't have any figures, but the consensus seems to be
that plastic-shelled cameras are less-likely to be damaged by bumps and
falls than metal cameras.

An SX-70 once fell from my rear jeans pocket and skidded across the
concrete. Nothing -- not even a scratch. (The original SX-70 was made of
glass-filled polysulfone plastic -- not stainless steel.)

This sturdiness might also apply to plastic-bodied computers. The particular
results depend on which plastics are used, how the case is designed, where
the internal components are located and how they're attached, etc.

Some metal-bodied products are extremely tough. About 25 years ago, an
"Audio" reviewer told how he deliberately dropped a Nagra from waist height
onto a concrete surface, while the machine was recording. (!!!) He said
there was no audible glitch. (There must have been /some/ cosmetic damage,
but he didn't say. As the Nagra was a "take it out and bang it around"
product, scratches and even small dents probably wouldn't have been
considered important.)

[hank alrich]

Trevor > wrote:

> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "david correia" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >> And who makes a "far better" laptop? Do you know that 90%
> >> of all $1,000+ portables sold are Macs?
> >
> >
> > Do you have a reference?
>
> You're kidding right, he made it up and went way OTT!
>
> Trevor.

No, he wasn't kidding.

http://tinyurl.com/ly5o24


--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[hank alrich]

Trevor > wrote:

> "david correia" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Not at all. There are far better computers than PC clones OR anything
> >> Apple
> >> has ever built!
> >>
> >
> > Far better? That's a laugh. Have you ever seen the inside of a Mac Pro???
>
> So you've never seen inside anything but toys, no surprise I guess.
>
>
> > And who makes a "far better" laptop? Do you know that 90% of all $1,000+
> > portables sold are Macs?
>
> Nope, because that's a total load of bull**** I doub't even Apple would have
> the nerve to claim.

Here's your total load of bull****. Better get a shovel to clean your
mind.

http://tinyurl.com/ly5o24

> > *All* Macbooks today, except for the older white model, are milled from
> > a solid piece of aluminum. Pretty incredible if you ask me. Especially
> > poignant is the fact that not a single PC maker has spent the big money
> > to be able to offer the same.
>
> Because a bit of solid aluminium doesn't make a PC any more reliable or
> indestructable. There are in fact PC clones with carbon fibre cases if
> that's what floats your boat. And military grade computers to put any
> consumer Mac to shame. The case being only one minor part of what makes a
> computer really rugged after all.
>
>
> > And of course, we ain't even talking OS's, which of course one can't
> > overlook. I'm sure you're happy with Windows.
>
> It does the job for most of my purposes. The rest aren't done by OSX.
>
>
> >But very few would say
> > that Windows today is a better OS than OS X.
>
>
> Or that OSX is the ultimate operating system. Other flavours of Unix are
> just as good or better IMO. But then real computer users know what a command
> line is, and how to write their own programs. :-)
>
> Trevor.


--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[William Sommerwerck]

>>>> And who makes a "far better" laptop? Do you know
>>>> that 90% of all $1,000+ portables sold are Macs?

>>> Do you have a reference?

>> You're kidding right, he made it up and went way OTT!

> No, he wasn't kidding.
> http://tinyurl.com/ly5o24

If this is true, I suspect it's because a significant percentage of Mac
users buy a notebook as their only computer.

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> >>>> And who makes a "far better" laptop? Do you know
> >>>> that 90% of all $1,000+ portables sold are Macs?
>
> >>> Do you have a reference?
>
> >> You're kidding right, he made it up and went way OTT!
>
> > No, he wasn't kidding.
> > http://tinyurl.com/ly5o24
>
> If this is true, I suspect it's because a significant percentage of Mac
> users buy a notebook as their only computer.

I know lots of Macsters that have both, and plenty who have Windows
desktops and a Mac laptop. Obviously, Apple has been killing it in the
laptop arena for a while now, as shown by the data in their quarterly
earnings reports.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[david correia]

In article >,
"Trevor" > wrote:

> "david correia" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Not at all. There are far better computers than PC clones OR anything
> >> Apple
> >> has ever built!
> >>
> >
> > Far better? That's a laugh. Have you ever seen the inside of a Mac Pro???
>
> So you've never seen inside anything but toys, no surprise I guess.


Wow, the best you got is calling a Mac Pro a toy ...


>
> > And who makes a "far better" laptop? Do you know that 90% of all $1,000+
> > portables sold are Macs?
>
> Nope, because that's a total load of bull**** I doub't even Apple would have
> the nerve to claim.


Google it. Unlike you, I don't have to bull****.




David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com

[david correia]

In article >,
Les Cargill > wrote:

> hank alrich wrote:
> > Les > wrote:
> >
> >> david correia wrote:
> >>> In >,
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Hey Trevor, love your PC 24/7.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not at all. There are far better computers than PC clones OR anything
> >>>> Apple
> >>>> has ever built!
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Far better? That's a laugh. Have you ever seen the inside of a Mac Pro???
> >>>
> >>> And who makes a "far better" laptop? Do you know that 90% of all $1,000+
> >>> portables sold are Macs?
> >>>
> >>> *All* Macbooks today, except for the older white model, are milled from
> >>> a solid piece of aluminum. Pretty incredible if you ask me. Especially
> >>> poignant is the fact that not a single PC maker has spent the big money
> >>> to be able to offer the same.
> >>>
> >>
> >> That is actually fairly goofy :) Er, at least I can't think of a
> >> good engineering reason for it, anyhoo. But see, you like that sort of
> >> thing. That's what Apple appeals to.
> >
> > Seems like such a chassis might be good at distributing and dissipating
> > heat.
> >
>
> Yeah, could be. I'd bet it's more of an art statement, though.



From Apple: "MacBook*Pro is machined from a single piece of aluminum, an
engineering breakthrough that replaced many parts with just one. It¹s
called the unibody. And the first time you pick up a MacBook*Pro you¹ll
notice the difference it makes. The entire enclosure is thinner and
lighter than other notebooks. It looks polished and refined. And it
feels strong and durable "

Try bending, twisting or flexing a Macbook.

And with use, how do you think a solid piece of aluminum will age
compared to molded plastic?

Kinda obvious, eh?



What interesting is that Apple is not stopping here. Last year they
bought the exclusive computer rights to some new technology called
LiquidMetal.


http://gigaom.com/apple/apple-buys-exclusive-rights-metal-alloy-technolog
y/



It's only a matter of time before some that stuff shows up in one of
their products.





David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com

[hank alrich]

david correia > wrote:

> In article >,
> "Trevor" > wrote:
>
> > "david correia" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> Not at all. There are far better computers than PC clones OR anything
> > >> Apple
> > >> has ever built!
> > >>
> > >
> > > Far better? That's a laugh. Have you ever seen the inside of a Mac Pro???
> >
> > So you've never seen inside anything but toys, no surprise I guess.
>
>
> Wow, the best you got is calling a Mac Pro a toy ...
>
>
> >
> > > And who makes a "far better" laptop? Do you know that 90% of all $1,000+
> > > portables sold are Macs?
> >
> > Nope, because that's a total load of bull**** I doub't even Apple would have
> > the nerve to claim.
>
>
> Google it. Unlike you, I don't have to bull****.
>
>
>
>
> David Correia
> www.Celebrationsound.com

Funny! Trevor must be new here and without a clue about your history.

He seems to have a lot of opinions about Macs, and he also seems not to
have any experience with them. Interesting.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Arny Krueger]

"david correia" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Trevor" > wrote:
>
>> > Hey Trevor, love your PC 24/7.
>>
>> Not at all. There are far better computers than PC clones OR anything
>> Apple
>> has ever built!

> Far better? That's a laugh. Have you ever seen the inside of a Mac Pro???

> And who makes a "far better" laptop? Do you know that 90% of all $1,000+
> portables sold are Macs?

That is known as the McDonald's argument. A bit ironic in terms of
application, but always BS.

> *All* Macbooks today, except for the older white model, are milled from
> a solid piece of aluminum. Pretty incredible if you ask me. Especially
> poignant is the fact that not a single PC maker has spent the big money
> to be able to offer the same.

If you were a mechanical engineer you'd probably be more impressed by a
laptop that is built on a titanium frame, even if much of the case is
plastic. Ever look at a Panasonic Toughbook?

> And of course, we ain't even talking OS's, which of course one can't
> overlook. I'm sure you're happy with Windows. But very few would say
> that Windows today is a better OS than OS X.

The fact of the matter is that you have to be a mental parapalegic to not be
able to master the desktop of either of them.

> Which is one of many
> reasons why Ballmer is out there this week, traveling the world and
> pounding the table about Windows 8.

Balmer's *real* problem is the instutionalization of Microsoft. They are now
the General Motors of the IT world, which should scare the **#! put of
them.

[Arny Krueger]

"david correia" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Trevor" > wrote:
>
>> "david correia" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> Not at all. There are far better computers than PC clones OR anything
>> >> Apple
>> >> has ever built!
>> >>
>> >
>> > Far better? That's a laugh. Have you ever seen the inside of a Mac
>> > Pro???
>>
>> So you've never seen inside anything but toys, no surprise I guess.
>
>
> Wow, the best you got is calling a Mac Pro a toy ...

Compared to these:

http://www.panasonic.com/business/toughbook/toughbook-products.asp#/31:

http://www.cyberchron.com/pdf_files/lap_port/CRL-5100-CF.pdf

http://www.cyberchron.com/pdf_files/lap_port/crl5200.pdf

http://i.dell.com/sites/content/shared-content/solutions/en/Documents/Dell-Latitude-Rugged-Lineup-SalesAid-v12.pdf

http://content.dell.com/us/en/fedgov/fed-first-responder-rugged-solutions.aspx

http://www.industcomputing.com/PressReleases/Tablet_PressRelease.pdf

http://laptops.alege.net/Pelican-MIL-Spec-Rugged-MSCF34-PC-Notebook.html

Yeah.

[Trevor]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
>>> *All* Macbooks today, except for the older white model, are milled
>>> from a solid piece of aluminum. Pretty incredible if you ask me.
>>> Especially poignant is the fact that not a single PC maker has
>>> spent the big money to be able to offer the same.
>
>> Because a bit of solid aluminium doesn't make a PC any more reliable
>> or indestructable [sic]. There are in fact PC clones with carbon fibre
>> cases, if that's what floats your boat. And military grade computers to
>> put any consumer Mac to shame. The case being only one minor part
>> of what makes a computer really rugged after all.
>
> That's much too simplistic an answer.
>
> A metal case has design and assembly advantages that partly offset the
> (presumed) higher cost of manufacturing. And it provides RFI/EFI shielding
> automatically.

But the fact that *many* PC clone laptops also use aluminium cases means you
have that choice if that's what you want.


> With respect to damage from dropping... A plastic computer might survive a
> drop, while a metal computer could be damaged beyond economical repair.

Right, computers that are actually designed to stand abuse don't often use
metal cases, rather ABS/Polycarbonate, or even carbon fibre.
And internal shock proof construction is just as important, or more so.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> Trevor > wrote:
>
>> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "david correia" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> >> And who makes a "far better" laptop? Do you know that 90%
>> >> of all $1,000+ portables sold are Macs?
>> >
>> >
>> > Do you have a reference?
>>
>> You're kidding right, he made it up and went way OTT!
>>
>> Trevor.
>
> No, he wasn't kidding.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ly5o24


So who is "NPD", and what makes their claim gospel? They provide no data, or
even a source for any data. I will bet the figures are more like 80% Windows
share for laptops over $1k in Australia though, and 99% for those under 1K
:-)
But your link is not actual proof even for USA sales in any case IMO, not
even for 2009 when it was published!

The other figure of 8.7% for total Mac share is a lot more believeable
however! :-)
(Which says a lot more IMO.)

I would also believe Apple probably has 99% of the OSX market however! :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
>> Nope, because that's a total load of bull**** I doub't even Apple would
>> have
>> the nerve to claim.
>
> Here's your total load of bull****. Better get a shovel to clean your
> mind.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ly5o24

So you admit you are gullible enough to believe unsupported statistics with
no data and not even any source for any supposed data? And you post a link 2
years old, and claim that is proof of your current claim.
No surprise really I guess considering the rest of your claims.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> Funny! Trevor must be new here and without a clue about your history.
>
> He seems to have a lot of opinions about Macs, and he also seems not to
> have any experience with them. Interesting.

*ALL* I said was Mac's are overpriced, AND I admited to having little
experience with them because of it. YOU have still made NO case for why I
would want to pay twice as much to get that experience however!!!!


Trevor.

[Arny Krueger]

"david correia" > wrote in message
...

> *All* Macbooks today, except for the older white model, are milled from
> a solid piece of aluminum.


Really?

Here's what Apple says today:

http://www.apple.com/macbook/design.html

"It’s made of rugged polycarbonate that withstands the rough and tumble of
everyday life at school, at work, or while traveling. "

Since when are polycarbonate and aluminum the same thing?

It is true that Apple used to say that the MacBook was *machined* from a
piece of aluminun. Google's cache says: "MacBook Pro is machined from a
single piece of aluminum... "

I guess they changed their recipie which is of course well within their
rights. While polycarbonate isn't as impressive-sounding to some as
aluminum, it is a very fine material for the purpose.

Now about that word "machined". Machined can mean the use of any
metal-working machine from a milling machine to a punch press. They are all
standard metal-working machines, right?

If you read up on the details of the process *that they used to use*, the
first step was "extruding". Extruding involves a press and a die. IOW they
took a piece of aluminum and pressed on it with a die. Sounds to me like
stamping.

This is of course all moot in the cosmic scheme of things. I've never seen a
laptop fail because its case got bashed in, not to say that it couldn't
happen. What I see is laptops broken due to failure of parts within the
case, especially the hard drive (old age, random failure, excess shock??)
and mechanical damage to the LCD.

The most rugged commercial laptops in general use are, IME Panasonic
toughbooks. Their case seems to be ordinary PVC or something like it. The
titanium frame inside and the fact that the hard drive is shock mounted is
probably more relevant.

[Trevor]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "david correia" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> *All* Macbooks today, except for the older white model, are milled from
>> a solid piece of aluminum.
>
> Really?
>
> Here's what Apple says today:
>
> http://www.apple.com/macbook/design.html
>
> "It’s made of rugged polycarbonate that withstands the rough and tumble of
> everyday life at school, at work, or while traveling. "
>
> Since when are polycarbonate and aluminum the same thing?
>
> It is true that Apple used to say that the MacBook was *machined* from a
> piece of aluminun. Google's cache says: "MacBook Pro is machined from a
> single piece of aluminum... "
>
> I guess they changed their recipie which is of course well within their
> rights. While polycarbonate isn't as impressive-sounding to some as
> aluminum, it is a very fine material for the purpose.
>
> Now about that word "machined". Machined can mean the use of any
> metal-working machine from a milling machine to a punch press. They are
> all standard metal-working machines, right?
>
> If you read up on the details of the process *that they used to use*, the
> first step was "extruding". Extruding involves a press and a die. IOW they
> took a piece of aluminum and pressed on it with a die. Sounds to me like
> stamping.
>
> This is of course all moot in the cosmic scheme of things. I've never seen
> a laptop fail because its case got bashed in, not to say that it couldn't
> happen. What I see is laptops broken due to failure of parts within the
> case, especially the hard drive (old age, random failure, excess shock??)
> and mechanical damage to the LCD.
>
> The most rugged commercial laptops in general use are, IME Panasonic
> toughbooks. Their case seems to be ordinary PVC or something like it. The
> titanium frame inside and the fact that the hard drive is shock mounted is
> probably more relevant.


Right, a point I made previously. Even *IF* the Apple case was really
*machined* aluminium, (rather than simply stamped, pressed, extruded, or
plastic like many others) it's only because Apple and their users place more
importance on looks than the rest of us, and are happy to pay for it.

Trevor.

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor" > wrote in message
u...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...

>> "david correia" > wrote in message
>> ...

>>> *All* Macbooks today, except for the older white model, are milled from
>>> a solid piece of aluminum.

> Right, a point I made previously. Even *IF* the Apple case was really
> *machined* aluminium, (rather than simply stamped, pressed, extruded, or
> plastic like many others) it's only because Apple and their users place
> more importance on looks than the rest of us, and are happy to pay for it.

Note that the OP specifically said "milled" which apparently has always been
incorrect.

Those of us who keep an eye on the latest fad in audiophilia know about
those wonderful high end optical disc transports that feature the transport
from a $39.95 boom box lovingly ensconced in an objet d'art that was milled
from a solid billet of either aluminum or titanium. The audio high priests
tell me that anything less can't stop the RF from cell phones that tunnels
right in there and ruins the sound.

Audio high priest, laptop high priest, whatever. ;-)

[david correia]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>
> "david correia" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > *All* Macbooks today, except for the older white model, are milled from
> > a solid piece of aluminum.
>
>
> Really?
>
> Here's what Apple says today:
>
> http://www.apple.com/macbook/design.html
>
> "It’s made of rugged polycarbonate that withstands the rough and tumble of
> everyday life at school, at work, or while traveling. "
>
> Since when are polycarbonate and aluminum the same thing?
>


Geez. As Fletcher used to say, reading is fundamental. The older white
model is what you are quoting from. All of the other 5 models are
"Precision aluminum unibody."


http://www.apple.com/why-mac/compare/notebooks.html



> It is true that Apple used to say that the MacBook was *machined* from a
> piece of aluminun. Google's cache says: "MacBook Pro is machined from a
> single piece of aluminum... "
>
> I guess they changed their recipie which is of course well within their
> rights. While polycarbonate isn't as impressive-sounding to some as
> aluminum, it is a very fine material for the purpose.
>
> Now about that word "machined". Machined can mean the use of any
> metal-working machine from a milling machine to a punch press. They are all
> standard metal-working machines, right?
>
> If you read up on the details of the process *that they used to use*, the
> first step was "extruding". Extruding involves a press and a die. IOW they
> took a piece of aluminum and pressed on it with a die. Sounds to me like
> stamping.


Really, how hard is it to check what I am saying and not be the person
who sits in front of their computer, spins up a load of doodoo, and then
posts it??

Visit the Apple website - you won't get any cooties - and watch the
video. It's damn impressive. It's called "Watch the unibody video."

Lemme know when they show the stamping machine.






David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com

[david correia]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>
> "david correia" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Trevor" > wrote:
> >
> >> "david correia" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> Not at all. There are far better computers than PC clones OR anything
> >> >> Apple
> >> >> has ever built!
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Far better? That's a laugh. Have you ever seen the inside of a Mac
> >> > Pro???
> >>
> >> So you've never seen inside anything but toys, no surprise I guess.
> >
> >
> > Wow, the best you got is calling a Mac Pro a toy ...
>
> Compared to these:
>
> http://www.panasonic.com/business/toughbook/toughbook-products.asp#/31:
>
> http://www.cyberchron.com/pdf_files/lap_port/CRL-5100-CF.pdf
>
> http://www.cyberchron.com/pdf_files/lap_port/crl5200.pdf
>
> http://i.dell.com/sites/content/shared-content/solutions/en/Documents/Dell-Lat
> itude-Rugged-Lineup-SalesAid-v12.pdf
>
> http://content.dell.com/us/en/fedgov/fed-first-responder-rugged-solutions.aspx
>
> http://www.industcomputing.com/PressReleases/Tablet_PressRelease.pdf
>
> http://laptops.alege.net/Pelican-MIL-Spec-Rugged-MSCF34-PC-Notebook.html
>
> Yeah.



You think an 8 pound Panasonic Toughbook is far better than a Macbook?
For what, going to war?

And that second one on your list weighs 15 lbs. Sounds great. Looks like
something from the moon landing in 1969.

I'm afraid to look at the others.




David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com

[Trevor]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> Those of us who keep an eye on the latest fad in audiophilia know about
> those wonderful high end optical disc transports that feature the
> transport from a $39.95 boom box lovingly ensconced in an objet d'art that
> was milled from a solid billet of either aluminum or titanium. The audio
> high priests tell me that anything less can't stop the RF from cell phones
> that tunnels right in there and ruins the sound.
>
> Audio high priest, laptop high priest, whatever. ;-)

Actually the whole point is to make it match the decore of a $1Milion
mansion and the owners self image. Sound quality is very much a secondary
consideration. Same goes with Apple products in most cases, they present the
right image the buyer is after, and good luck to them. I sure couldn't give
a rats though.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"david correia" > wrote in message
...
>> > *All* Macbooks today, except for the older white model, are milled from
>> > a solid piece of aluminum.
>>
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> Here's what Apple says today:
>>
>> http://www.apple.com/macbook/design.html
>>
>> "It’s made of rugged polycarbonate that withstands the rough and tumble
>> of
>> everyday life at school, at work, or while traveling. "
>>
>> Since when are polycarbonate and aluminum the same thing?
>>
>
>
> Geez. As Fletcher used to say, reading is fundamental. The older white
> model is what you are quoting from. All of the other 5 models are
> "Precision aluminum unibody."


Right, and *ALL* of it is strictly Apple Marketing hype, so who gives a rats
arse besides Apple tragics?
Just what the hell is a "Precision aluminum unibody." anyway, and why should
I care?

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"david correia" > wrote in message
...
>
> You think an 8 pound Panasonic Toughbook is far better than a Macbook?
> For what, going to war?

So you also think the claim that an Apple laptop is somehow tougher than all
PC laptops is not only wrong but irrelevant to the majority of users! At
least we agree on something.

Trevor.

[Arny Krueger]

"david correia" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>>
>> "david correia" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Trevor" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "david correia" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >> Not at all. There are far better computers than PC clones OR
>> >> >> anything
>> >> >> Apple
>> >> >> has ever built!
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Far better? That's a laugh. Have you ever seen the inside of a Mac
>> >> > Pro???
>> >>
>> >> So you've never seen inside anything but toys, no surprise I guess.
>> >
>> >
>> > Wow, the best you got is calling a Mac Pro a toy ...
>>
>> Compared to these:
>>
>> http://www.panasonic.com/business/toughbook/toughbook-products.asp#/31:
>>
>> http://www.cyberchron.com/pdf_files/lap_port/CRL-5100-CF.pdf
>>
>> http://www.cyberchron.com/pdf_files/lap_port/crl5200.pdf
>>
>> http://i.dell.com/sites/content/shared-content/solutions/en/Documents/Dell-Lat
>> itude-Rugged-Lineup-SalesAid-v12.pdf
>>
>> http://content.dell.com/us/en/fedgov/fed-first-responder-rugged-solutions.aspx
>>
>> http://www.industcomputing.com/PressReleases/Tablet_PressRelease.pdf
>>
>> http://laptops.alege.net/Pelican-MIL-Spec-Rugged-MSCF34-PC-Notebook.html
>>
>> Yeah.

> You think an 8 pound Panasonic Toughbook is far better than a Macbook?
> For what, going to war?

Your mistake here is claiming that all Toughbooks weigh 8 pounds. The point
is that if one follows up on your claims for superior durability, that
superior durability is a just a figment of your imagination.

It is really hard to convince true believers that there is more to the world
than their own little hobby horse segment of it.

> And that second one on your list weighs 15 lbs. Sounds great. Looks like
> something from the moon landing in 1969.

> I'm afraid to look at the others.

What you should be afraid of is the false claims you made about all current
Macbooks are milled from a solid billet of aluminum. Never were. Apple says
so.

Here's exactly what you said:

"All* Macbooks today, except for the older white model, are milled from
a solid piece of aluminum. "

Correa, if you were a man you'd admit that you were wrong, instead of
picking at details and distorting the truth.

[Arny Krueger]

"david correia" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>>
>> "david correia" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > *All* Macbooks today, except for the older white model, are milled from
>> > a solid piece of aluminum.
>>
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> Here's what Apple says today:
>>
>> http://www.apple.com/macbook/design.html
>>
>> "It’s made of rugged polycarbonate that withstands the rough and tumble
>> of
>> everyday life at school, at work, or while traveling. "
>>
>> Since when are polycarbonate and aluminum the same thing?
>>
>
>
> Geez. As Fletcher used to say, reading is fundamental. The older white
> model is what you are quoting from. All of the other 5 models are
> "Precision aluminum unibody."

> http://www.apple.com/why-mac/compare/notebooks.html

>> It is true that Apple used to say that the MacBook was *machined* from a
>> piece of aluminun. Google's cache says: "MacBook Pro is machined from a
>> single piece of aluminum... "

>> I guess they changed their recipie which is of course well within their
>> rights. While polycarbonate isn't as impressive-sounding to some as
>> aluminum, it is a very fine material for the purpose.

>> Now about that word "machined". Machined can mean the use of any
>> metal-working machine from a milling machine to a punch press. They are
>> all
>> standard metal-working machines, right?

>> If you read up on the details of the process *that they used to use*, the
>> first step was "extruding". Extruding involves a press and a die. IOW
>> they
>> took a piece of aluminum and pressed on it with a die. Sounds to me like
>> stamping.

> Really, how hard is it to check what I am saying and not be the person
> who sits in front of their computer, spins up a load of doodoo, and then
> posts it??

I did it Correa, and I found that Apple doesn't back you up.

BTW, chew on this: There happen to be two Macbooks in my house. On top of
that, my adult childern who live in their own houses own seveal. Nice
enough products, but not the second coming.

Correa, Apple corrected their website, but apparently they can't correct
you. ;-)

> Visit the Apple website - you won't get any cooties - and watch the
> video. It's damn impressive. It's called "Watch the unibody video."

Been there, done that. That is exactly where I found the text I reproduced
above.

I found that you distorted Apple's previous description of their products
and also found that they now are telling a different story. Spin that!

> Lemme know when they show the stamping machine.

You've already been taken to the water and you didn't drink, Correa.

As if it mattered.

[david correia]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>
> "david correia" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "david correia" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "Trevor" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "david correia" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> Not at all. There are far better computers than PC clones OR
> >> >> >> anything
> >> >> >> Apple
> >> >> >> has ever built!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Far better? That's a laugh. Have you ever seen the inside of a Mac
> >> >> > Pro???
> >> >>
> >> >> So you've never seen inside anything but toys, no surprise I guess.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Wow, the best you got is calling a Mac Pro a toy ...
> >>
> >> Compared to these:
> >>
> >> http://www.panasonic.com/business/toughbook/toughbook-products.asp#/31:
> >>
> >> http://www.cyberchron.com/pdf_files/lap_port/CRL-5100-CF.pdf
> >>
> >> http://www.cyberchron.com/pdf_files/lap_port/crl5200.pdf
> >>
> >> http://i.dell.com/sites/content/shared-content/solutions/en/Documents/Dell-
> >> Lat
> >> itude-Rugged-Lineup-SalesAid-v12.pdf
> >>
> >> http://content.dell.com/us/en/fedgov/fed-first-responder-rugged-solutions.a
> >> spx
> >>
> >> http://www.industcomputing.com/PressReleases/Tablet_PressRelease.pdf
> >>
> >> http://laptops.alege.net/Pelican-MIL-Spec-Rugged-MSCF34-PC-Notebook.html
> >>
> >> Yeah.
>
> > You think an 8 pound Panasonic Toughbook is far better than a Macbook?
> > For what, going to war?
>
> Your mistake here is claiming that all Toughbooks weigh 8 pounds. The point
> is that if one follows up on your claims for superior durability, that
> superior durability is a just a figment of your imagination.
>
> It is really hard to convince true believers that there is more to the world
> than their own little hobby horse segment of it.
>
> > And that second one on your list weighs 15 lbs. Sounds great. Looks like
> > something from the moon landing in 1969.
>
> > I'm afraid to look at the others.
>
> What you should be afraid of is the false claims you made about all current
> Macbooks are milled from a solid billet of aluminum. Never were. Apple says
> so.
>
> Here's exactly what you said:
>
> "All* Macbooks today, except for the older white model, are milled from
> a solid piece of aluminum. "
>
> Correa, if you were a man you'd admit that you were wrong, instead of
> picking at details and distorting the truth.


http://www.apple.com/why-mac/compare/notebooks.html



David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com

[david correia]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>
> "david correia" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "david correia" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >> > *All* Macbooks today, except for the older white model, are milled from
> >> > a solid piece of aluminum.
> >>
> >>
> >> Really?
> >>
> >> Here's what Apple says today:
> >>
> >> http://www.apple.com/macbook/design.html
> >>
> >> "It’s made of rugged polycarbonate that withstands the rough and tumble
> >> of
> >> everyday life at school, at work, or while traveling. "
> >>
> >> Since when are polycarbonate and aluminum the same thing?
> >>
> >
> >
> > Geez. As Fletcher used to say, reading is fundamental. The older white
> > model is what you are quoting from. All of the other 5 models are
> > "Precision aluminum unibody."
>
> > http://www.apple.com/why-mac/compare/notebooks.html
>
> >> It is true that Apple used to say that the MacBook was *machined* from a
> >> piece of aluminun. Google's cache says: "MacBook Pro is machined from a
> >> single piece of aluminum... "
>
> >> I guess they changed their recipie which is of course well within their
> >> rights. While polycarbonate isn't as impressive-sounding to some as
> >> aluminum, it is a very fine material for the purpose.
>
> >> Now about that word "machined". Machined can mean the use of any
> >> metal-working machine from a milling machine to a punch press. They are
> >> all
> >> standard metal-working machines, right?
>
> >> If you read up on the details of the process *that they used to use*, the
> >> first step was "extruding". Extruding involves a press and a die. IOW
> >> they
> >> took a piece of aluminum and pressed on it with a die. Sounds to me like
> >> stamping.
>
> > Really, how hard is it to check what I am saying and not be the person
> > who sits in front of their computer, spins up a load of doodoo, and then
> > posts it??
>
> I did it Correa, and I found that Apple doesn't back you up.
>
> BTW, chew on this: There happen to be two Macbooks in my house. On top of
> that, my adult childern who live in their own houses own seveal. Nice
> enough products, but not the second coming.
>
> Correa, Apple corrected their website, but apparently they can't correct
> you. ;-)


Dealing with facts with you is like herding cats.

First of all, you spelled my name wrong.

Second, I said only one model Macbook is made of plastic, the remainder
are made from a solid piece of aluminum. You disagreed. Facts are a
stubborn thing:

http://www.apple.com/why-mac/compare/notebooks.html


Third of all, you said that Apple stamps their aluminum Macbooks, it
doesn't machine them. Which of course is bs.





David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com

[Trevor]

"david correia" > wrote in message
...
> Second, I said only one model Macbook is made of plastic, the remainder
> are made from a solid piece of aluminum. You disagreed. Facts are a
> stubborn thing:
>
> http://www.apple.com/why-mac/compare/notebooks.html
>

Sure are, where does it say there that "precision aluminium unibody" equals
your claim of "milled from a solid piece of aluminum."????

And where is your proof that it makes any difference to the performance or
durabilty in any case, or why anyone would want to pay extra, other than
they *personally* think it looks "cool"?

Me I'd take a precision titanium frame with shock protection plus ABS body
any day!

Trevor.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 21:42:35 -0400, david correia
> wrote:

>> "All* Macbooks today, except for the older white model, are milled from
>> a solid piece of aluminum. "
>>
>> Correa, if you were a man you'd admit that you were wrong, instead of
>> picking at details and distorting the truth.
>
>
>http://www.apple.com/why-mac/compare/notebooks.html
>
>

If Apple made their bodies by machining them from solid, they would
not still be in business today. I haven't seen the inside of a Mac
Book, but I would be prepared to put money on them being either cast
(injection moulded) or stamped.

d

[Trevor]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 21:42:35 -0400, david correia
> > wrote:
>>> "All* Macbooks today, except for the older white model, are milled from
>>> a solid piece of aluminum. "
>>>
>>> Correa, if you were a man you'd admit that you were wrong, instead of
>>> picking at details and distorting the truth.
>>
>>http://www.apple.com/why-mac/compare/notebooks.html
>
> If Apple made their bodies by machining them from solid, they would
> not still be in business today. I haven't seen the inside of a Mac
> Book, but I would be prepared to put money on them being either cast
> (injection moulded) or stamped.


Trouble is he has no idea what Apple mean by "precision aluminium unibody",
and nor does anyone else!
But the advertising speak sure works a treat on him, which is the whole
point of it.

Trevor.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

> On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 21:42:35 -0400, david correia
> > wrote:
>
> >> "All* Macbooks today, except for the older white model, are milled from
> >> a solid piece of aluminum. "
> >>
> >> Correa, if you were a man you'd admit that you were wrong, instead of
> >> picking at details and distorting the truth.
> >
> >
> >http://www.apple.com/why-mac/compare/notebooks.html
> >
> >
>
> If Apple made their bodies by machining them from solid, they would
> not still be in business today. I haven't seen the inside of a Mac
> Book, but I would be prepared to put money on them being either cast
> (injection moulded) or stamped.

Solid aluminum is extruded, then "goes through nine separate milling
operations." There's a video:

http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/design.html

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"david correia" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>>
>> "david correia" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> "david correia" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > "Trevor" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "david correia" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> Not at all. There are far better computers than PC clones OR
>> >> >> >> anything
>> >> >> >> Apple
>> >> >> >> has ever built!
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Far better? That's a laugh. Have you ever seen the inside of a
>> >> >> > Mac
>> >> >> > Pro???
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So you've never seen inside anything but toys, no surprise I guess.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Wow, the best you got is calling a Mac Pro a toy ...
>> >>
>> >> Compared to these:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.panasonic.com/business/toughbook/toughbook-products.asp#/31:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.cyberchron.com/pdf_files/lap_port/CRL-5100-CF.pdf
>> >>
>> >> http://www.cyberchron.com/pdf_files/lap_port/crl5200.pdf
>> >>
>> >> http://i.dell.com/sites/content/shared-content/solutions/en/Documents/Dell-
>> >> Lat
>> >> itude-Rugged-Lineup-SalesAid-v12.pdf
>> >>
>> >> http://content.dell.com/us/en/fedgov/fed-first-responder-rugged-solutions.a
>> >> spx
>> >>
>> >> http://www.industcomputing.com/PressReleases/Tablet_PressRelease.pdf
>> >>
>> >> http://laptops.alege.net/Pelican-MIL-Spec-Rugged-MSCF34-PC-Notebook.html
>> >>
>> >> Yeah.
>>
>> > You think an 8 pound Panasonic Toughbook is far better than a Macbook?
>> > For what, going to war?
>>
>> Your mistake here is claiming that all Toughbooks weigh 8 pounds. The
>> point
>> is that if one follows up on your claims for superior durability, that
>> superior durability is a just a figment of your imagination.
>>
>> It is really hard to convince true believers that there is more to the
>> world
>> than their own little hobby horse segment of it.
>>
>> > And that second one on your list weighs 15 lbs. Sounds great. Looks
>> > like
>> > something from the moon landing in 1969.
>>
>> > I'm afraid to look at the others.
>>
>> What you should be afraid of is the false claims you made about all
>> current
>> Macbooks are milled from a solid billet of aluminum. Never were. Apple
>> says
>> so.
>>
>> Here's exactly what you said:
>>
>> "All* Macbooks today, except for the older white model, are milled from
>> a solid piece of aluminum. "
>>
>> Correa, if you were a man you'd admit that you were wrong, instead of
>> picking at details and distorting the truth.

> http://www.apple.com/why-mac/compare/notebooks.html

The words "polycarbonate unibody" seem to be there, and you have yet to
support your claim that the aluminum frame is *milled*.

yada, yada, yada.

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor" > wrote in message
u...
>
> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 21:42:35 -0400, david correia
>> > wrote:
>>>> "All* Macbooks today, except for the older white model, are milled from
>>>> a solid piece of aluminum. "
>>>>
>>>> Correa, if you were a man you'd admit that you were wrong, instead of
>>>> picking at details and distorting the truth.
>>>
>>>http://www.apple.com/why-mac/compare/notebooks.html
>>
>> If Apple made their bodies by machining them from solid, they would
>> not still be in business today. I haven't seen the inside of a Mac
>> Book, but I would be prepared to put money on them being either cast
>> (injection moulded) or stamped.
>
>
> Trouble is he has no idea what Apple mean by "precision aluminium
> unibody", and nor does anyone else!
> But the advertising speak sure works a treat on him, which is the whole
> point of it.

Somehow, I'm far more impressed with the titanium frame and shock mounted
hard drive in even just the commercial grade Toughbooks. Obviously, you
can't get that trendy-thin look with any kind of effective shock mounting,
so it is reasonable to expect that Apple will never go there.

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (Don Pearce) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 21:42:35 -0400, david correia
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> "All* Macbooks today, except for the older white model, are milled
>> >> from
>> >> a solid piece of aluminum. "
>> >>
>> >> Correa, if you were a man you'd admit that you were wrong, instead of
>> >> picking at details and distorting the truth.
>> >
>> >
>> >http://www.apple.com/why-mac/compare/notebooks.html
>> >
>> >
>>
>> If Apple made their bodies by machining them from solid, they would
>> not still be in business today. I haven't seen the inside of a Mac
>> Book, but I would be prepared to put money on them being either cast
>> (injection moulded) or stamped.

> Solid aluminum is extruded, then "goes through nine separate milling
> operations." There's a video:

> http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/design.html

What you don't realize is that stamping generally involves cold flow of
metal AKA extruding.

FYI, most aluminum that is stamped is solid aluminum.

Furthermore, neither the word mill nor any forms of it appear on the cited
page. The word "machined" does.

Second time I've had to correct a Mac fanboy in just this thread for this
rather glaring error.

Apparently there's something about being head-over-heels in love with a Mac
that impacts one's ability to read and comprehend simple words like
*machine*. ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"david correia" > wrote in message
...

> Dealing with facts with you is like herding cats.

Back at you, Macfanboy.

> First of all, you spelled my name wrong.

Whine, whine, whine.

> Second, I said only one model Macbook is made of plastic, the remainder
> are made from a solid piece of aluminum. You disagreed.

Wrong. I'd call it a lie but that would presume potentially missing reading
comprehension on your part, whatever-your-name-is.

> Facts are a stubborn thing:

> http://www.apple.com/why-mac/compare/notebooks.html


You said *milled*, and that page says "machined". A simple fact that seem
to run and hide from.

Besides, I could hold a basic metal working class and inform you about the
difference between milling and drilling. Besdies, using a milling machine
to clean up a stamping is not antying like milling something out of a solid
piece of aluminum billet. One of the big clues you missed is that the
"solid piece of aluminum" that they machine the part out of is far thnner
than the finished piece.

> Third of all, you said that Apple stamps their aluminum Macbooks, it
> doesn't machine them. Which of course is bs.

Actually, I said no such thing.

What I said is:

"Now about that word "machined". Machined can mean the use of any
metal-working machine from a milling machine to a punch press. They are
all standard metal-working machines, right?"

I can see why you are so frustrated, whatever your name is: You can't read
simple English and what you know about metal working wouldn't cover the head
of a pin.

What is there about being a Macfanboy that ruins the brain?

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > (Don Pearce) wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 21:42:35 -0400, david correia
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> "All* Macbooks today, except for the older white model, are milled
> >> >> from
> >> >> a solid piece of aluminum. "
> >> >>
> >> >> Correa, if you were a man you'd admit that you were wrong, instead of
> >> >> picking at details and distorting the truth.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >http://www.apple.com/why-mac/compare/notebooks.html
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> If Apple made their bodies by machining them from solid, they would
> >> not still be in business today. I haven't seen the inside of a Mac
> >> Book, but I would be prepared to put money on them being either cast
> >> (injection moulded) or stamped.
>
> > Solid aluminum is extruded, then "goes through nine separate milling
> > operations." There's a video:
>
> > http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/design.html
>
> What you don't realize is that stamping generally involves cold flow of
> metal AKA extruding.
>
> FYI, most aluminum that is stamped is solid aluminum.
>
> Furthermore, neither the word mill nor any forms of it appear on the cited
> page. The word "machined" does.
>
> Second time I've had to correct a Mac fanboy in just this thread for this
> rather glaring error.
>
> Apparently there's something about being head-over-heels in love with a Mac
> that impacts one's ability to read and comprehend simple words like
> *machine*. ;-)

Watch the video.

Stephen

[Neil Gould]

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> What is there about being a Macfanboy that ruins the brain?
>
I think you have that backwards, Arny. It is Apple's excellent marketing
strategy that selects a population of users that is unaffected by facts.
Brilliant, IMO.

--
Neil

[John Williamson]

Arny Krueger wrote:

>>> Here's exactly what you (David Correia) said:
>>>
>>> "All* Macbooks today, except for the older white model, are milled from
>>> a solid piece of aluminum. "
>>>
>>> Correa, if you were a man you'd admit that you were wrong, instead of
>>> picking at details and distorting the truth.
>
>> http://www.apple.com/why-mac/compare/notebooks.html
>
> The words "polycarbonate unibody" seem to be there, and you have yet to
> support your claim that the aluminum frame is *milled*.
>
> yada, yada, yada.
>
Arny, "Polycarbonate unibody" refers only to the basic Macbook.
Aluminium is used for all the others according to the page you are
quoting. A video linked to a little way along the chain of marketing
links shows an aluminium ingot being turned into flat strip, which is
then cut to size and milled on a CNC milling machine. They don't show an
intermediate stamping operation, and the video seems to show a flat
strip being milled to its final form. Now, unless you are claiming that
Apple are provably lying in their promotional videos, then STFU, please.

Now, can we all just admit a Mac is just as much a computer as a PC (And
vice versa) and they can both be used to produce great sound, and get on
with life? The most important component of *any* musical instrument or
production is the soggy bit between the operators' ears, and that's not
going to change anytime soon. It's the buyer's money, and they have the
right to buy whatever they wish. I prefer PCs, but I know a lot of
people who prefer Macs. And iPhones over Windows Mobile or Android
phones and vice versa. I prefer Nokia phones, though.

Rant over......
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Steve King]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "david correia" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "david correia" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > In article >,
>>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> "david correia" > wrote in message
>>> >> ...
>>> >> > In article >,
>>> >> > "Trevor" > wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> "david correia" > wrote in message
>>> >> >> ...
>>> >> >> >> Not at all. There are far better computers than PC clones OR
>>> >> >> >> anything
>>> >> >> >> Apple
>>> >> >> >> has ever built!
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Far better? That's a laugh. Have you ever seen the inside of a
>>> >> >> > Mac
>>> >> >> > Pro???
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> So you've never seen inside anything but toys, no surprise I
>>> >> >> guess.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Wow, the best you got is calling a Mac Pro a toy ...
>>> >>
>>> >> Compared to these:
>>> >>
>>> >> http://www.panasonic.com/business/toughbook/toughbook-products.asp#/31:
>>> >>
>>> >> http://www.cyberchron.com/pdf_files/lap_port/CRL-5100-CF.pdf
>>> >>
>>> >> http://www.cyberchron.com/pdf_files/lap_port/crl5200.pdf
>>> >>
>>> >> http://i.dell.com/sites/content/shared-content/solutions/en/Documents/Dell-
>>> >> Lat
>>> >> itude-Rugged-Lineup-SalesAid-v12.pdf
>>> >>
>>> >> http://content.dell.com/us/en/fedgov/fed-first-responder-rugged-solutions.a
>>> >> spx
>>> >>
>>> >> http://www.industcomputing.com/PressReleases/Tablet_PressRelease.pdf
>>> >>
>>> >> http://laptops.alege.net/Pelican-MIL-Spec-Rugged-MSCF34-PC-Notebook.html
>>> >>
>>> >> Yeah.
>>>
>>> > You think an 8 pound Panasonic Toughbook is far better than a Macbook?
>>> > For what, going to war?
>>>
>>> Your mistake here is claiming that all Toughbooks weigh 8 pounds. The
>>> point
>>> is that if one follows up on your claims for superior durability, that
>>> superior durability is a just a figment of your imagination.
>>>
>>> It is really hard to convince true believers that there is more to the
>>> world
>>> than their own little hobby horse segment of it.
>>>
>>> > And that second one on your list weighs 15 lbs. Sounds great. Looks
>>> > like
>>> > something from the moon landing in 1969.
>>>
>>> > I'm afraid to look at the others.
>>>
>>> What you should be afraid of is the false claims you made about all
>>> current
>>> Macbooks are milled from a solid billet of aluminum. Never were. Apple
>>> says
>>> so.
>>>
>>> Here's exactly what you said:
>>>
>>> "All* Macbooks today, except for the older white model, are milled from
>>> a solid piece of aluminum. "
>>>
>>> Correa, if you were a man you'd admit that you were wrong, instead of
>>> picking at details and distorting the truth.
>
>> http://www.apple.com/why-mac/compare/notebooks.html
>
> The words "polycarbonate unibody" seem to be there, and you have yet to
> support your claim that the aluminum frame is *milled*.
>
> yada, yada, yada.

David and Arny.... you both have way too much time on your hands;-)
However, from a PC guy, me, a G5 case is a thing of beauty. Short of
dropping it from a third story window as a regular habit I don't see much
added value in that. Now, if one only replaced computers every twenty years
or so, that case would be a strong factor in my buying decision. Otherwise,
you guys are debating religion IMO.

Steve King

Steve King

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 06:21:55 -0500, MiNe 109
> wrote:

>In article >,
> (Don Pearce) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 21:42:35 -0400, david correia
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> "All* Macbooks today, except for the older white model, are milled from
>> >> a solid piece of aluminum. "
>> >>
>> >> Correa, if you were a man you'd admit that you were wrong, instead of
>> >> picking at details and distorting the truth.
>> >
>> >
>> >http://www.apple.com/why-mac/compare/notebooks.html
>> >
>> >
>>
>> If Apple made their bodies by machining them from solid, they would
>> not still be in business today. I haven't seen the inside of a Mac
>> Book, but I would be prepared to put money on them being either cast
>> (injection moulded) or stamped.
>
>Solid aluminum is extruded, then "goes through nine separate milling
>operations." There's a video:
>
>http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/design.html
>
>Stephen

Bloody hell, I'm shocked. That is no way to build a product. I'm quite
appalled by the wastefulness of it. I have a product in production at
the moment that uses a waveguide bandpass filter at 30GHz. Early
prototypes were machined, then once the design was final it was tooled
for casting (for the cost of twenty machined samples). The tolerance
on the cast parts at 10 microns is slightly better than that of the
machined parts. It is always so, and Apples approach makes no sense
for that reason. They are badly in need of a production engineering
department to sort them out.

Utterly ridiculous. The fact that they see this as a "feature" speaks
volumes about how out of touch they are.

d

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > (Don Pearce) wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 21:42:35 -0400, david correia
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> "All* Macbooks today, except for the older white model, are milled
>> >> >> from
>> >> >> a solid piece of aluminum. "
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Correa, if you were a man you'd admit that you were wrong, instead
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> picking at details and distorting the truth.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >http://www.apple.com/why-mac/compare/notebooks.html
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> If Apple made their bodies by machining them from solid, they would
>> >> not still be in business today. I haven't seen the inside of a Mac
>> >> Book, but I would be prepared to put money on them being either cast
>> >> (injection moulded) or stamped.
>>
>> > Solid aluminum is extruded, then "goes through nine separate milling
>> > operations." There's a video:
>>
>> > http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/design.html
>>
>> What you don't realize is that stamping generally involves cold flow of
>> metal AKA extruding.
>>
>> FYI, most aluminum that is stamped is solid aluminum.
>>
>> Furthermore, neither the word mill nor any forms of it appear on the
>> cited
>> page. The word "machined" does.
>>
>> Second time I've had to correct a Mac fanboy in just this thread for this
>> rather glaring error.
>>
>> Apparently there's something about being head-over-heels in love with a
>> Mac
>> that impacts one's ability to read and comprehend simple words like
>> *machine*. ;-)
>
> Watch the video.

Funny thing about that. The video will only play if I install the absolutely
latest-greatest Quicktime, which breaks my video editing suite. Guess what's
gonna happen? ;-)

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 13:37:38 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > In article >,
>>> > (Don Pearce) wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 21:42:35 -0400, david correia
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >> "All* Macbooks today, except for the older white model, are milled
>>> >> >> from
>>> >> >> a solid piece of aluminum. "
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Correa, if you were a man you'd admit that you were wrong, instead
>>> >> >> of
>>> >> >> picking at details and distorting the truth.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >http://www.apple.com/why-mac/compare/notebooks.html
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >> If Apple made their bodies by machining them from solid, they would
>>> >> not still be in business today. I haven't seen the inside of a Mac
>>> >> Book, but I would be prepared to put money on them being either cast
>>> >> (injection moulded) or stamped.
>>>
>>> > Solid aluminum is extruded, then "goes through nine separate milling
>>> > operations." There's a video:
>>>
>>> > http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/design.html
>>>
>>> What you don't realize is that stamping generally involves cold flow of
>>> metal AKA extruding.
>>>
>>> FYI, most aluminum that is stamped is solid aluminum.
>>>
>>> Furthermore, neither the word mill nor any forms of it appear on the
>>> cited
>>> page. The word "machined" does.
>>>
>>> Second time I've had to correct a Mac fanboy in just this thread for this
>>> rather glaring error.
>>>
>>> Apparently there's something about being head-over-heels in love with a
>>> Mac
>>> that impacts one's ability to read and comprehend simple words like
>>> *machine*. ;-)
>>
>> Watch the video.
>
>Funny thing about that. The video will only play if I install the absolutely
>latest-greatest Quicktime, which breaks my video editing suite. Guess what's
>gonna happen? ;-)
>

Do what I did, get rid of Qicktime and use Quicktime Alternative?...

d

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > (Don Pearce) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 21:42:35 -0400, david correia
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> "All* Macbooks today, except for the older white model, are milled
> >> >> >> from
> >> >> >> a solid piece of aluminum. "
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Correa, if you were a man you'd admit that you were wrong, instead
> >> >> >> of
> >> >> >> picking at details and distorting the truth.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >http://www.apple.com/why-mac/compare/notebooks.html
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> If Apple made their bodies by machining them from solid, they would
> >> >> not still be in business today. I haven't seen the inside of a Mac
> >> >> Book, but I would be prepared to put money on them being either cast
> >> >> (injection moulded) or stamped.
> >>
> >> > Solid aluminum is extruded, then "goes through nine separate milling
> >> > operations." There's a video:
> >>
> >> > http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/design.html
> >>
> >> What you don't realize is that stamping generally involves cold flow of
> >> metal AKA extruding.
> >>
> >> FYI, most aluminum that is stamped is solid aluminum.
> >>
> >> Furthermore, neither the word mill nor any forms of it appear on the
> >> cited
> >> page. The word "machined" does.
> >>
> >> Second time I've had to correct a Mac fanboy in just this thread for this
> >> rather glaring error.
> >>
> >> Apparently there's something about being head-over-heels in love with a
> >> Mac
> >> that impacts one's ability to read and comprehend simple words like
> >> *machine*. ;-)
> >
> > Watch the video.
>
> Funny thing about that. The video will only play if I install the absolutely
> latest-greatest Quicktime, which breaks my video editing suite. Guess what's
> gonna happen? ;-)

Maybe you'll take Pearce's word for it.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"John Williamson" > wrote in message
...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>>>> Here's exactly what you (David Correia) said:
>>>>
>>>> "All* Macbooks today, except for the older white model, are milled from
>>>> a solid piece of aluminum. "
>>>>
>>>> Correa, if you were a man you'd admit that you were wrong, instead of
>>>> picking at details and distorting the truth.
>>
>>> http://www.apple.com/why-mac/compare/notebooks.html
>>
>> The words "polycarbonate unibody" seem to be there, and you have yet to
>> support your claim that the aluminum frame is *milled*.
>>
>> yada, yada, yada.

> Arny, "Polycarbonate unibody" refers only to the basic Macbook.

Yup, they apply their best engineering for the lowest-cost and presumably
highest volume product. That is just good business practice.

> Aluminium is used for all the others according to the page you are
> quoting. A video linked to a little way along the chain of marketing links
> shows an aluminium ingot being turned into flat strip, which is then cut
> to size and milled on a CNC milling machine.

Here's a helpful little hint - all flat strip aluminum starts out as an
aluminum ingot. Even the flat strip they use to make pop cans.

I can, with complete accuracy say that pop cans are extruded from aluminum
strip. I can also say with complete accuracy that their tops are machined.

So here's your question for the day. What's the difference between the
production of pop cans and the production of MacIntosh laptop cases? ;-)

> They don't show an intermediate stamping operation,

They also provide no claim that they show every production step.

> and the video seems to show a flat strip being milled to its final form.

The stills I've seen show a flat strip that is far thinner than the final
product. Some of their explanitory text mentions extruding...

> Now, unless you are claiming that Apple are provably lying in their
> promotional videos, then STFU, please.

So you haven't noticed that the aluminum strip they start out with is far
thinner than the final product?

LOL!

There's no lying here, just *information management*.

A scary factioid is that people are building high end audio disc players by
milling the cases, which are far thicker than a laptop, out of solid
billlets for real.

Apparently not even Apple is that stupid!

[Arny Krueger]

"Steve King" > wrote in message
...
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "david correia" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article >,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "david correia" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> > In article >,
>>>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >> "david correia" > wrote in message
>>>> >> ...
>>>> >> > In article >,
>>>> >> > "Trevor" > wrote:
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >> "david correia" > wrote in message
>>>> >> >> ...
>>>> >> >> >> Not at all. There are far better computers than PC clones OR
>>>> >> >> >> anything
>>>> >> >> >> Apple
>>>> >> >> >> has ever built!
>>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> > Far better? That's a laugh. Have you ever seen the inside of a
>>>> >> >> > Mac
>>>> >> >> > Pro???
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> So you've never seen inside anything but toys, no surprise I
>>>> >> >> guess.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Wow, the best you got is calling a Mac Pro a toy ...
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Compared to these:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> http://www.panasonic.com/business/toughbook/toughbook-products.asp#/31:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> http://www.cyberchron.com/pdf_files/lap_port/CRL-5100-CF.pdf
>>>> >>
>>>> >> http://www.cyberchron.com/pdf_files/lap_port/crl5200.pdf
>>>> >>
>>>> >> http://i.dell.com/sites/content/shared-content/solutions/en/Documents/Dell-
>>>> >> Lat
>>>> >> itude-Rugged-Lineup-SalesAid-v12.pdf
>>>> >>
>>>> >> http://content.dell.com/us/en/fedgov/fed-first-responder-rugged-solutions.a
>>>> >> spx
>>>> >>
>>>> >> http://www.industcomputing.com/PressReleases/Tablet_PressRelease.pdf
>>>> >>
>>>> >> http://laptops.alege.net/Pelican-MIL-Spec-Rugged-MSCF34-PC-Notebook.html
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Yeah.
>>>>
>>>> > You think an 8 pound Panasonic Toughbook is far better than a
>>>> > Macbook?
>>>> > For what, going to war?
>>>>
>>>> Your mistake here is claiming that all Toughbooks weigh 8 pounds. The
>>>> point
>>>> is that if one follows up on your claims for superior durability, that
>>>> superior durability is a just a figment of your imagination.
>>>>
>>>> It is really hard to convince true believers that there is more to the
>>>> world
>>>> than their own little hobby horse segment of it.
>>>>
>>>> > And that second one on your list weighs 15 lbs. Sounds great. Looks
>>>> > like
>>>> > something from the moon landing in 1969.
>>>>
>>>> > I'm afraid to look at the others.
>>>>
>>>> What you should be afraid of is the false claims you made about all
>>>> current
>>>> Macbooks are milled from a solid billet of aluminum. Never were. Apple
>>>> says
>>>> so.
>>>>
>>>> Here's exactly what you said:
>>>>
>>>> "All* Macbooks today, except for the older white model, are milled from
>>>> a solid piece of aluminum. "
>>>>
>>>> Correa, if you were a man you'd admit that you were wrong, instead of
>>>> picking at details and distorting the truth.
>>
>>> http://www.apple.com/why-mac/compare/notebooks.html
>>
>> The words "polycarbonate unibody" seem to be there, and you have yet to
>> support your claim that the aluminum frame is *milled*.
>>
>> yada, yada, yada.
>
> David and Arny.... you both have way too much time on your hands;-)
> However, from a PC guy, me, a G5 case is a thing of beauty. Short of
> dropping it from a third story window as a regular habit I don't see much
> added value in that. Now, if one only replaced computers every twenty
> years or so, that case would be a strong factor in my buying decision.
> Otherwise, you guys are debating religion IMO.
>
> Steve King

If you count my posts, there aint a lot of time into this from my viewpoint.

Pulling the chains of MacBigots is just fun!
> Steve King
>

[Arny Krueger]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>> What is there about being a Macfanboy that ruins the brain?
>>
> I think you have that backwards, Arny. It is Apple's excellent marketing
> strategy that selects a population of users that is unaffected by facts.
> Brilliant, IMO.

Point well taken!

One might have thought that when Apple went over to the Intel side, that
people would notice that a Mac has become just another PC clone, running an
OS that is probably the most limited in terms of device support of all even
vaguely mainstream software platforms.

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 13:37:38 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
>>> In article >,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> > In article >,
>>>> > (Don Pearce) wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 21:42:35 -0400, david correia
>>>> >> > wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >> "All* Macbooks today, except for the older white model, are
>>>> >> >> milled
>>>> >> >> from
>>>> >> >> a solid piece of aluminum. "
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> Correa, if you were a man you'd admit that you were wrong,
>>>> >> >> instead
>>>> >> >> of
>>>> >> >> picking at details and distorting the truth.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >http://www.apple.com/why-mac/compare/notebooks.html
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >> If Apple made their bodies by machining them from solid, they would
>>>> >> not still be in business today. I haven't seen the inside of a Mac
>>>> >> Book, but I would be prepared to put money on them being either cast
>>>> >> (injection moulded) or stamped.
>>>>
>>>> > Solid aluminum is extruded, then "goes through nine separate milling
>>>> > operations." There's a video:
>>>>
>>>> > http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/design.html
>>>>
>>>> What you don't realize is that stamping generally involves cold flow of
>>>> metal AKA extruding.
>>>>
>>>> FYI, most aluminum that is stamped is solid aluminum.
>>>>
>>>> Furthermore, neither the word mill nor any forms of it appear on the
>>>> cited
>>>> page. The word "machined" does.
>>>>
>>>> Second time I've had to correct a Mac fanboy in just this thread for
>>>> this
>>>> rather glaring error.
>>>>
>>>> Apparently there's something about being head-over-heels in love with a
>>>> Mac
>>>> that impacts one's ability to read and comprehend simple words like
>>>> *machine*. ;-)
>>>
>>> Watch the video.
>>
>>Funny thing about that. The video will only play if I install the
>>absolutely
>>latest-greatest Quicktime, which breaks my video editing suite. Guess
>>what's
>>gonna happen? ;-)
>>
>
> Do what I did, get rid of Qicktime and use Quicktime Alternative?...

The Apple web site won't play this video with Quicktime Alternative. It
keeps asking me to overlay it with the genuine, slightly brain dead product.

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > (Don Pearce) wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 21:42:35 -0400, david correia
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "All* Macbooks today, except for the older white model, are
>> >> >> >> milled
>> >> >> >> from
>> >> >> >> a solid piece of aluminum. "
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Correa, if you were a man you'd admit that you were wrong,
>> >> >> >> instead
>> >> >> >> of
>> >> >> >> picking at details and distorting the truth.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >http://www.apple.com/why-mac/compare/notebooks.html
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If Apple made their bodies by machining them from solid, they would
>> >> >> not still be in business today. I haven't seen the inside of a Mac
>> >> >> Book, but I would be prepared to put money on them being either
>> >> >> cast
>> >> >> (injection moulded) or stamped.
>> >>
>> >> > Solid aluminum is extruded, then "goes through nine separate milling
>> >> > operations." There's a video:
>> >>
>> >> > http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/design.html
>> >>
>> >> What you don't realize is that stamping generally involves cold flow
>> >> of
>> >> metal AKA extruding.
>> >>
>> >> FYI, most aluminum that is stamped is solid aluminum.
>> >>
>> >> Furthermore, neither the word mill nor any forms of it appear on the
>> >> cited
>> >> page. The word "machined" does.
>> >>
>> >> Second time I've had to correct a Mac fanboy in just this thread for
>> >> this
>> >> rather glaring error.
>> >>
>> >> Apparently there's something about being head-over-heels in love with
>> >> a
>> >> Mac
>> >> that impacts one's ability to read and comprehend simple words like
>> >> *machine*. ;-)
>> >
>> > Watch the video.
>>
>> Funny thing about that. The video will only play if I install the
>> absolutely
>> latest-greatest Quicktime, which breaks my video editing suite. Guess
>> what's
>> gonna happen? ;-)
>
> Maybe you'll take Pearce's word for it.

If you read my response, I'm well ahead of that.

I have QT loaded, just not the latest-greatest version direct from Apple.

Not even MS is this provincial.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 13:53:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 13:37:38 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
>>>> In article >,
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>> > In article >,
>>>>> > (Don Pearce) wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 21:42:35 -0400, david correia
>>>>> >> > wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> >> "All* Macbooks today, except for the older white model, are
>>>>> >> >> milled
>>>>> >> >> from
>>>>> >> >> a solid piece of aluminum. "
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> Correa, if you were a man you'd admit that you were wrong,
>>>>> >> >> instead
>>>>> >> >> of
>>>>> >> >> picking at details and distorting the truth.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >http://www.apple.com/why-mac/compare/notebooks.html
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> If Apple made their bodies by machining them from solid, they would
>>>>> >> not still be in business today. I haven't seen the inside of a Mac
>>>>> >> Book, but I would be prepared to put money on them being either cast
>>>>> >> (injection moulded) or stamped.
>>>>>
>>>>> > Solid aluminum is extruded, then "goes through nine separate milling
>>>>> > operations." There's a video:
>>>>>
>>>>> > http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/design.html
>>>>>
>>>>> What you don't realize is that stamping generally involves cold flow of
>>>>> metal AKA extruding.
>>>>>
>>>>> FYI, most aluminum that is stamped is solid aluminum.
>>>>>
>>>>> Furthermore, neither the word mill nor any forms of it appear on the
>>>>> cited
>>>>> page. The word "machined" does.
>>>>>
>>>>> Second time I've had to correct a Mac fanboy in just this thread for
>>>>> this
>>>>> rather glaring error.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apparently there's something about being head-over-heels in love with a
>>>>> Mac
>>>>> that impacts one's ability to read and comprehend simple words like
>>>>> *machine*. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Watch the video.
>>>
>>>Funny thing about that. The video will only play if I install the
>>>absolutely
>>>latest-greatest Quicktime, which breaks my video editing suite. Guess
>>>what's
>>>gonna happen? ;-)
>>>
>>
>> Do what I did, get rid of Qicktime and use Quicktime Alternative?...
>
>The Apple web site won't play this video with Quicktime Alternative. It
>keeps asking me to overlay it with the genuine, slightly brain dead product.
>

Really? Mine is perfectly happy with it.

d

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "John Williamson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> >>>> Here's exactly what you (David Correia) said:
> >>>>
> >>>> "All* Macbooks today, except for the older white model, are milled from
> >>>> a solid piece of aluminum. "
> >>>>
> >>>> Correa, if you were a man you'd admit that you were wrong, instead of
> >>>> picking at details and distorting the truth.
> >>
> >>> http://www.apple.com/why-mac/compare/notebooks.html
> >>
> >> The words "polycarbonate unibody" seem to be there, and you have yet to
> >> support your claim that the aluminum frame is *milled*.
> >>
> >> yada, yada, yada.
>
> > Arny, "Polycarbonate unibody" refers only to the basic Macbook.
>
> Yup, they apply their best engineering for the lowest-cost and presumably
> highest volume product. That is just good business practice.
>
> > Aluminium is used for all the others according to the page you are
> > quoting. A video linked to a little way along the chain of marketing links
> > shows an aluminium ingot being turned into flat strip, which is then cut
> > to size and milled on a CNC milling machine.
>
> Here's a helpful little hint - all flat strip aluminum starts out as an
> aluminum ingot. Even the flat strip they use to make pop cans.
>
> I can, with complete accuracy say that pop cans are extruded from aluminum
> strip. I can also say with complete accuracy that their tops are machined.
>
> So here's your question for the day. What's the difference between the
> production of pop cans and the production of MacIntosh laptop cases? ;-)

You didn't claim pop cans aren't milled.

Stephen

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

ARnie writes:
> Somehow, I'm far more impressed with the titanium frame and shock
> mounted hard drive in even just the commercial grade Toughbooks.
> Obviously, you can't get that trendy-thin look with any kind of
> effective shock mounting, so it is reasonable to expect that Apple
> will never go there.


That's so true with most of this stuff. IF you really wanna protect it get a Pelican or Anvil case for the stupid thing, but then ya can't use it inside the case. <oh well>.

IF you break it you'll buy a new one.

<grumble>. DOn't get me started.




The Boss version of the Roland sound CAnvas comes to mind.
Cheesy construction, would've done better as a rack mount
module.

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.

[John Williamson]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "John Williamson" > wrote in message
>> Arny, "Polycarbonate unibody" refers only to the basic Macbook.
>
> Yup, they apply their best engineering for the lowest-cost and presumably
> highest volume product. That is just good business practice.
>
Whether it's the "best engineering" depends on what's in the case
protecting the innards and how thick the polycarbonate is. I use 4mm
thick polycarbonate sheet for windows which will resist airgun pellets
from a reasonable distance. Make it 8mm thick, it'll stop a .22 bullet,
depnding on range. Make it thicker still, it'll stop a .45 from speaking
distance. If you want to make a cheap case, then moulding polycarbonate
just thick enough to withstand normal use is a trivial process. ABS or
glass filled composites just need to be slightly thicker, which,
depending on the raw material costs, might be cheaper. It needn't be any
less durable than the polycarbonate. Depending on the design, the
aluminium may not be more durable, either.

>> Aluminium is used for all the others according to the page you are
>> quoting. A video linked to a little way along the chain of marketing links
>> shows an aluminium ingot being turned into flat strip, which is then cut
>> to size and milled on a CNC milling machine.
>
> Here's a helpful little hint - all flat strip aluminum starts out as an
> aluminum ingot. Even the flat strip they use to make pop cans.
>
Well, duh! <Slaps forehead>

Even my car body started as aluminium ingots over forty years ago.
What's that got to do with Apple? I was summarising the video for you,
and you've admitted in this thread that you can't view it yourself, and
have no intention of installing software to let you do so.

> I can, with complete accuracy say that pop cans are extruded from aluminum
> strip. I can also say with complete accuracy that their tops are machined.
>
> So here's your question for the day. What's the difference between the
> production of pop cans and the production of MacIntosh laptop cases? ;-)
>
A lot, and if you don't know, you *really* need to study some production
engineering. However, as you probably don't know.....

For the aluminium cans, starting from the ingot, aluminium is extruded
into a bar, then rolled into a wide strip with a precisely controlled
thickness, and then after heat treatment, the body of the can is die
formed from the strip. While the body is being formed in this way, the
top is formed from a slightly thicker strip, using a die which forms the
lip to seal onto the body, the domed shape and the thin outline that
lets you open it using the tab. The tab is formed from thicker strip,
and "riveted" to the top, using a preformed dimple in the top, which
then is formed to hold the top and the tab together, all of which, after
filling, is then folded at the seam to make a gasproof seal with the can
body. As one stage in the process, the interior is normally coated with
plastic to protect both the metal and the contents. It's actually a very
precise process.

The Mac Unibody, according to Apple's video, starts as an ingot, which
is extruded to be a bar of the required size, which is then processed by
a number of machines, at least one of which is a CNC milling machine.
Tolerances are probably more generous than for the can.

Is that clear enough? I may have missed the odd step somewhere, as all
the above was from memory.

>> They don't show an intermediate stamping operation,
>
> They also provide no claim that they show every production step.
>
True, and that's the only thing you've got right so far.

>> and the video seems to show a flat strip being milled to its final form.
>
> The stills I've seen show a flat strip that is far thinner than the final
> product. Some of their explanitory text mentions extruding...
>
You have, of course, measured these strips? Details matter.

>> Now, unless you are claiming that Apple are provably lying in their
>> promotional videos, then STFU, please.
>
> So you haven't noticed that the aluminum strip they start out with is far
> thinner than the final product?
>
So you *can* prove that Apple are lying?

On the video I've seen, the thickness of the bar can't be determined
with any accuracy, and as you haven't measured the parts, you don't know
either. I can show the same part being almost any size I want it to be,
just using the editing software that came with my twenty dollar digital
camera, or even by positioning the camera appropriately. The same
applies to video.

However, if you look closely at pictures of the finished product, you
will see, if your eyes and brain are working, that the keyboard area of
a Macbook is, in fact, made up of two pieces of metal, as is the screen
surround, so your point about the thickness is irrelevant anyway. If you
don't believe me, go into your local Apple shop and look closely at a
couple of their machines. The upper metal layer has the keytops in it,
the lower layer has the PCB and sockets mounted in it.

> LOL!
>
Indeed. :-)

> There's no lying here, just *information management*.
>
And mis-interpretation.

> A scary factioid is that people are building high end audio disc players by
> milling the cases, which are far thicker than a laptop, out of solid
> billlets for real.
>
Irrelevant here, but depending on the production run, that may be the
cheapest way to do the job. Dies for injection moulding and stamping of
metal are expensive to make and cheap to use, while CNC drills and
milling machines cost relatively very little to set up, but cost more to
use. The sweet spot for costs depends entirely on the production run and
the machining required, bearing in mind that stamped or cast parts will
also need machining, as things like screw threads and shaped slots in
the side of recesses can't be formed that way. Marketing also comes into it.

Then again, to isolate a CD or DVD mechanism from vibrations, I'd not
want to use metal on its own, and would prefer a slightly resilient
mounting for the drive, or, as a minimum, isolating feet for the whole unit.

> Apparently not even Apple is that stupid!
>
I'm sure the accountants have had their say, even at Apple......

Don't let your unreasoning hatred of Apple cloud your judgment.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Steve King]

"John Williamson" > wrote in message
...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "John Williamson" > wrote in message
>>> Arny, "Polycarbonate unibody" refers only to the basic Macbook.
>>
>> Yup, they apply their best engineering for the lowest-cost and presumably
>> highest volume product. That is just good business practice.
>>
> Whether it's the "best engineering" depends on what's in the case
> protecting the innards and how thick the polycarbonate is. I use 4mm thick
> polycarbonate sheet for windows which will resist airgun pellets from a
> reasonable distance. Make it 8mm thick, it'll stop a .22 bullet, depnding
> on range. Make it thicker still, it'll stop a .45 from speaking distance.
> If you want to make a cheap case, then moulding polycarbonate just thick
> enough to withstand normal use is a trivial process. ABS or glass filled
> composites just need to be slightly thicker, which, depending on the raw
> material costs, might be cheaper. It needn't be any less durable than the
> polycarbonate. Depending on the design, the aluminium may not be more
> durable, either.
>
>>> Aluminium is used for all the others according to the page you are
>>> quoting. A video linked to a little way along the chain of marketing
>>> links shows an aluminium ingot being turned into flat strip, which is
>>> then cut to size and milled on a CNC milling machine.
>>
>> Here's a helpful little hint - all flat strip aluminum starts out as an
>> aluminum ingot. Even the flat strip they use to make pop cans.
>>
> Well, duh! <Slaps forehead>
>
> Even my car body started as aluminium ingots over forty years ago. What's
> that got to do with Apple? I was summarising the video for you, and you've
> admitted in this thread that you can't view it yourself, and have no
> intention of installing software to let you do so.
>
>> I can, with complete accuracy say that pop cans are extruded from
>> aluminum strip. I can also say with complete accuracy that their tops are
>> machined.
>>
>> So here's your question for the day. What's the difference between the
>> production of pop cans and the production of MacIntosh laptop cases? ;-)
>>
> A lot, and if you don't know, you *really* need to study some production
> engineering. However, as you probably don't know.....
>
> For the aluminium cans, starting from the ingot, aluminium is extruded
> into a bar, then rolled into a wide strip with a precisely controlled
> thickness, and then after heat treatment, the body of the can is die
> formed from the strip. While the body is being formed in this way, the top
> is formed from a slightly thicker strip, using a die which forms the lip
> to seal onto the body, the domed shape and the thin outline that lets you
> open it using the tab. The tab is formed from thicker strip, and "riveted"
> to the top, using a preformed dimple in the top, which then is formed to
> hold the top and the tab together, all of which, after filling, is then
> folded at the seam to make a gasproof seal with the can body. As one stage
> in the process, the interior is normally coated with plastic to protect
> both the metal and the contents. It's actually a very precise process.
>
> The Mac Unibody, according to Apple's video, starts as an ingot, which is
> extruded to be a bar of the required size, which is then processed by a
> number of machines, at least one of which is a CNC milling machine.
> Tolerances are probably more generous than for the can.
>
> Is that clear enough? I may have missed the odd step somewhere, as all the
> above was from memory.
>
>>> They don't show an intermediate stamping operation,
>>
>> They also provide no claim that they show every production step.
>>
> True, and that's the only thing you've got right so far.
>
>>> and the video seems to show a flat strip being milled to its final
>>> form.
>>
>> The stills I've seen show a flat strip that is far thinner than the final
>> product. Some of their explanitory text mentions extruding...
>>
> You have, of course, measured these strips? Details matter.
>
>>> Now, unless you are claiming that Apple are provably lying in their
>>> promotional videos, then STFU, please.
>>
>> So you haven't noticed that the aluminum strip they start out with is far
>> thinner than the final product?
>>
> So you *can* prove that Apple are lying?
>
> On the video I've seen, the thickness of the bar can't be determined with
> any accuracy, and as you haven't measured the parts, you don't know
> either. I can show the same part being almost any size I want it to be,
> just using the editing software that came with my twenty dollar digital
> camera, or even by positioning the camera appropriately. The same applies
> to video.
>
> However, if you look closely at pictures of the finished product, you will
> see, if your eyes and brain are working, that the keyboard area of a
> Macbook is, in fact, made up of two pieces of metal, as is the screen
> surround, so your point about the thickness is irrelevant anyway. If you
> don't believe me, go into your local Apple shop and look closely at a
> couple of their machines. The upper metal layer has the keytops in it, the
> lower layer has the PCB and sockets mounted in it.
>
>> LOL!
>>
> Indeed. :-)
>
>> There's no lying here, just *information management*.
>>
> And mis-interpretation.
>
>> A scary factioid is that people are building high end audio disc players
>> by milling the cases, which are far thicker than a laptop, out of solid
>> billlets for real.
>>
> Irrelevant here, but depending on the production run, that may be the
> cheapest way to do the job. Dies for injection moulding and stamping of
> metal are expensive to make and cheap to use, while CNC drills and milling
> machines cost relatively very little to set up, but cost more to use. The
> sweet spot for costs depends entirely on the production run and the
> machining required, bearing in mind that stamped or cast parts will also
> need machining, as things like screw threads and shaped slots in the side
> of recesses can't be formed that way. Marketing also comes into it.
>
> Then again, to isolate a CD or DVD mechanism from vibrations, I'd not want
> to use metal on its own, and would prefer a slightly resilient mounting
> for the drive, or, as a minimum, isolating feet for the whole unit.
>
>> Apparently not even Apple is that stupid!
>>
> I'm sure the accountants have had their say, even at Apple......
>
> Don't let your unreasoning hatred of Apple cloud your judgment.
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

You realize, John, that Arny has no interest whatsoever in truth. He just
likes to yank people's chain. That's how he gets his kicks. Of course,
there is real information in the replies he gets, which I enjoy reading.

Steve King

[Frank Stearns]

"Arny Krueger" > writes:


>"MiNe 109" > wrote in message

snips

>> Watch the video.

>Funny thing about that. The video will only play if I install the absolutely
>latest-greatest Quicktime, which breaks my video editing suite. Guess what's
>gonna happen? ;-)

IMO, Quicktime is a virus (on the same order of many aspects of MS OS's). QT really
screwed up one of my boxes; swore I'd never allow it on any machine here again.

YMMV.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Trevor]

"John Williamson" > wrote in message
...
> Now, can we all just admit a Mac is just as much a computer as a PC (And
> vice versa) and they can both be used to produce great sound,

Not in dispute for most of us.


> The most important component of *any* musical instrument or production is
> the soggy bit between the operators' ears, and that's not going to change
> anytime soon. It's the buyer's money, and they have the right to buy
> whatever they wish.


Also not in dispute.


> I prefer PCs, but I know a lot of people who prefer Macs. And iPhones over
> Windows Mobile or Android phones and vice versa. I prefer Nokia phones,
> though.

I only hate the way Apple charges twice as much and then tries to lock you
out from doing anything they don't want you to do, like buying apps and
music from THEIR web sites, and using their periphererals that are changed
often to deliberately not work with older models.
(especially iPods and iPhones)

But hey, MANY people are happy with that sales model, so good luck to Apple
and their bank account.

It's also interesting to note that some people here are still using 15YO
programs on their PC's every day (as am I) I'd like to see you do that on a
Mac without some effort. So many of us got a good laugh when the Apple
afficianado's who once proclaimed to the world how much better their
Motorola CPU was, had to eat humble pie when Apple switched to Intel :-)
But as I previously said, and as you also say "It's the buyer's money, and
they have the right to buy whatever they wish."
When they claim that their "precision aluminium unibody" makes their PC
worth twice as much, I do have to laugh though!


Trevor.

[Trevor]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
>> So here's your question for the day. What's the difference between the
>> production of pop cans and the production of MacIntosh laptop cases? ;-)
>
> You didn't claim pop cans aren't milled.

So there we have it, a pop can is as high tech as a MacBook then :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> Somehow, I'm far more impressed with the titanium frame and shock mounted
> hard drive in even just the commercial grade Toughbooks. Obviously, you
> can't get that trendy-thin look with any kind of effective shock mounting,
> so it is reasonable to expect that Apple will never go there.

Right, I know which I prefer, but each to their own.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>> Watch the video.
>
> Funny thing about that. The video will only play if I install the
> absolutely latest-greatest Quicktime, which breaks my video editing suite.
> Guess what's gonna happen? ;-)

Yeah Quicktime (and Adobe flash) are kept well away from my computers too!

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>> What is there about being a Macfanboy that ruins the brain?
>>
> I think you have that backwards, Arny. It is Apple's excellent marketing
> strategy that selects a population of users that is unaffected by facts.
> Brilliant, IMO.

Absolutely, who wouldn't want their profits for selling the same things over
and over to the same people. I was not surprised when people went out and
bought an iPad2 less than a year after buying the original iPad. (and still
no USB port)
I only wish I had that much money to waste :-(

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> One might have thought that when Apple went over to the Intel side, that
> people would notice that a Mac has become just another PC clone, running
> an OS that is probably the most limited in terms of device support of all
> even vaguely mainstream software platforms.

If you thought that, then you just don't get human nature.

Trevor.

[John Williamson]

Steve King wrote:
<Snip to save wear on the PgDn key>
>
> You realize, John, that Arny has no interest whatsoever in truth.

Which is why I often wonder whether to bother replying to him.

He just
> likes to yank people's chain. That's how he gets his kicks. Of course,
> there is real information in the replies he gets, which I enjoy reading.
>
So he does have a use, then? <Grin>

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Neil Gould]

Trevor wrote:
> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>> What is there about being a Macfanboy that ruins the brain?
>>>
>> I think you have that backwards, Arny. It is Apple's excellent
>> marketing strategy that selects a population of users that is
>> unaffected by facts. Brilliant, IMO.
>
> Absolutely, who wouldn't want their profits for selling the same
> things over and over to the same people. I was not surprised when
> people went out and bought an iPad2 less than a year after buying the
> original iPad. (and still no USB port)
> I only wish I had that much money to waste :-(
>
> Trevor.
>
USB ports aren't all that important to folks that find the iPad attractive.
The analogies that seem to apply to these two product groups are that PCs
are generalized tools, configurable for various purposes by the end user,
while Apple products are appliances that do the things they're built to do
well, but little or nothing else, not unlike kitchen appliances, where one
can collect a large number of specialized gadgets that conveniently do a
particular task, but take up space most of the time. There is a small
population Apple product users that like to "jailbreak" them to try to
expand their usefulness, but almost always with consequences that impact
their original convenience.

PC folks may prefer to have the basic kitchen tools and fewer specialized
appliances. I'm not so sure that it is a matter of how much money one has to
spend, since those basic tools can be pretty pricey. ;-)

--
Neil

[Arny Krueger]

"Steve King" > wrote in message
...

> You realize, John, that Arny has no interest whatsoever in truth.

Yup, that's how some people deal with people who post uncomfortable truths,
lie about *them*

> He just likes to yank people's chain.

With the caveat that this is often possible while sticking to the truth.

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor" > wrote in message
u...

> It's also interesting to note that some people here are still using 15YO
> programs on their PC's every day (as am I)

Hmm, Cool Edit Pro - that is now over a decade old, right?

> I'd like to see you do that on a Mac without some effort. So many of us
> got a good laugh when the Apple afficianado's who once proclaimed to the
> world how much better their Motorola CPU was, had to eat humble pie when
> Apple switched to Intel :-)

It is possible that the Motorola CPU was the moral equivalent of Betamax
video recordings. It was truely superior at one point, but it fell off the
market anyway.


> But as I previously said, and as you also say "It's the buyer's money, and
> they have the right to buy whatever they wish."
> When they claim that their "precision aluminium unibody" makes their PC
> worth twice as much, I do have to laugh though!

And that's the point.

By most accounts Apple's most signicant cash flow is coming from ARM
SOC-based products. MacIntoshes produce an important revenue stream, but
the real action is elsewhere.

AFAIK, the ARM SOC's only technical advantage over the competitive Intel SOC
chips is that ARM SOC's are cheaper, and it is easier and cheaper to license
the ARM IP and imbed it in your own chips.

IOW, even Apple knows how to save a buck.

[Arny Krueger]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
> Arny Krueger wrote:

>> By most accounts Apple's most signicant cash flow is coming from ARM
>> SOC-based products. MacIntoshes produce an important revenue stream,
>> but the real action is elsewhere.

> Hmm. Are iPads, iPhones, and iPods ARM SoC products?

Yes, as is the M-Audio Microtrak, the Sansa Clip & Fuze, a host of other
portable media players, and just about every modern cellphone.

Not only is the Microtrak based on the same dual CPU ARM as the original
iPod, the same company did the firmware.

>I found indications
> that ARM supplies components for Linux, Windows Mobile and Droid products,
> but no mention of Apple products, and the iStuff is software-based.

ARM's larger business may be IP. Therefore, the SOC chips come from third
parties licensing ARM IP. One such company is Austra Microsystems. Another
player in the ARM sweepstakes is Nvidia.

http://daniel.haxx.se/sansa/ams.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture

[vdubreeze]

On Jun 2, 1:52*pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>
>
> One might have thought that when Apple went over to the Intel side, that
> people would notice that a Mac has become just another PC clone, running an
> OS that is probably the most limited in terms of device support of all even
> vaguely mainstream software platforms.


Because it isn't? : )

I could care less about the hardware argument, whether Macs are less
power for the money. As long as I don't have to sit in front of any
version of Windows I'm satisfied paying the price. Just doing the
mundane stuff on a great PC running Windows makes me want to slit my
wrists. I don't care who makes fun of OSX. I use them both and have
no problem proudly stating that I'm no fanboi but I simply way prefer
it to the clunkiness of Windows.

" an OS that is probably the most limited in terms of device support
of all even vaguely mainstream software platforms." ? Doesn't
describe what I use.

[Arny Krueger]

"vdubreeze" > wrote in message
...
On Jun 2, 1:52 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>> One might have thought that when Apple went over to the Intel side, that
>> people would notice that a Mac has become just another PC clone, running
>> an
>> OS that is probably the most limited in terms of device support of all
>> even
>> vaguely mainstream software platforms.

>Because it isn't? : )

If you really believe that, then there must be an explanation.

>I could care less about the hardware argument, whether Macs are less
>power for the money. As long as I don't have to sit in front of any
>version of Windows I'm satisfied paying the price.

I understand blind hatred. Mac bigots accuse me of it. It is often very
hypocrtical of them to do so, but they really don't care about avoiding
looking that way in public.

> Just doing the
>mundane stuff on a great PC running Windows makes me want to slit my
> wrists.

Yeah, it no doubt makes you feel so, so, so ordinary.

> I don't care who makes fun of OSX. I use them both and have
>no problem proudly stating that I'm no fanboi but I simply way prefer
>it to the clunkiness of Windows.

Yeah, you're not a Mac fanboy and Sarah Palin isn't a woman.

" an OS that is probably the most limited in terms of device support
of all even vaguely mainstream software platforms." ? Doesn't
describe what I use.

[Trevor]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
> USB ports aren't all that important to folks that find the iPad
> attractive.
> The analogies that seem to apply to these two product groups are that PCs
> are generalized tools, configurable for various purposes by the end user,
> while Apple products are appliances that do the things they're built to do
> well, but little or nothing else, not unlike kitchen appliances, where one
> can collect a large number of specialized gadgets that conveniently do a
> particular task, but take up space most of the time.

Which is fine if the gadget is small enough and cheap enough. Apple gadgets
may be small, but they aren't cheap IMO.


>There is a small
> population Apple product users that like to "jailbreak" them to try to
> expand their usefulness, but almost always with consequences that impact
> their original convenience.

Not to mention any warranty.


> PC folks may prefer to have the basic kitchen tools and fewer specialized
> appliances. I'm not so sure that it is a matter of how much money one has
> to
> spend, since those basic tools can be pretty pricey. ;-)

Just like a cooks knife, you can spend as little or as much as you want.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>> It's also interesting to note that some people here are still using 15YO
>> programs on their PC's every day (as am I)
>
> Hmm, Cool Edit Pro - that is now over a decade old, right?

Right, and someone said they are using Cool Edit 96, which would be 15
years. I don't use either myself, but do use other programs written pre
Windows 98. I also had one computer running Windows 98 until late last
year. I know others who still do. And you know what, that computer running
Windows 98 for over a decade *never* had the OS reinstalled (still the
original main hard drive), and had *very few* issues, unlike most of my
friends who seem to corrupt their computers every second week. And it even
had hundreds of software programs loaded and removed over the years. Of
course actually knowing what you are doing helps a lot IME.



> It is possible that the Motorola CPU was the moral equivalent of Betamax
> video recordings. It was truely superior at one point, but it fell off the
> market anyway.

And for much the same reason, the difference was sufficiently small that
other factors like a wider variety of different machines and software, plus
pricing issues were more important to the average user. Eventually
development stops, and any claimed benefits disappear completely.


> IOW, even Apple knows how to save a buck.

And how not to pass it on to consumers, and yet still sell heaps through
clever marketing. It's quite a valid business plan in such a capitalist
society. Their shareholders are very happy.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"vdubreeze" > wrote in message
...
>I could care less about the hardware argument, whether Macs are less
power for the money. As long as I don't have to sit in front of any
version of Windows I'm satisfied paying the price. Just doing the
mundane stuff on a great PC running Windows makes me want to slit my
wrists. I don't care who makes fun of OSX. I use them both and have
no problem proudly stating that I'm no fanboi but I simply way prefer
>it to the clunkiness of Windows.


Really sad for you if you sit staring at ANY OS for any length of time. I
prefer to get straight into the actual programs/applications which are
sufficiently the same in most cases that it's hard to tell what the computer
is. Now IF you claimed Apple screens were better than many of the cheap PC
ones, I'd totally agree with you, but I can afford to buy an even better
screen for my PC with the money I save not buying a Mac :-)

Trevor.

[vdubreeze]

On Jun 4, 6:39*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "vdubreeze" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Jun 2, 1:52 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> >> One might have thought that when Apple went over to the Intel side, that
> >> people would notice that a Mac has become just another PC clone, running
> >> an
> >> OS that is probably the most limited in terms of device support of all
> >> even
> >> vaguely mainstream software platforms.
> >Because it isn't? *: )
>
> If you really believe that, then there must be an explanation.

There is. It's called everyday use.


> >I could care less about the hardware argument, whether Macs are less
> >power for the money. * As long as I don't have to sit in front of any
> >version of Windows I'm satisfied paying the price.
>

> I understand blind hatred. Mac bigots accuse me of it. It is often very
> hypocrtical of them to do so, but they really don't care about avoiding
> looking that way in public.

?


>
> > Just doing the
> >mundane stuff on a great PC running Windows makes me want to slit my
> > wrists.
>
> Yeah, it no doubt makes you feel so, so, so ordinary.

Not exactly. I work all day in front of both. I much prefer OSX for
getting things done. If you disagree, then fine. If you think OSX
and Macs are stupid junk for morons you don't have enough experience
with them.


> > I don't care who makes fun of OSX. *I use them both and have
> >no problem proudly stating that I'm no fanboi but I simply way prefer
> >it to the clunkiness of Windows.
>
> Yeah, you're not a Mac fanboy and Sarah Palin isn't a woman.


Like I said, I'm no fanboy. I sit in front of both for hours at a
time and when I'm on OSX I'm happier because it does things the way I
want it to. I own equipment of all makers and OS's. If that makes me
a fanboy you have a pretty low threshold for who qualifies as one, but
makes no difference to me. I don't own an iPad. You can retort with
all the foolish remarks you care to, but it only serves that you're
not really making any point except to offer up personal insults
instead of good opinion. I have many discussions with my pro
photography peers about the pitfalls of both Macs and PCs for
photographers and I learn a lot about both sides during them. This
is not like those. With posts like this one of yours I only learn
about personal insults, which is a shame because I know you're capable
of better. Don't be the one to start with the goofy jabs and then
complain about what the response is.

[vdubreeze]

On Jun 6, 1:20*am, "Trevor" > wrote:
> "vdubreeze" > wrote in message
>
> ...>I could care less about the hardware argument, whether Macs are less
>
> power for the money. * As long as I don't have to sit in front of any
> version of Windows I'm satisfied paying the price. * Just doing the
> mundane stuff on a great PC running Windows makes me want to slit my
> wrists. * I don't care who makes fun of OSX. *I use them both and have
> no problem proudly stating that I'm no fanboi but I simply way prefer
>
> >it to the clunkiness of Windows.
>
> Really sad for you if you sit staring at ANY OS for any length of time. I
> prefer to get straight into the actual programs/applications which are
> sufficiently the same in most cases that it's hard to tell what the computer
> is. Now IF you claimed Apple screens were better than many of the cheap PC
> ones, I'd totally agree with you, but I can afford to buy an even better
> screen for my PC with the money I save not buying a Mac :-)
>
> Trevor.


That's all true. And naturally I wasn't referring to sitting at the
OS and not the program. But it was all the years of unhappily doing
file management on Windows when I wished I was in the Finder that
formed most of my preferences, not any Apple Kool-Aid. While both
have their oddities, count me in as one whose annoyances at OSX are
far fewer than my annoyances with Windows.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
>,
vdubreeze > wrote:

> On Jun 6, 1:20*am, "Trevor" > wrote:
> > "vdubreeze" > wrote in message
> >
> > ...>I
> > could care less about the hardware argument, whether Macs are less
> >
> > power for the money. * As long as I don't have to sit in front of any
> > version of Windows I'm satisfied paying the price. * Just doing the
> > mundane stuff on a great PC running Windows makes me want to slit my
> > wrists. * I don't care who makes fun of OSX. *I use them both and have
> > no problem proudly stating that I'm no fanboi but I simply way prefer
> >
> > >it to the clunkiness of Windows.
> >
> > Really sad for you if you sit staring at ANY OS for any length of time. I
> > prefer to get straight into the actual programs/applications which are
> > sufficiently the same in most cases that it's hard to tell what the
> > computer
> > is. Now IF you claimed Apple screens were better than many of the cheap PC
> > ones, I'd totally agree with you, but I can afford to buy an even better
> > screen for my PC with the money I save not buying a Mac :-)
> >
> > Trevor.
>
>
> That's all true. And naturally I wasn't referring to sitting at the
> OS and not the program. But it was all the years of unhappily doing
> file management on Windows when I wished I was in the Finder that
> formed most of my preferences, not any Apple Kool-Aid. While both
> have their oddities, count me in as one whose annoyances at OSX are
> far fewer than my annoyances with Windows.

Have you seen today's announcement about OSX Lion?

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[vdubreeze]

On Jun 6, 11:13*pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> Have you seen today's announcement about OSX Lion?
>


Jenn, to be honest very little about it is of interest to me. I don't
own any smartphones, and though I love my iPodTouch and refer to it
regularly I don't get any charge out of new social app developments or
anyone's music service. I'm just not much of a consumer. Guess I
just lost my "fanboy" status. : ) I am very interested in how 10.7
may speed up Aperture and other programs, and I'm especially
interested in the new Final Cut Pro X.

[Trevor]

"vdubreeze" > wrote in message
news:d5fbdbb9-5121-4092-958d-
>That's all true. And naturally I wasn't referring to sitting at the
OS and not the program. But it was all the years of unhappily doing
file management on Windows when I wished I was in the Finder that
formed most of my preferences, not any Apple Kool-Aid. While both
have their oddities, count me in as one whose annoyances at OSX are
>far fewer than my annoyances with Windows.

You do realise that there are hundreds of replacement file managers
available for Windows.? (Many of them free)
Everyone has their own idea of what user friendly means to them, so simply
select one that suits you, rather than buying a computer for its file
manager. Now that's really silly IMO.

Trevor.

[Arny Krueger]

"vdubreeze" > wrote in message
...

>>On Jun 4, 6:39 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> "vdubreeze" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>> On Jun 2, 1:52 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>> >> One might have thought that when Apple went over to the Intel side,
>> >> that
>> >> people would notice that a Mac has become just another PC clone,
>> >> running
>> >> an
>> >> OS that is probably the most limited in terms of device support of all
>> >> even
>> >> vaguely mainstream software platforms.

> >Because it isn't? : )

> If you really believe that, then there must be an explanation.

> There is. It's called everyday use.

I guess you don't understand the question, because that is not any way a
relevant response.


> >I could care less about the hardware argument, whether Macs are less
> >power for the money. As long as I don't have to sit in front of any
> >version of Windows I'm satisfied paying the price.


> I understand blind hatred. Mac bigots accuse me of it. It is often very
> hypocrtical of them to do so, but they really don't care about avoiding
> looking that way in public.

?

Yet another irrelevant response.


> > Just doing the
> >mundane stuff on a great PC running Windows makes me want to slit my
> > wrists.

> Yeah, it no doubt makes you feel so, so, so ordinary.

> Not exactly. I work all day in front of both. I much prefer OSX for
> getting things done. If you disagree, then fine. If you think OSX
> and Macs are stupid junk for morons you don't have enough experience
> with them.

That's a strange and kinda dysfunctional world you seem to live in. I think
that *any* OS is fine if it gets the job done in a reasonably efficient way.


> > I don't care who makes fun of OSX. I use them both and have
> >no problem proudly stating that I'm no fanboi but I simply way prefer
> >it to the clunkiness of Windows.

> Yeah, you're not a Mac fanboy and Sarah Palin isn't a woman.


> Like I said, I'm no fanboy. I sit in front of both for hours at a
> time and when I'm on OSX I'm happier because it does things the way I
> want it to.

Seems like you have a very narrow view of using a computer.


> I own equipment of all makers and OS's. If that makes me
> a fanboy you have a pretty low threshold for who qualifies as one, but
> makes no difference to me.

Classic straw man argument of several in this post. You're a fanboy because
of your dysfunctionally strong reactions to computers - you see to think
that Windows computers are somehow dramatically inferior to all the rest.


> I don't own an iPad.

Yet another straw man.

> You can retort with
> all the foolish remarks you care to, but it only serves that you're
> not really making any point except to offer up personal insults
> instead of good opinion.

At this point you're so far ahead of me in the personal insult contest that
you made up for yourself that I simply must bow to your abilities to be
insulting and alienate people.

I think there is a role for the counterpoint to Sale Carnegie's classic
book, and you seem to be a very likely person to write it.

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor" > wrote in message
...
>
> "vdubreeze" > wrote in message
> news:d5fbdbb9-5121-4092-958d-
>>That's all true. And naturally I wasn't referring to sitting at the
> OS and not the program. But it was all the years of unhappily doing
> file management on Windows when I wished I was in the Finder that
> formed most of my preferences, not any Apple Kool-Aid. While both
> have their oddities, count me in as one whose annoyances at OSX are
>>far fewer than my annoyances with Windows.
>
> You do realise that there are hundreds of replacement file managers
> available for Windows.? (Many of them free)
> Everyone has their own idea of what user friendly means to them, so simply
> select one that suits you, rather than buying a computer for its file
> manager. Now that's really silly IMO.

To me file management is hardly a reasonable basis to hate or love an OS.
If Windows Explorer gives someone a tummyache, they first need to figure out
how to avoid having to do all that file management, and then learn how to
use it for what little file management most people actually need to do.

Mr. Breeze seems to need more of a life, one in which he doesn't have time
to obsess over nits.

[vdubreeze]

On Jun 7, 9:02*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Trevor" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > "vdubreeze" > wrote in message
> > news:d5fbdbb9-5121-4092-958d-
> >>That's all true. *And naturally I wasn't referring to sitting at the
> > OS and not the program. *But it was all the years of unhappily doing
> > file management on Windows when I wished I was in the Finder that
> > formed most of my preferences, not any Apple Kool-Aid. *While both
> > have their oddities, count me in as one whose annoyances at OSX are
> >>far fewer than my annoyances with Windows.
>
> > You do realise that there are hundreds of replacement file managers
> > available for Windows.? (Many of them free)
> > Everyone has their own idea of what user friendly means to them, so simply
> > select one that suits you, rather than buying a computer for its file
> > manager. Now that's really silly IMO.
>
> To me file management is hardly a reasonable basis to hate or love an OS.
> If Windows Explorer gives someone a tummyache, they first need to figure out
> how to avoid having to do all that file management, and then learn how to
> use it for what little file management most people actually need to do.
>
> Mr. Breeze seems to *need more of a life, one in which he doesn't have time
> to obsess over nits.

If you actually read my post it merely points to what formed my
preferences, not today, and I simply am stating preferences, of which
you seem to feel an invalid reason. Yes of course obviously there are
many free file managers, they are a necessity. I think it's great
that there are many ways to overcome the way Windows wants you to
work. But it's just another layer of a band aid to me. We could
argue for hours about why an OS should have ever had executables,
which is my personal bane. I like that there isn't the need for
everyone to write drivers for everything, that the Mac OS has always
said, sorry tomake it harder to write the app, but you must write it
this way, hook into our toolkit, access out drivers, but everything
works for me.

Yes of course, of course, I know that there can be little necessary
difference in the interfaces in this day and age, but I attribute that
to Windows thankfully becoming more OSX-like than the OSX becoming
more Windows like. But silly to argue this as if I'm the sole OSX
user in the universe. Do you know other Mac users? Are they all
idiots for their preference?

We could go around like this for months, so let's not. It's another
way of working that has it's fans, and to call someone who prefers
Macs a foolish fanboy is just childish, sorry. I would consider
maybe 10% of Mac users "fanboys". and I never considered myself one,
and I don't think you know me better than I do.

As far as who begins and is ahead in the personal flaming of someone
they don't know dept Arny, please...

Respectfully,

v

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
>,
vdubreeze > wrote:

> On Jun 6, 11:13*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> >
> > Have you seen today's announcement about OSX Lion?
> >
>
>
> Jenn, to be honest very little about it is of interest to me. I don't
> own any smartphones, and though I love my iPodTouch and refer to it
> regularly I don't get any charge out of new social app developments or
> anyone's music service. I'm just not much of a consumer.

It seems to be less about the cloud than it is about some convenience
features like "gestures" (as in the iPad, etc.), i.e. "pinching" and
swiping for screen management, etc. I like the way that the iPhone and
the iPad works in these regards, so it will be interesting to see how it
translates to a laptop and desktop setting.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/whats-new/#video-lion

> Guess I
> just lost my "fanboy" status. : )

lol Just another "Mac bigot" I guess! ;-)

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[Trevor]

"vdubreeze" > wrote in message
...
>Yes of course obviously there are
>many free file managers, they are a necessity.

Right, all programs are a necessity or else it is pointless buying ANY
computer. If you don't like the ones included with some OS, you simply buy
or download others.


> I think it's great
that there are many ways to overcome the way Windows wants you to
>work.

Windows doesn't care how you choose to work. Use the included programs or
not, it's up to you.
Well actually Microsoft would like you to use Internet Explorer it seems,
but MANY people are quite happy not using that either. In fact the programs
I REALLY hate are Apple Quicktime and Adobe Flash. Too many stupid web sites
that insist on one or both :-( :-(


>But it's just another layer of a band aid to me.

Then you simply don't understand what a computer and operating system are in
relation to the programs/applications.


> We could
argue for hours about why an OS should have ever had executables,
which is my personal bane. I like that there isn't the need for
everyone to write drivers for everything, that the Mac OS has always
said, sorry tomake it harder to write the app, but you must write it
this way, hook into our toolkit, access out drivers, but everything
>works for me.

Of course everything *that you can use* might work. There are PLENTY of
things that don't work on a Mac that do work on Windows however. FAR fewer
the other way around.


>Yes of course, of course, I know that there can be little necessary
difference in the interfaces in this day and age, but I attribute that
to Windows thankfully becoming more OSX-like than the OSX becoming
>more Windows like.

What crap, they all started out as Xerox Parc rip-offs and have just
developed from there.


> But silly to argue this as if I'm the sole OSX
user in the universe. Do you know other Mac users? Are they all
> idiots for their preference?

Nope, just idiots if they feel the need to justify the extra cost because
they prefer the Apple finder/file manager :-)

Trevor.

[Arny Krueger]

"vdubreeze" > wrote in message
...

>If you actually read my post

Typical *** bigot self-pity. Later on you prove conclusively that you don't
read mine.

> it merely points to what formed my
> preferences, not today, and I simply am stating preferences, of which
>you seem to feel an invalid reason.

I think they are an invalid reason for libeling good software.

> Yes of course obviously there are
> many free file managers, they are a necessity. I think it's great
> that there are many ways to overcome the way Windows wants you to
> work.

There's that self-absorption, again.

> But it's just another layer of a band aid to me. We could
> argue for hours about why an OS should have ever had executables,
> which is my personal bane.

You seem to like to struggle with the obvious. In this case obviously wrong.

I know of no OS that lacks executables. Certainly all permutations of the
Mac OS's and *nix have them. Heck, my cable box and Blu Ray player have
them. My programmable house thermostat has them. You see to believe that
they don't. If you really believe that, then you are delusional or really
need a good basic education in computer science before you go around
libeling every piece of software there is because it has executables.

> I like that there isn't the need for
> everyone to write drivers for everything,

Every computer you ever obtained that ran required everyone to write device
drivers for everything. I used to stand next to mainframes that had 1/100
the CPU power of my Sansa Clip and someone had to write device drivers for
it. You seem to put *nix on a pedestal, and based on what you say, it must
be because you seriously think that nobody has to write device drivers for
it! Wake up!


> that the Mac OS has always
> said, sorry to make it harder to write the app, but you must write it
> this way, hook into our toolkit, access out drivers, but everything
> works for me.

You can approach every working computer that way. AFAIK, he current Mac may
even run the exact same drivers as that the same hardware uses when it boots
windows, or not. Its not impossible.

BTW, you just blew *nix out the windows because it violates every rule
you've propounded so far.

> Yes of course, of course, I know that there can be little necessary
> difference in the interfaces in this day and age, but I attribute that
> to Windows thankfully becoming more OSX-like than the OSX becoming
> more Windows like. But silly to argue this as if I'm the sole OSX
> user in the universe. Do you know other Mac users? Are they all
>idiots for their preference?

Talk about not reading someone's posts. I already told you that there are at
least two operational Macs in my house. What I didn't tell you is that my
daughter and son-in-law who have their own house have a Mac. I know zillions
of people who have Macs and I've had two myself. No, I don't think that they
are idiots, but then again they don't try tell me that Macs don't have
executables.

AFAIK strurcturally, OSx is just a custom shell running on a heavily modded
and somewhat brain dead (especially when it comes to device support) dialect
of *nix.

> We could go around like this for months, so let's not.

No, we can't go around for months because I have a long history of having a
short fuse when it comes to tolerating ignorant fools. Post again when you
actually learn something about how computers work, before you try to again
try to pontificate this authoritatively about computer science.

[Scott Dorsey]

Trevor > wrote:
>
>You do realise that there are hundreds of replacement file managers
>available for Windows.? (Many of them free)
>Everyone has their own idea of what user friendly means to them, so simply
>select one that suits you, rather than buying a computer for its file
>manager. Now that's really silly IMO.

I don't know how anyone can stand moving files around with a gui file
manager. I find the command line much, much easier for dealing with
file manipulation. It's more flexible and there are so many more things
you can do.

Right now I think OSX does have it all over Windows XP in the command line
department, which was definitely not the case for OS9. On the other hand,
Windows 7 now comes with Powershell which is a huge improvement over the
cheesy command.com. So things are getting better on both fronts.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[John Williamson]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Trevor > wrote:
>> You do realise that there are hundreds of replacement file managers
>> available for Windows.? (Many of them free)
>> Everyone has their own idea of what user friendly means to them, so simply
>> select one that suits you, rather than buying a computer for its file
>> manager. Now that's really silly IMO.
>
> I don't know how anyone can stand moving files around with a gui file
> manager. I find the command line much, much easier for dealing with
> file manipulation. It's more flexible and there are so many more things
> you can do.
>
> Right now I think OSX does have it all over Windows XP in the command line
> department, which was definitely not the case for OS9. On the other hand,
> Windows 7 now comes with Powershell which is a huge improvement over the
> cheesy command.com. So things are getting better on both fronts.
> --scott
>
Power Shell can be installed on XP, too. I got offered it as an optional
update recently.

I miss DOSShell, and Midnight Commander.

I always install mc on any Linux box as a first step to customising it.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

On 2011-06-08 (ScottDorsey) said:
>I don't know how anyone can stand moving files around with a gui
>file manager. I find the command line much, much easier for
>dealing with file manipulation. It's more flexible and there are
>so many more things you can do.

tHis is the one thing I"ve seen in all this argument about
the same old tired Mac vs. PC thread I'd agree with 100% all
the time. Even if the damned box won't tell the blind man
what he's doing he can sit down there and at least move
files around, or automate tasks in a script to do such
things. I learned my way around batch scripting for Dos and
command.com variants rather well over the years, still use
that stuff every day <g>.

Which GUI is the best? Imho none of them. IF I want a
"tape" transport for audio, that's what I want, clearly
discernible controls I can reach out and touch, reliably.
IF I want to move around files, I like my command line
thankyouverymuch.

AS for the remaindr of this thread, "wake me up when it's
over" <grin>.

Regards,



Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[tbrac]

On Jun 8, 5:23*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "vdubreeze" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >If you actually read my post
>
> Typical *** bigot self-pity. Later on you prove conclusively that you don't
> read mine.
>
> > it merely points to what formed my
> > preferences, not today, and I simply am stating preferences, of which
> >you seem to feel an invalid reason.
>
> I think they are an invalid reason for libeling good software.
>
> > Yes of course obviously there are
> > many free file managers, they are a necessity. *I think it's great
> > that there are many ways to overcome the way Windows wants you to
> > work.
>
> There's that self-absorption, again.
>
> > *But it's just another layer of a band aid to me. * We could
> > *argue for hours about why an OS should have ever had executables,
> > which is my personal bane.
>
> You seem to like to struggle with the obvious. In this case obviously wrong.
>
> I know of no OS that lacks executables. Certainly all permutations of the
> Mac OS's and *nix have them. Heck, my cable box and Blu Ray player have
> them. My programmable house thermostat has them. You see to believe that
> they don't. If you really believe that, then you are delusional or really
> need a good basic education in computer science before you go around
> libeling every piece of software there is because it has executables.
>
> > *I like that there isn't the need for
> > everyone to write drivers for everything,
>
> Every computer you ever obtained that ran required everyone to write device
> drivers for everything. I used to stand next to mainframes that had 1/100
> the CPU power of my Sansa Clip and someone had to write device drivers for
> it. *You seem to put *nix on a pedestal, and based on what you say, it must
> be because you seriously think that nobody has to write device drivers for
> it! *Wake up!
>
> > that the Mac OS has always
> > said, sorry to make it harder to write the app, but you must write it
> > this way, hook into our toolkit, access out drivers, but everything
> > works for me.
>
> You can approach every working computer that way. AFAIK, he current Mac may
> even run the exact same drivers as that the same hardware uses when it boots
> windows, or not. *Its not impossible.
>
> BTW, you just blew *nix out the windows because it violates every rule
> you've propounded so far.
>
> > Yes of course, of course, I know that there can be little necessary
> > difference in the interfaces in this day and age, but I attribute that
> > to Windows thankfully becoming more OSX-like than the OSX becoming
> > more Windows like. * But silly to argue this as if I'm the sole OSX
> > user in the universe. *Do you know other Mac users? Are they all
> >idiots for their preference?
>
> Talk about not reading someone's posts. I already told you that there are at
> least two operational Macs in my house. What I didn't tell you is that my
> daughter and son-in-law who have their own house have a Mac. I know zillions
> of people who have Macs and I've had two myself. No, I don't think that they
> are idiots, but then again they don't try tell me that Macs don't have
> executables.
>
> AFAIK strurcturally, OSx is just a custom shell running on a heavily modded
> and somewhat brain dead (especially when it comes to device support) dialect
> of *nix.
>
> > We could go around like this for months, so let's not.
>
> No, we can't go around for months because I have a long history of having a
> short fuse when it comes to tolerating ignorant fools. Post again when you
> actually learn something about how computers work, before you try to again
> try to pontificate this authoritatively about computer science.


Wow. And you're saying *I* have no life? : ) I post once, then
ask not to make personal baseless flames and you spend an evening
picking apart every sentence in a post where I say there's no point in
arguing over preferences?

[tbrac]

On Jun 7, 11:19*pm, "Trevor" > wrote:
> "vdubreeze" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >Yes of course obviously there are
> >many free file managers, they are a necessity.
>
> Right, all programs are a necessity or else it is pointless buying ANY
> computer. If you don't like the ones included with some OS, you simply buy
> or download others.
>
> > I think it's great
>
> that there are many ways to overcome the way Windows wants you to
>
> >work.
>
> Windows doesn't care how you choose to work. Use the included programs or
> not, it's up to you.
> Well actually Microsoft would like you to use Internet Explorer it seems,
> but MANY people are quite happy not using that either. In fact the programs
> I REALLY hate are Apple Quicktime and Adobe Flash. Too many stupid web sites
> that insist on one or both :-( :-(
>
> >But it's just another layer of a band aid to me.
>
> Then you simply don't understand what a computer and operating system are in
> relation to the programs/applications.
>
> > *We could
>
> argue for hours about why an OS should have ever had executables,
> which is my personal bane. *I like that there isn't the need for
> everyone to write drivers for everything, that the Mac OS has always
> said, sorry tomake it harder to write the app, but you must write it
> this way, hook into our toolkit, access out drivers, but everything
>
> >works for me.
>
> Of course everything *that you can use* might work. There are PLENTY of
> things that don't work on a Mac that do work on Windows however. FAR fewer
> the other way around.
>
> >Yes of course, of course, I know that there can be little necessary
>
> difference in the interfaces in this day and age, but I attribute that
> to Windows thankfully becoming more OSX-like than the OSX becoming
>
> >more Windows like.
>
> What crap, they all started out as Xerox Parc rip-offs and have just
> developed from there.
>
> > *But silly to argue this as if I'm the sole OSX
>
> user in the universe. *Do you know other Mac users? Are they all
>
> > idiots for their preference?
>
> Nope, just idiots if they feel the need to justify the extra cost because
> they prefer the Apple finder/file manager :-)
>
> Trevor.

Trevor, I understand your position, but in my quest for brevity in my
post I merely focused on that issue. My whole world doesn't rest on
it. I own both, use both. Prefer OSX.

BTW, when I bought my MBP in 2009 there wasn't a laptop for the same
price with the same features, including a matte screen, that ran the
programs I wanted to run. So I didn't pay more for it.

But I'm glad you like your rig. I like mine.

[vdubreeze]

On Jun 8, 10:39*pm, tbrac > wrote:
> On Jun 8, 5:23*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "vdubreeze" > wrote in message
>
> ....
>
> > >If you actually read my post
>
> > Typical *** bigot self-pity. Later on you prove conclusively that you don't
> > read mine.
>
> > > it merely points to what formed my
> > > preferences, not today, and I simply am stating preferences, of which
> > >you seem to feel an invalid reason.
>
> > I think they are an invalid reason for libeling good software.
>
> > > Yes of course obviously there are
> > > many free file managers, they are a necessity. *I think it's great
> > > that there are many ways to overcome the way Windows wants you to
> > > work.
>
> > There's that self-absorption, again.
>
> > > *But it's just another layer of a band aid to me. * We could
> > > *argue for hours about why an OS should have ever had executables,
> > > which is my personal bane.
>
> > You seem to like to struggle with the obvious. In this case obviously wrong.
>
> > I know of no OS that lacks executables. Certainly all permutations of the
> > Mac OS's and *nix have them. Heck, my cable box and Blu Ray player have
> > them. My programmable house thermostat has them. You see to believe that
> > they don't. If you really believe that, then you are delusional or really
> > need a good basic education in computer science before you go around
> > libeling every piece of software there is because it has executables.
>
> > > *I like that there isn't the need for
> > > everyone to write drivers for everything,
>
> > Every computer you ever obtained that ran required everyone to write device
> > drivers for everything. I used to stand next to mainframes that had 1/100
> > the CPU power of my Sansa Clip and someone had to write device drivers for
> > it. *You seem to put *nix on a pedestal, and based on what you say, it must
> > be because you seriously think that nobody has to write device drivers for
> > it! *Wake up!
>
> > > that the Mac OS has always
> > > said, sorry to make it harder to write the app, but you must write it
> > > this way, hook into our toolkit, access out drivers, but everything
> > > works for me.
>
> > You can approach every working computer that way. AFAIK, he current Mac may
> > even run the exact same drivers as that the same hardware uses when it boots
> > windows, or not. *Its not impossible.
>
> > BTW, you just blew *nix out the windows because it violates every rule
> > you've propounded so far.
>
> > > Yes of course, of course, I know that there can be little necessary
> > > difference in the interfaces in this day and age, but I attribute that
> > > to Windows thankfully becoming more OSX-like than the OSX becoming
> > > more Windows like. * But silly to argue this as if I'm the sole OSX
> > > user in the universe. *Do you know other Mac users? Are they all
> > >idiots for their preference?
>
> > Talk about not reading someone's posts. I already told you that there are at
> > least two operational Macs in my house. What I didn't tell you is that my
> > daughter and son-in-law who have their own house have a Mac. I know zillions
> > of people who have Macs and I've had two myself. No, I don't think that they
> > are idiots, but then again they don't try tell me that Macs don't have
> > executables.
>
> > AFAIK strurcturally, OSx is just a custom shell running on a heavily modded
> > and somewhat brain dead (especially when it comes to device support) dialect
> > of *nix.
>
> > > We could go around like this for months, so let's not.
>
> > No, we can't go around for months because I have a long history of having a
> > short fuse when it comes to tolerating ignorant fools. Post again when you
> > actually learn something about how computers work, before you try to again
> > try to pontificate this authoritatively about computer science.
>
> Wow. *And you're saying *I* have no life? * : *) * *I post once, then
> ask not to make personal baseless flames and you spend an evening
> picking apart every sentence in a post where I say there's no point in
> arguing over preferences?

Whoops. Loaned my laptop for ten minutes and someone else logged on
and not off.

[vdubreeze]

On Jun 8, 10:45*pm, tbrac > wrote:
> On Jun 7, 11:19*pm, "Trevor" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "vdubreeze" > wrote in message
>
> ....
>
> > >Yes of course obviously there are
> > >many free file managers, they are a necessity.
>
> > Right, all programs are a necessity or else it is pointless buying ANY
> > computer. If you don't like the ones included with some OS, you simply buy
> > or download others.
>
> > > I think it's great
>
> > that there are many ways to overcome the way Windows wants you to
>
> > >work.
>
> > Windows doesn't care how you choose to work. Use the included programs or
> > not, it's up to you.
> > Well actually Microsoft would like you to use Internet Explorer it seems,
> > but MANY people are quite happy not using that either. In fact the programs
> > I REALLY hate are Apple Quicktime and Adobe Flash. Too many stupid web sites
> > that insist on one or both :-( :-(
>
> > >But it's just another layer of a band aid to me.
>
> > Then you simply don't understand what a computer and operating system are in
> > relation to the programs/applications.
>
> > > *We could
>
> > argue for hours about why an OS should have ever had executables,
> > which is my personal bane. *I like that there isn't the need for
> > everyone to write drivers for everything, that the Mac OS has always
> > said, sorry tomake it harder to write the app, but you must write it
> > this way, hook into our toolkit, access out drivers, but everything
>
> > >works for me.
>
> > Of course everything *that you can use* might work. There are PLENTY of
> > things that don't work on a Mac that do work on Windows however. FAR fewer
> > the other way around.
>
> > >Yes of course, of course, I know that there can be little necessary
>
> > difference in the interfaces in this day and age, but I attribute that
> > to Windows thankfully becoming more OSX-like than the OSX becoming
>
> > >more Windows like.
>
> > What crap, they all started out as Xerox Parc rip-offs and have just
> > developed from there.
>
> > > *But silly to argue this as if I'm the sole OSX
>
> > user in the universe. *Do you know other Mac users? Are they all
>
> > > idiots for their preference?
>
> > Nope, just idiots if they feel the need to justify the extra cost because
> > they prefer the Apple finder/file manager :-)
>
> > Trevor.
>
> Trevor, I understand your position, but in my quest for brevity in my
> post I merely focused on that issue. * My whole world doesn't rest on
> it. *I own both, use both. *Prefer OSX.
>
> BTW, when I bought my MBP in 2009 there wasn't a laptop for the same
> price with the same features, including a matte screen, that ran the
> programs I wanted to run. *So I didn't pay more for it.
>
> But I'm glad you like your rig. *I like mine.


Same. My words, not my login. Apologies.

[hank alrich]

Arny Krueger > wrote:

> No, we can't go around for months because I have a long history of having a
> short fuse when it comes to tolerating ignorant fools.

Must make mornings difficult.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> I don't know how anyone can stand moving files around with a gui file
> manager. I find the command line much, much easier for dealing with
> file manipulation. It's more flexible and there are so many more things
> you can do.

I use both methods to suit the job in hand, with a choice of two GUI file
managers or command line, depending on the task.


> Right now I think OSX does have it all over Windows XP in the command line
> department, which was definitely not the case for OS9. On the other hand,
> Windows 7 now comes with Powershell which is a huge improvement over the
> cheesy command.com. So things are getting better on both fronts.

I've never used the OSX command line, but I haven't found a problem doing
all the file manipulation I need in Windows.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"tbrac" > wrote in message
...
>Trevor, I understand your position, but in my quest for brevity in my
post I merely focused on that issue. My whole world doesn't rest on
>it. I own both, use both. Prefer OSX.
>BTW, when I bought my MBP in 2009 there wasn't a laptop for the same
price with the same features, including a matte screen, that ran the
>programs I wanted to run. So I didn't pay more for it.
>But I'm glad you like your rig. I like mine.

OK, fair enough, I can't argue with what you posted now. I'm happy with my
choice, and as I've said all along, everyone is welcome to their own choice
of how they spend their money. It's just I don't accept there is any huge
benefit of one over the other to justify the cost, and I simply hate the way
Apple tries to "straight-jacket" the users of most of it's products. Of
course that is exactly what many others love about them. Each to their own.
I note there is a whole segment of users who revel in "jail-breaking" Apple
products however, so obviously they aren't all happy with the Apple
philosophy.

BTW my Samsung laptop also has a matte screen, and all my desktop screens
are sufficiently anti-glare as to cause no problems for me. And all the
software I own is PC, so have no desire to change now! I agree the reverse
also applies for Mac users though. Most of the big programs are available in
both Mac and Windows versions though, so it's not an issue when making a
choice IMO. I guess if they REALLY insist on using Logic, Garage Band etc.
without ever wanting to learn the PC alternatives, then they are stuck. But
of course they would have needed to choose the Mac for some reason in the
first place to ever be in that postion. And the reason for that IME is
simply that they are told the Mac is easier to use when they buy their first
computer and have no experience with computing.

As always I have to admire Apple's marketing, if not their prices :-)

Trevor.

[vdubreeze]

On Jun 9, 2:13*am, (hank alrich) wrote:
> Arny Krueger > wrote:
> > No, we can't go around for months because I have a long history of having a
> > short fuse when it comes to tolerating ignorant fools.
>
> Must make mornings difficult.


Hank, I'm sorry to have usurped your position : )

[vdubreeze]

On Jun 9, 6:54*am, "Trevor" > wrote:
> "tbrac" > wrote in message
>
> ...>Trevor, I understand your position, but in my quest for brevity in my
>
> post I merely focused on that issue. * My whole world doesn't rest on>it. *I own both, use both. *Prefer OSX.
> >BTW, when I bought my MBP in 2009 there wasn't a laptop for the same
>
> price with the same features, including a matte screen, that ran the
>
> >programs I wanted to run. *So I didn't pay more for it.
> >But I'm glad you like your rig. *I like mine.
>
> OK, fair enough, *I can't argue with what you posted now. I'm happy with my
> choice, and as I've said all along, everyone is welcome to their own choice
> of how they spend their money. It's just I don't accept there is any huge
> benefit of one over the other to justify the cost, and I simply hate the way
> Apple tries to "straight-jacket" the users of most of it's products. Of
> course that is exactly what many others love about them. Each to their own.

[William Sommerwerck]

> No, we can't go around for months because I have a long history
> of having a short fuse when it comes to tolerating ignorant fools.

Do you tolerate knowledgable fools (of which I am one)?

[Scott Dorsey]

Trevor > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>
>> Right now I think OSX does have it all over Windows XP in the command line
>> department, which was definitely not the case for OS9. On the other hand,
>> Windows 7 now comes with Powershell which is a huge improvement over the
>> cheesy command.com. So things are getting better on both fronts.
>
>I've never used the OSX command line, but I haven't found a problem doing
>all the file manipulation I need in Windows.

The command.com is just awful. It's basically a copy of the CP/M command
language, written by someone who didn't really understand why and how CP/M
did a lot of things. CP/M itself is a knock-down bargain-basement imitation
of RT-11.

Consequently, command.com has things like pipes and filters, but they don't
work right and aren't really very useful. It's lacking a lot of standard
features that were normal on small computers back in the seventies.

Powershell is a night and day improvement; it has pipes and filters that
work, it has variables and strings that work, and functions and conditionals
to manipulate them. It doesn't have the whole Software Tools utilities
that have been around since the seventies and which are very handy on OSX,
but you could do far worse.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On 2011-06-10 (ScottDorsey) said:
>The command.com is just awful. It's basically a copy of the CP/M
>command language, written by someone who didn't really understand
>why and how CP/M did a lot of things. CP/M itself is a knock-down
>bargain-basement imitation of RT-11.
>Consequently, command.com has things like pipes and filters, but
>they don't work right and aren't really very useful. It's lacking
>a lot of standard features that were normal on small computers back
>in the seventies.

THis is as folks who really know and taught me say as well.
I really got into doing what I do with anything other than
stand alone music computers from the early '90's on, so I
learned command.com with all its limitations. AS I
commented elsewhere, I've learned to do a lot with its batch
scripting, but I've also found add on tools over the years,
many of them freeware which give one back some of what
command.com out of the box is missing.

TO see its glaring weaknesses up close and personal consider
what one can, and can't do with the command.com find command
<g>. I found a port of grep that works for most of what I
need however.


Regards,



Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 17:15:44 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

>
>On 2011-06-10 (ScottDorsey) said:
> >The command.com is just awful. It's basically a copy of the CP/M
> >command language, written by someone who didn't really understand
> >why and how CP/M did a lot of things. CP/M itself is a knock-down
> >bargain-basement imitation of RT-11.
> >Consequently, command.com has things like pipes and filters, but
> >they don't work right and aren't really very useful. It's lacking
> >a lot of standard features that were normal on small computers back
> >in the seventies.
>
>THis is as folks who really know and taught me say as well.
>I really got into doing what I do with anything other than
>stand alone music computers from the early '90's on, so I
>learned command.com with all its limitations. AS I
>commented elsewhere, I've learned to do a lot with its batch
>scripting, but I've also found add on tools over the years,
>many of them freeware which give one back some of what
>command.com out of the box is missing.
>
>TO see its glaring weaknesses up close and personal consider
>what one can, and can't do with the command.com find command
><g>. I found a port of grep that works for most of what I
>need however.
>
>
>Regards,
>
I have a friend who refused to learn to use any text editor beyond
EDLIN. His rationale was that no matter what, it would always be there
for him in any operating system that was ever shipped. He happily put
up with the clunky, near useless interface while everyone around him
was editing fast and easy with windows editors. EDLIN, of course, has
gone the way of the dodo.

Why wou;d anyone want to type COPY
C:\this_directory\that_directory\another\directory \file.doc to
d:\yet_another_****ing_directory\Ive_lost_the_will _to_live\the_wrong_file_name.doc
when a single mouse click and drag does precisely that?

As for batch files - how many different things do you need to work on
at once? Sort it all out once and for all and be dragged kicking and
screaming into the twentieth century. The twenty-first can come later.

d

[[email protected]]

On 2011-06-10 (DonPearce) said:
>I have a friend who refused to learn to use any text editor beyond
>EDLIN. His rationale was that no matter what, it would always be
>there for him in any operating system that was ever shipped. He
>happily put up with the clunky, near useless interface while
>everyone around him was editing fast and easy with windows editors.
>EDLIN, of course, has gone the way of the dodo.
Always hated that editor. FOund qedit while learning, and
never looked back.

>Why wou;d anyone want to type COPY
>C:\this_directory\that_directory\another\directory \file.doc to
>d:\yet_another_****ing_directory\Ive_lost_the_will _to_live\the_wrong
>_file_name. doc
I don't mouse, I've never found a gui screenreader I liked
that gave me the functionality this one does, so this old
lind man refuses to mouse, whether it be in unix or any
operating system. That's why I operate with dedicated hard
disk recorders as well, trying to capture 8 16 or 24 tracks
of audio whilst a screenreader is doing its thing is prone
to failure.

>As for batch files - how many different things do you need to work
>on at once? Sort it all out once and for all and be dragged kicking
>and screaming into the twentieth century. The twenty-first can come
I think you misunderstand what a batch script might be, it's
not necessarily working on multiple tasks at once, but doing
multiple things, one after the other repetitively.



Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[vdubreeze]

On Jun 10, 1:25*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:

>
> Why wou;d anyone want to type COPY
> C:\this_directory\that_directory\another\directory \file.doc to
> d:\yet_another_****ing_directory\Ive_lost_the_will _to_live\the_wrong_file_name.doc
> when a single mouse click and drag does precisely that?


Oh jeez, Don, now you've gone and done it. You mean I didn't have to
be so patient when my dentist was using commands to pull up my xrays
from his server, just because he could?

[vdubreeze]

On Jun 10, 2:04*pm, vdubreeze > wrote:
> On Jun 10, 1:25*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
>
>
>
> > Why wou;d anyone want to type COPY
> > C:\this_directory\that_directory\another\directory \file.doc to
> > d:\yet_another_****ing_directory\Ive_lost_the_will _to_live\the_wrong_file_name.doc
> > when a single mouse click and drag does precisely that?
>
> Oh jeez, Don, now you've gone and done it. *You mean I didn't have to
> be so patient when my dentist was using commands to pull up my xrays
> from his server, just because he could?

Don't want that to come off as anything but a jest. I suffer from my
own set of old habits that are dying hard. But I'm with Don in the
camp of if I wouldn't do something with five people breathing down my
back waiting for me, I wouldn't go back to doing it in the privacy of
my own unless I really preferred it. Just because I know that the
pistons are only going up and down and affect the crankshaft and by
the time the transmission is done with it the wheels are turning
doesn't mean I want to go outside and turn them myself because I know
how it works. OTOH, I change my own oil...because I can.

Oh rats. Not a good argument.

BTW, Don, your command example is coffee-spit worthy.

[[email protected]]

On 2011-06-10 said:
>> Why wou;d anyone want to type COPY
>> C:\this_directory\that_directory\another\directory \file.doc to
>>
>d:\yet_another_****ing_directory\Ive_lost_the_will _to_live\the_wrong
>>_file _name.doc when a single mouse click and drag does precisely
>that?
>Oh jeez, Don, now you've gone and done it. You mean I didn't have
>to be so patient when my dentist was using commands to pull up my
>xrays from his server, just because he could?

OFten the command line is faster than looking down the list,
finding what you want, either tagging it if you've got a
group of files to move, or drag and drop.

I've got a couple point and shoot file manager I might use,
when I only want certain files from a directory moved
somewhere else, and I want to look at their contents
possibly first, etc. IN those situations we'll play mark
targets and shoot, but I find that with most operating
systems bootup to point of getting work done is much faster
without the gui front end. <strokes for folks>



Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[William Sommerwerck]

> I've got a couple point and shoot file manager I might use,
> when I only want certain files from a directory moved
> somewhere else, and I want to look at their contents
> possibly first, etc. IN those situations we'll play mark
> targets and shoot, but I find that with most operating
> systems bootup to point of getting work done is much faster
> without the gui front end. <strokes for folks>

Some people seem congenitally averse to GUIs. With regard to Windows, you
can open two copies of Windows Explorer, and drag-and-drop between them much
faster than you could ever type in commands.

If you are simply deleting or renaming one or two files, a command line
would probably be faster and less trouble.

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce > wrote:
>
>Why wou;d anyone want to type COPY
>C:\this_directory\that_directory\another\directory \file.doc to
>d:\yet_another_****ing_directory\Ive_lost_the_will _to_live\the_wrong_file_name.doc
>when a single mouse click and drag does precisely that?

Because I can copy thousands of files doing that with one command.

I can rename all the files that end in .wavx to .wav with one command.

I can convert hundreds of .wav files to .aiff files with one command.

I can take a million .wav files and add a stinger to the beginning of
each one with one command.

>As for batch files - how many different things do you need to work on
>at once? Sort it all out once and for all and be dragged kicking and
>screaming into the twentieth century. The twenty-first can come later.

Batch files? You mean scripting?
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On 2011-06-10 (ScottDorsey) said:
>Because I can copy thousands of files doing that with one command.
>I can rename all the files that end in .wavx to .wav with one
>command.
>I can convert hundreds of .wav files to .aiff files with one
>command.
>I can take a million .wav files and add a stinger to the beginning
>of each one with one command.

YEp, and, for Steve King, the commands I use every day,
simple file management stuff, I don't have to crack the
book. sOmething real arcane I might, but most everyday
stuff such as Scott describes, no need for the book.

>>As for batch files - how many different things do you need to work
>>on at once? Sort it all out once and for all and be dragged
>>kicking and screaming into the twentieth century. The twenty-first
>can come later.
>Batch files? You mean scripting?

YEp, under dos/win etc. they're called batch files, they're
scripting actually. COuldn't live without them for a lot of
stuff I do.


Back in the old dbase days I was the guy who wrote menu
programs to manage the database and manipulate data for the
rest of the folks in the shop, but preferred to work from
the dot prompt myself <g>.
NOw there was some convulted fubar command syntax for ya.
IF you were going to do that and you had fumble fingers best
to set help off <g>>

Regards,




Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[vdubreeze]

On Jun 10, 4:43*pm, "Steve King"
> wrote:

> *I do a little video editing, some Photo Shop work, a lot
> of writing, a lot of VO recording and editing, some Power Point design, etc.
> etc. etc. *The point being that by the time I need to do something that at
> one time would have been a command line task, I've forgot whether the the
> semi-colon goes before or after the little carrot. *

Steve, and there's one more thing: If you cut typing class in Jr.
High you may have turned out to one be of those who can't use command
line as easily as a GUI regardless of your propellerhead status or the
potential of its use. I use it when its utility prowess easily pokes
through what is broken or confused in the OS, but as a typist I could
flatter myself by saying I'm mediocre. If I push it I can be fairly
serviceable but not without the typo that would sink a string of
commands. Is there a spellcheck for CL? : )

Since computers have forced us all to type and no one writes anymore I
have probably gotten good enough to go back and surprise Miss Maurer,
rest her soul, but there are those of us who aren't good touch typists
and don't relish it enough if we don't have to. I fear I'm one of
those who, even if I had the entire command libraries of every OS at
my disposal in my brain I still wouldn't use CL over a decent GUI,
especially regarding time spent, because my typing isn't up to it, and
I don't get the kick out of it that some do.

v

[The Kumins]

On May 17, 4:00*pm, Mike Rivers > wrote:

>
> And, no, I don't care enough about these little annoyances to buy a
> Macbook Pro.


Well, my 2008 MBP on 10.6.7 is good waking from deep sleep 95% of the
time, peripherals don't seem to matter. Also not annoying enough to
replace.

The G4 running 10.4 gets confused by the 24" ACER monitor and goes
into a coma instead.

[vdubreeze]

On May 17, 4:00 pm, Mike Rivers > wrote:
> And, no, I don't care enough about these little annoyances to buy a
> Macbook Pro.


Well, my 2008 MBP on 10.6.7 is good waking from deep sleep 95% of the
time, peripherals don't seem to matter. Also not annoying enough to
replace.

The G4 running 10.4 gets confused by the 24" ACER monitor and goes
into a coma instead.

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Because I can copy thousands of files doing that with one command.
>
> I can rename all the files that end in .wavx to .wav with one command.
>
> I can convert hundreds of .wav files to .aiff files with one command.
>
> I can take a million .wav files and add a stinger to the beginning of
> each one with one command.


There are plenty of file managers and programs that also allow you to do
all that with wild cards or scripts without leaving the GUI. They've been
around for decades after all.

Trevor.

[Steve King]

"The Kumins" > wrote in message
...
On May 17, 4:00 pm, Mike Rivers > wrote:

>
> And, no, I don't care enough about these little annoyances to buy a
> Macbook Pro.


<<<Well, my 2008 MBP on 10.6.7 is good waking from deep sleep 95% of the
time, peripherals don't seem to matter. Also not annoying enough to
replace.

The G4 running 10.4 gets confused by the 24" ACER monitor and goes
into a coma instead.>>>

This probably isn't the place for it, but I recently had my second failure
of the LCD screen on an iInc-252 flat screen monitor. It was fixed once
under warrantee after about 6 months, then failed again after about a year.
Waiting for a replacement under extended warrantee; one of the only times I
opted for that and only time I've needed it. Lucky.

Steve KIng.

[Scott Dorsey]

Steve King > wrote:
>
>This probably isn't the place for it, but I recently had my second failure
>of the LCD screen on an iInc-252 flat screen monitor. It was fixed once
>under warrantee after about 6 months, then failed again after about a year.
>Waiting for a replacement under extended warrantee; one of the only times I
>opted for that and only time I've needed it. Lucky.

What failed? Did the screen not light up? Was an image visible faintly
with a flashlight against the screen?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Steve King]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Steve King > wrote:
>>
>>This probably isn't the place for it, but I recently had my second failure
>>of the LCD screen on an iInc-252 flat screen monitor. It was fixed once
>>under warrantee after about 6 months, then failed again after about a
>>year.
>>Waiting for a replacement under extended warrantee; one of the only times
>>I
>>opted for that and only time I've needed it. Lucky.
>
> What failed? Did the screen not light up? Was an image visible faintly
> with a flashlight against the screen?
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On boot up (or on turn off-turn on with the monitor power switch) the screen
flashes on then within a second or two goes to black. The repair report on
the first one I sent back indicated they replaced the screen. The symptoms
on the repaired monitor , after about 6 months, showed the same symptons.

Steve King

[Bill Graham]

Steve King wrote:
> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Steve King > wrote:
>>>
>>> This probably isn't the place for it, but I recently had my second
>>> failure of the LCD screen on an iInc-252 flat screen monitor. It
>>> was fixed once under warrantee after about 6 months, then failed
>>> again after about a year.
>>> Waiting for a replacement under extended warrantee; one of the only
>>> times I
>>> opted for that and only time I've needed it. Lucky.
>>
>> What failed? Did the screen not light up? Was an image visible
>> faintly with a flashlight against the screen?
>> --scott
>> --
>> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>
> On boot up (or on turn off-turn on with the monitor power switch) the
> screen flashes on then within a second or two goes to black. The
> repair report on the first one I sent back indicated they replaced
> the screen. The symptoms on the repaired monitor , after about 6
> months, showed the same symptons.
> Steve King

Sounds like the mechanics who worked on my car. The battery would run down
when the car sat undriven for three days or more. I took it to the dealer,
and told them to find out what was running the battery down. When I picked
it up the next day, they said, "There isn't anything wrong with your
battery. We charged it up and it works fine." (I eventually found the trunk
switch broken so the trunk light was on all the time.)

[Scott Dorsey]

Steve King > wrote:
>
>On boot up (or on turn off-turn on with the monitor power switch) the screen
>flashes on then within a second or two goes to black. The repair report on
>the first one I sent back indicated they replaced the screen. The symptoms
>on the repaired monitor , after about 6 months, showed the same symptons.

That's either a power supply problem or a backlight inverter problem. If it
is a backlight inverter problem, shining a flashlight on the screen will
allow you to see the image very faintly. It's there, it's just not lit.

Backlight inverter problems that are RoHS-related are very very common...
folks in some places east of us have yet to figure out that high voltage
circuits need to be laid out very differently with lead-free solder. They
work for a few months, the solder migrates and then they stop working.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."