 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Verizon / December 2007Hey Oxford - more reality
Oxford has gone on and on about WiFi ruling the world and killing off cellular in the future. The reality is that it NEVER will. It looks like it's going backwards.... If they can't get it up and running in Geek central, it isn't EVER going to happen everywhere - like nut job fanboy says it will. The ambitious plan to blanket 1,500 square miles of California's Silicon Valley with a wireless network may be on the edge of stalling, still unable to raise funds for even two one-square-mile.test sites, according to a recent column in the San Jose Mercury News. http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/110807-wireless-network-silicon-valley-sta lls.html?netht=110907dailynews1&&nladname=110907dailynews As an added bonus: WiMax is not looking good either. Sprint Nextel and Clearwire on Friday said they have mutually agreed to terminate the letter of intent to build a nationwide WiMAX network that they signed in July. http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/110907-sprint-clearwire-kill-joint-wimax-p roject.html?page=2 > Oxford has gone on and on about WiFi ruling the world > and killing off cellular in the future. The reality is that it NEVER will. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/110907-sprint-clearwire-kill-joint-wimax > -project.html?page=2 go educate yourself: http://www.fon.com/en/ - >go educate yourself: > >http://www.fon.com/en/ http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy/ >> Oxford has gone on and on about WiFi ruling the world >> and killing off cellular in the future. The reality is that it NEVER [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > - Just the fact that you bring up FON, shows just how clueless you really are. No education needed - I'm well aware of the fact it isn't going anywhere also. And having a good laugh - at your expense. > > go educate yourself: > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No education needed - I'm well aware of the fact it isn't going anywhere > also. ah, but for some reason SJ is very interested in what FON is doing. That speaks volumes alone, and supports my hypothesis in a major way. http://digg.com/apple/Steve_Jobs_keen_on_a_world_where_people_share_WiFi someday, you'll catch up with me... > ah, but for some reason SJ is very interested in what FON is doing. Gee, he's in buiness that sells computers and music downloads, and wants cheap or free ubiquitous intenet access to spread. Hmm, I can't imagine why. I hear Jif and Skippy support the development of cars that are powered by Peanut Butter... > That > speaks volumes alone, and supports my hypothesis in a major way. > > http://digg.com/apple/Steve_Jobs_keen_on_a_world_where_people_share_WiFi > someday, you'll catch up with me... "Imagine no possessions/ I wonder if you can/ No need for greed or hunger/ A brotherhood of man..." The problem with this concept is that it relies on our giving nature. If all six of the WiFi houses on my cul-de-sac open our APs, how long before five of us decide we don't need to buy access anymore? Socialism has the same problem. If society agrees that everyone should share equally, what is the producers incentive to produce? FON tries to combat this with it's "members" concept, but it seems to me FON is more interested in selling it's $40 routers than actually spreading free wi-fi around. So, I could use the $40 to get free WiFi from the 9 FON members in the Denver Metro, or use it to buy 7 months of net access from my cell provider. Decisions, decisions... > "Imagine no possessions/ I wonder if you can/ No need for greed or > hunger/ A brotherhood of man..." > > The problem with this concept is that it relies on our giving nature. If > all six of the WiFi houses on my cul-de-sac open our APs, how long before > five of us decide we don't need to buy access anymore? Exactly correct! Well put, also! > Socialism has the > same problem. If society agrees that everyone should share equally, what > is the producers incentive to produce? Yep, this is Oxtard's wet dream. Internet Access Socialism. Everyone sharing their "free" wifi with everyone else. Except it's not free, everyone is paying for it. Sorry, count me out. I want MY bandwidth for MY use, not my neighbor's use. Bob Campbell >> "Imagine no possessions/ I wonder if you can/ No need for greed or >> hunger/ A brotherhood of man..." [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Everyone sharing their "free" wifi with everyone else. Except it's not > free, everyone is paying for it. Socialism would be the state owning all of it and running it badly so it was equally useless to all except the party members who would have their own high-bandwidth access. Socialism has as much to do with caring and sharing in the real world as Christianity has to do with love and tolerance. Andy > > Yep, this is Oxtard's wet dream. Internet Access Socialism. > > Everyone sharing their "free" wifi with everyone else. Except it's not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > was equally useless to all except the party members who would have their > own high-bandwidth access. Which is exactly how this silly scheme would end up. Socialism was supposed to be "Everyone is equal and everyone will be taken care of". But of course, some people are more equal than others. If you want something, you work hard so you can pay for it. Don't expect your neighbors to give it to you. Bob Campbell > > Socialism has the > > same problem. If society agrees that everyone should share equally, what [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Sorry, count me out. I want MY bandwidth for MY use, not my neighbor's > use. Not me. The problem I have with it isn't that I would be sharing. (Seriously, why would anyone object to that?) The problem I see with it is that it doesn't do ANY of the 'free' part. EVERYONE IS PAYING! >The problem with this concept is that it relies on our giving nature. If >all six of the WiFi houses on my cul-de-sac open our APs, how long before >five of us decide we don't need to buy access anymore? And there is a security problem with it, too. I wonder whose door they'll knock on when your neighbor gets "caught" posting kiddie porn through *your* open AP? > >The problem with this concept is that it relies on our giving nature. If > >all six of the WiFi houses on my cul-de-sac open our APs, how long before [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > they'll knock on when your neighbor gets "caught" posting kiddie porn > through *your* open AP? Yep. Oxtard appears to be re-living the Woodstock Dream, where everything is "free" - as long as it's paid for by Someone Else. Bob Campbell > The problem with this concept is that it relies on our giving nature. If > all six of the WiFi houses on my cul-de-sac open our APs, how long before > five of us decide we don't need to buy access anymore? You don't get free access unless you have an open network. Socialism has the > same problem. If society agrees that everyone should share equally, what > is the producers incentive to produce? Socialism has nothing to do with it. > > The problem with this concept is that it relies on our giving nature. If > > all six of the WiFi houses on my cul-de-sac open our APs, how long before > > five of us decide we don't need to buy access anymore? > > You don't get free access unless you have an open network. And how, pray tell, is this monitored/enforced? Do we have the Ministry Of Open Networks monitoring my AP? What if I'm away from home (it's a mobile phone, after all) happily using YOUR "free" open network, when the power goes off at my house. Suddenly I have no "open network" any longer. Does my iPhone become an iBrick? This pie-in-the-sky scheme is completely silly and unworkable. When Apple releases the 3G iPhone, all this talk of "free wifi phones" will go away. Bob Campbell > > You don't get free access unless you have an open network. > > And how, pray tell, is this monitored/enforced? He's talking about FON.com, where theycon you into buying a their pre- configured "FON" wireless AP for $40, which then grants you access to every other sucker's, er, um, member's FON router. If you don't don't buy in, you don't get on their closed "open" network. According to their website, they have 9 victims, er, um, "members" in the Denver metro. If I signup, I'll have free wifi access in 10 backyards and 10 driveways (including mine) all accross Denver! I can't wait toall T-Mobile and cancel my cell service! > What if I'm away from home (it's a mobile phone, after all) happily > using YOUR "free" open network, when the power goes off at my house. > Suddenly I have no "open network" any longer. Does my iPhone become an > iBrick? Nah, if you print out the FON map of your area, I'm sure free access is available in a 100-square foot area no more than 15 or 20 miles away... > This pie-in-the-sky scheme is completely silly and unworkable. True, but I still wished I thought of it. They've sold hundreds of these $40-50 APs and will probably sell hundreds more before they disappear ffom the face of the Earth! ;-) > When > Apple releases the 3G iPhone, all this talk of "free wifi phones" will > go away. Only to be replaced by his new diatribe of how 3G was "broken" and "floundering" until Apple came along and made it viable! I swear the poor lad is holding his breath until Apple starts selling oxygen... > > And how, pray tell, is this monitored/enforced? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > (including mine) all accross Denver! I can't wait toall T-Mobile and > cancel my cell service! But if Apple does it, you'll have 1000's within a few months, plus the 1000's of open wifi spots already in Denver. > > What if I'm away from home (it's a mobile phone, after all) happily > > using YOUR "free" open network, when the power goes off at my house. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Nah, if you print out the FON map of your area, I'm sure free access is > available in a 100-square foot area no more than 15 or 20 miles away... no, it comes with a range extender for that $40, so you'd have 300 feet or so of coverage. 1000's of feet with other antennas. > > This pie-in-the-sky scheme is completely silly and unworkable. > > True, but I still wished I thought of it. They've sold hundreds of these > $40-50 APs and will probably sell hundreds more before they disappear > ffom the face of the Earth! ;-) ah, they have a hell of a lot more than 1000's of these, FON is spanish and they are mainly in Europe. but if Apple latches on, people like Dell, Linksys, Netgear and HP will quickly copy them and make the party even wider. their partner list is rather incredible, so something BIG is about to happen. Sequoia Capital alone says it all... http://www.fon.com/en/info/ourInvestorPartners > > When > > Apple releases the 3G iPhone, all this talk of "free wifi phones" will [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I swear the poor lad is holding his breath until Apple starts selling > oxygen... 3G isn't ready yet for a Cell Phone. It kills battery life and makes them too bulky. If 3G is christened by SJ it will be popular in the States, if not there will be a better solution that Apple will be the first to use on a wide scale. Just like they were the first to use 802.11 on a mass scale. - In article <colalovesosx-A0952C.21344712112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net>, > 3G isn't ready yet for a Cell Phone. It kills battery life and makes > them too bulky. If 3G is christened by SJ it will be popular in the > States, There you have it, folks. Apple will make 3G "popular", because no one is using it now! Bob Campbell > > 3G isn't ready yet for a Cell Phone. It kills battery life and makes > > them too bulky. If 3G is christened by SJ it will be popular in the > > States, > > There you have it, folks. Apple will make 3G "popular", because no > one is using it now! well, apple sets most all tech trends. mainly because they wait until a tech is ready, then develop it out, then everyone follows apple's lead. from the pc to the mp3 player, now the multi-touch cell phone, apple led the way that became the standard. In article <colalovesosx-2DC651.08210713112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net>, > well, apple sets most all tech trends. mainly because they wait until a > tech is ready, then develop it out, then everyone follows apple's lead. Apple doesn't set ANY tech trends - they follow. They followed the PC with Intel chips. They are following the cell phone industry. Bob Campbell > In article > <colalovesosx-2DC651.08210713112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net>, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Apple doesn't set ANY tech trends - they follow. They followed the PC > with Intel chips. They are following the cell phone industry. In this case Apple had no real choice. IBM didn't want to give them their flagship chip, the G6. Apples server line was in direct competition with IBMs server line. But you are correct in that Apple didn't set any tech trends. > > well, apple sets most all tech trends. mainly because they wait until a > > tech is ready, then develop it out, then everyone follows apple's lead. > > Apple doesn't set ANY tech trends - they follow. They followed the PC > with Intel chips. They are following the cell phone industry. ah, they set the PC as the trend people have been following since 1976, set the floppy drive trend in 1977, they set the GUI trend since 1983, set the laser printer trend since 1985, set the CD-Rom trend since 1987, set the multimedia trend since 1988, set the ethernet trend since 1989, set the www trend since 1990 (sj did that), then a dark 8 years. then set the USB trend in 1998, set getting rid of floppies that same year, set the wireless trend in 2000, set the firewire trend that same year, set the iPod trend in 2001, set the bluetooth trend in 2003, set the dvd burning trend in 2004, set the wireless audio trend in 2005, on and on... this says it all - BYTE Magazine, December 1994: "It would not be an exaggeration to describe the history of the computer industry for the past decade as a massive attempt to keep up with Apple." what has the PC contributed, that Apple didn't do first? bet you can't name a single thing. - > this says it all - BYTE Magazine, December 1994: > > "It would not be an exaggeration to describe the history of the > computer industry for the past decade as a massive attempt to keep up > with Apple." A thirteen year old article? A snippet from a thirteen year old article? Too bad the same hasn't true for the last thirteen years. In article <colalovesosx-62E5D5.13203214112007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net>, > > > well, apple sets most all tech trends. mainly because they wait until a > > > tech is ready, then develop it out, then everyone follows apple's lead. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > ah, they set the PC as the trend people have been following since 1976, Nope. PCs existed before 1976. > set the floppy drive trend in 1977, they set the GUI trend since 1983, Nope. Floppies existed before Apple. Xerox set the GUI trend. > set the laser printer trend since 1985, set the CD-Rom trend since 1987, Nope. Xerox again. > set the multimedia trend since 1988, set the ethernet trend since 1989, The multimedia trend was started by the Amiga in 1985. Hard for Apple to "set" it 3 years later! Ethernet again was a Xerox thing. > set the www trend since 1990 (sj did that), then a dark 8 years. then Nope. SJ had nothing to do with it. > set the USB trend in 1998, set getting rid of floppies that same year, USB was a common standard, led by Intel and MS among others. Apple wasn't even a part of it's creation. The only one you got right was the iPod. > what has the PC contributed, that Apple didn't do first? bet you can't > name a single thing. Used faster Intel chips and motherboards - Apple followed. Set the lower pricing trend - Apple has yet to follow. Set the CD burning trend - Apple completely missed the boat on that one. Remember the original iMacs with NO REMOVABLE STORAGE AT ALL? Apple (reluctantly) followed. Set the business computer use trend. Apple has yet to follow. Set the server trend. Apple has yet to follow. Bob Campbell >> set the ethernet trend since 1989, > Ethernet again was a Xerox thing. It would be hard for Apple to "set the Ethernet trend" in 1989. Xerox invented Ethernet in the 1970s. I wrote the Stanford AI Lab's Ethernet kernel in August 1980 (a quick Google search turned up a copy of that code!). SUN was founded in 1982, but the Stanford project that became SUN was before that. cisco was well underway by 1984. >> set the www trend since 1990 (sj did that) > Nope. SJ had nothing to do with it. Apparently, Oxtard thinks that anything that someone did using an Apple or NeXT machine qualifies as "SJ doing it". -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum. In article <alpine.WNT.0.99999.0711141601360.4728@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washignton.EDU>, > Apparently, Oxtard thinks that anything that someone did using an Apple or > NeXT machine qualifies as "SJ doing it". Yep. Which means that when Oxtard is sitting in his bedroom of his parents house watching porn on his Mac, in his mind he's "doing it with SJ". Bob Campbell > >> set the ethernet trend since 1989, > > Ethernet again was a Xerox thing. > > It would be hard for Apple to "set the Ethernet trend" in 1989. Apple was the first company to have built-in networking as STANDARD starting in 1984 with the Mac. Then in 1991, (correction from 89) they were first to bring down the cost and make Ethernet STANDARD in all their machines. They first used the AAUI connector which allowed... coaxial or twisted-pair ethernet on the same machine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Attachment_Unit_Interface Later, they were the first PC company to make RJ45/ethernet STANDARD on all their machines. Apple has always been ahead of the PC market with networking, probably since they control the OS and the Hardware, MS never had that kind of power in the market. > Xerox invented Ethernet in the 1970s. I wrote the Stanford AI Lab's > Ethernet kernel in August 1980 (a quick Google search turned up a copy of > that code!). SUN was founded in 1982, but the Stanford project that > became SUN was before that. cisco was well underway by 1984. Yes, and Bob Metcalfe is a deep friend of SJ, thus this allowed Macs to have ethernet as standard long before PCs did. Steve Jobs is on my eternal heroes list, there's nothing he can ever do to get off it - Bob Metcalfe http://www.pbs.org/nerds/part3.html > >> set the www trend since 1990 (sj did that) > > Nope. SJ had nothing to do with it. > > Apparently, Oxtard thinks that anything that someone did using an Apple or > NeXT machine qualifies as "SJ doing it". Well, you need to understand that SJ is the driving force behind the early games like Breakout, the first PC of course, WWW (NeXT) and Animation Industries (Pixar). Pretty much everything technical you use today traces back to him making it possible on a mass scale. Now the cell phone industry has been touched by his hand, and will never be the same. You'll see what I'm saying in a few years Mark, I know you are a bit of a newbie when it comes to high end technology, but you are learning. Good to see it! - > Apple was the first company to have built-in networking as STANDARD > starting in 1984 with the Mac. Oxtard obviously never heard of SUN. Or Digital. It's also a stretch to call AppleTalk "networking". AppleTalk at its inception was little more than a printer I/O bus. It was only later that Apple realized that it could be extended to do file sharing. > Then in 1991, (correction from 89) they > were first to bring down the cost and make Ethernet STANDARD in all > their machines. Even if that was the case, Jobs wasn't at Apple in 1989 or 1991. Macintosh didn't get Ethernet until Sculley kicked Jobs out. I remember the first Mac II (68020 based, ugh) that had an optional Ethernet board. Its date of introduction wasn't any of the dates (1984, 1989, 1991) that Oxtard offers. Since Oxtard probably wasn't even born then, he wouldn't know. Apple was still selling machines without included Ethernet into the mid 1990s. None of the early PowerBooks had standard Ethernet, nor did the 68K-based Macs. IIRC, standard Ethernet started appearing with the PPC-based Macs, which was much later than 1991. You would have made a better argument with NeXT in late 1988. NeXT made a cheap SUN 2 clone, and sold machines to workstation buyers for whom a SUN 2 clone was good enough. The problem was, NeXT destroyed itself with the false assumption that its market was fanboys rather than workstation buyers. I watched the train wreck as it happened. It was well underway in early 1989. Not even the 1991 pizza box could save NeXT. SJ did not repeat those mistakes when he was back at the helm of Apple. He still performs to the fanboys, but he is careful not to annoy customers who actually buy the product. > Later, they were the first PC company to make RJ45/ethernet STANDARD on > all their machines. Now he qualifies it by saying "PC company", evidentally to exclude workstations which had such things for many years. > Yes, and Bob Metcalfe is a deep friend of SJ, thus this allowed Macs to > have ethernet as standard long before PCs did. There's no evidence that Metcalfe is "a deep friend of SJ", but rather that he admires SJ's deployment of technology to the general public. Metcalfe was building and selling Ethernet cards for PCs (and other machines) long before the first Mac Ethernet existed. 3COM was founded back in 1979. He would certainly not have blocked shipments so that Mac could have it first (and you still haven't gotten the year right when Mac first got Ethernet). > Well, you need to understand that SJ is the driving force behind the > early games like Breakout, Breakout was created by Nolan Bushnell at Atari in 1976. Apple was just getting started at the time. > the first PC of course, People were doing personal computers years earlier. If you want to say "the first mass-market personal computer", you might have an argument. But that was just an example of being in the right place at the right time. With all the people working on PCs, someone was going to have a hit. It was by no means certain that Apple was going to win either. Atari and (especially) Commodore were strong competition. Atari train-wrecked for much the same reason that NeXT later did. They were a game company at heart, and falsely assumed that their PC market was in game-playing rather than software development and computing. The people who stayed true to the Atari computer vision ended up in Amiga (Commodore and Atari traded their clueful people, but neither ended up well), and apparently there is still some little bit of life left in Amiga. > WWW (NeXT) So SJ gets to take credit for the work of others just because it was done on machines that SJ sold? Tim Berners-Lee invented WWW at CERN in Switzerland. Yes, he used a NeXT cube, and NEXTSTEP's Text class had an influence on early HTML, but that was it. SJ had nothing to deal with the creation of WWW, and totally ignored it for many years. > and > Animation Industries (Pixar). SJ didn't create Pixar. George Lucas did. Lucas sold Pixar to SJ for a song ($5 million) when he lost interest in building technology tools (and was getting divorced). Pixar subsequently muddled about for the next few years, and almost died in 1991. Fortunately for Pixar, SJ started paying attention to it about that time as it became clear that NeXT was faltering. He laid off most of its employees, axed its unsuccessful computer line, and most importantly won a contract with Disney for Toy Story. All of these were management/marketing measures, and they were successful. But that has nothing to do with technical innovations. > Pretty much everything technical you use > today traces back to him making it possible on a mass scale. Nonsense. SJ is a marketeer and manager, and he has been very lucky to be at the right place at the right time. However, he is not a technician. I doubt very much that he has ever designed a circuit or written a non-trivial program. That isn't his skill set. > Now the cell phone industry has been touched by his hand, and will never > be the same. You'll see what I'm saying in a few years I know that you will eat your iPhone in a few years. > Mark, I know you > are a bit of a newbie when it comes to high end technology, but you are > learning. Good to see it! Of all the absurd statements that you have made, calling me a "newbie when it comes to high end technology" is rather high at the list. Speaking of "high end technology", are your mommy and daddy going to get you a new Mac for Christmas? It must be pretty embarassing for a fanboy like you to be stuck with an old PPC. -- Mark -- http://panda.com/mrc Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote. > > Apple was the first company to have built-in networking as STANDARD > > starting in 1984 with the Mac. > > Oxtard obviously never heard of SUN. Or Digital. But neither of those are PC Companies. Mark, trust me, I'll make you look like a fool every time. You just don't know your stuff, it's very clear by now. > It's also a stretch to call AppleTalk "networking". AppleTalk at its > inception was little more than a printer I/O bus. It was only later that > Apple realized that it could be extended to do file sharing. Ah, AppleTalk could support 4096 nodes at the time, the most of any low cost network BY FAR, I guess you weren't around for the Star Controller, it was a breakthrough in making company wide networks for 1/40th the price of TokenRing, Ethernet. Mark you are SUCH AN IDIOT! AppleTalk was ENTIRELY designed to do file sharing from the START. Yes, it did printer sharing but people were sharing Hard Drives way back in 1985 with TOPS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_Goldhaber It's like you have NO CLUE to the history of PC networking! > > Then in 1991, (correction from 89) they > > were first to bring down the cost and make Ethernet STANDARD in all [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Oxtard offers. Since Oxtard probably wasn't even born then, he wouldn't > know. Okay, I will give you a pass on that one. It was 1991 before all Macs had ethernet, but they were the first company to make it standard. Many companies were still attempting to use ethernet CARDS at the time, how absurd. Having it built into every machine made far more sense. > Apple was still selling machines without included Ethernet into the mid > 1990s. None of the early PowerBooks had standard Ethernet, nor did the > 68K-based Macs. But it was always an option, something PC vendors never had until around 1995. > IIRC, standard Ethernet started appearing with the PPC-based Macs, which > was much later than 1991. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > buyers. I watched the train wreck as it happened. It was well underway > in early 1989. Not even the 1991 pizza box could save NeXT. NeXT hardware failed because it was too far ahead of the market and they focused on Higher Education, which didn't have enough money for advanced equipment like NeXT was offering. Tim/CERN changed their fortunes of course and made them the playboy of the Web, and investment bankers, but NeXT ended up only creating the WWW which by all accounts is probably the biggest contribution any firm has made to computing in the last 100 years. > SJ did not repeat those mistakes when he was back at the helm of Apple. > He still performs to the fanboys, but he is careful not to annoy customers > who actually buy the product. yes, Steve has grown up, keeps quiet most of the time, he appeals to both serious types and the engine of the pc industry which you call fanboys. > > Later, they were the first PC company to make RJ45/ethernet STANDARD on > > all their machines. > > Now he qualifies it by saying "PC company", evidentially to exclude > workstations which had such things for many years. Well, sure, in a MacAdvocacy group... 10K-60K workstation systems never have qualified as PCs. Bob Campbell makes the same mistake. We are talking MASS SCALE devices sold in huge volumes, not 10 or 20 lab machines that will have no impact on society. > > Yes, and Bob Metcalfe is a deep friend of SJ, thus this allowed Macs to > > have ethernet as standard long before PCs did. > > There's no evidence that Metcalfe is "a deep friend of SJ", but rather > that he admires SJ's deployment of technology to the general public. Wow, you are clueless, just as I thought. > Metcalfe was building and selling Ethernet cards for PCs (and other > machines) long before the first Mac Ethernet existed. 3COM was founded > back in 1979. He would certainly not have blocked shipments so that Mac > could have it first (and you still haven't gotten the year right when Mac > first got Ethernet). Sure, at $1,200-$2,100 a card I'm sure he would be happy to do that. But in terms of reality, the Mac offered the first inexpensive, high speed data network that didn't take anything but plugging it in. Ethernet at the time was full of drivers, complex configs, etc. Apple and its users had no time for that half baked approach. (kinda like Nokia lives today) > > Well, you need to understand that SJ is the driving force behind the > > early games like Breakout, > > Breakout was created by Nolan Bushnell at Atari in 1976. Apple was just > getting started at the time. Yes, but it was SJ's idea according to Nolan, and Woz programmed it, but Woz's chip count was too advanced for Atari to produce so they went with Woz's design with more chips... too funny. This was just on Discovery Channel about 4 days ago. > > the first PC of course, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > time. With all the people working on PCs, someone was going to have a > hit. But none of them took off. They were hobby projects, Not completed systems as Apple pioneered. Woz built and incredible engineering masterpiece on the level of Mozart. Engineers to this day still examine the Apple / as a marvel of the modern world. SJ then put a case around it (first for any PC) then was able to market it on huge scale which had never been done before. Millions were sold, Apple was outselling IBM in terms of total Mhz shipped by 1979. > It was by no means certain that Apple was going to win either. Atari and > (especially) Commodore were strong competition. Atari train-wrecked for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > their clueful people, but neither ended up well), and apparently there is > still some little bit of life left in Amiga. Yes, but commodore and atari were largely game machines. Apple / & // were mainly consumer and business machines since they had better software libraries just like the Mac has today over Windows. > > WWW (NeXT) > > So SJ gets to take credit for the work of others just because it was done > on machines that SJ sold? Tim Berners-Lee invented WWW at CERN in > Switzerland. Yes, he used a NeXT cube, and NEXTSTEP's Text class had an > influence on early HTML, but that was it. Yes, he laid the foundation for major events in human achievement to happen. The spreadsheet happened because the Apple // had the most memory of any PC, Page Layout and Fonts happened because of the Mac, WWW happened because of NeXT. USB, FireWire, Bluetooth, WiFi happened because of the Mac circa 2001-2003 or so. > SJ had nothing to deal with the creation of WWW, and totally ignored it > for many years. But Interface Builder that shipped with both early NeXT and Leopard had EVERYTHING to do with www. Tim wouldn't have been able to create www.app without Steve's help. > > and > > Animation Industries (Pixar). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > was getting divorced). Pixar subsequently muddled about for the next few > years, and almost died in 1991. Ah, but SJ did refine Pixar into the biggest enterprise since Disney. Lucas had nothing, Steve bought it for $15ish million and turned it into a $7 billion dream for everyone. Now Pixar is the premier Animation Studio in the world, but expect it to fade away since Steve is no longer involved. > Fortunately for Pixar, SJ started paying attention to it about that time > as it became clear that NeXT was faltering. He laid off most of its > employees, axed its unsuccessful computer line, and most importantly won a > contract with Disney for Toy Story. Well, it didn't go anything like that, but you can dream. > All of these were management/marketing measures, and they were successful. > But that has nothing to do with technical innovations. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Nonsense. SJ is a marketeer and manager, and he has been very lucky to be > at the right place at the right time. Yes, and so be it. BG was always in the right place and right time as well and totally flubbed his entry into the history books. He's the laughing stock of the PC market, an inept fool by most accounts. His idiototic performance in front of the WSJ sealed his fate as the "dumb guy" in the world of PC Computing. He's just a son of a Lawyer, and learn to cheat and steal at an early age, he created nothing. See why here: http://snipurl.com/1tr9t > However, he is not a technician. I doubt very much that he has ever > designed a circuit or written a non-trivial program. That isn't his skill > set. yes and i will AGREE with that, but he is one of the first in 100's of years to pull from great minds to build a highly refined, friendly, mass produced product. Nobody else can do that. Look at MS, look at Nokia, they are fumbling badly since they don't possess this rare skill. > > Now the cell phone industry has been touched by his hand, and will never > > be the same. You'll see what I'm saying in a few years > > I know that you will eat your iPhone in a few years. I your fantasies, you know for a fact Nokia is going to fall because of the iPhone, you KNOW i'm right, you know that an absurd demand will keep you honest. > > Mark, I know you > > are a bit of a newbie when it comes to high end technology, but you are > > learning. Good to see it! > > Of all the absurd statements that you have made, calling me a "newbie when > it comes to high end technology" is rather high at the list. Mark, I know about you and respect your skill. But your ignorance on the PC market is amazing. It's like you didn't even grow up with this stuff and know every detail like me. You make incorrect statements without research. I don't. > Speaking of "high end technology", are your mommy and daddy going to get > you a new Mac for Christmas? It must be pretty embarassing for a fanboy > like you to be stuck with an old PPC. so you can't even spell the word "embarrassing"? how embarrassing! and you work for a University? How embarrassing! grow up Mark, and listen to experts on the profession like me. - no reply needed. > NeXT hardware failed because it was too far ahead of the market and they > focused on Higher Education, which didn't have enough money for advanced [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the biggest contribution any firm has made to computing in the last 100 > years. Wouldn't you perhaps like to reconsider that statement? Shockley's invention of the transistor is a far more important invention, amongst the most important inventions of all time. > no reply needed. Take your own advice.  SignatureImmunity is better than innoculation. Peter > > NeXT hardware failed because it was too far ahead of the market and they > > focused on Higher Education, which didn't have enough money for advanced [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > invention of the transistor is a far more important invention, amongst > the most important inventions of all time. I would put the microprocessor in there before the WWW also. But, you see, SJ wasn't even *remotely* connected to those (even as tenuously as SJ was "connected" to WWW creation), therefore in Oxtard's RDF addled brain they aren't important. Bob Campbell > > Wouldn't you perhaps like to reconsider that statement? Shockley's > > invention of the transistor is a far more important invention, amongst [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > tenuously as SJ was "connected" to WWW creation), therefore in Oxtard's > RDF addled brain they aren't important. well, if you are going to go that far, I'd put "electricity" up there above the www. but thanks for playing Bob! - > > NeXT hardware failed because it was too far ahead of the market and they > > focused on Higher Education, which didn't have enough money for advanced [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > invention of the transistor is a far more important invention, amongst > the most important inventions of all time. yes, if you include hardware advancements the Transistor ranks right up there, but my train of thought was on software advancements which NeXT changed most of the rules that PCs are still governed by today. >> > NeXT hardware failed because it was too far ahead of the market and >> > they focused on Higher Education, which didn't have enough money for [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > there, but my train of thought was on software advancements which NeXT > changed most of the rules that PCs are still governed by today. Which rules did they change? SignatureRick > grow up Mark, and listen to experts on the profession like me. You can't become an "expert" until after you graduate high school and move out of your mother's basement. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum. > But neither of those are PC Companies. Mark, trust me, I'll make you > look like a fool every time. You just don't know your stuff, it's very > clear by now. Oxford - you certainly have made NO ONE look like a fool. Check that - one person - yourself. No one else. You post fantasy and crazy fiction. Making YOU the fool - exclusively Anything below here that is crap is snipped...... Oops - that leaves nothing left, sorry. >>>Apple was the first company to have built-in networking as STANDARD >>>starting in 1984 with the Mac. [quoted text clipped - 252 lines] > > no reply needed. Are you still on your Apple pulpit? <tosses a rotten tomato> "Mark Crispin" <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> stated in post alpine.OSX.0.99999.0711160749460.3800@pangtzu.panda.com on 11/16/07 10:08 AM: >> Apple was the first company to have built-in networking as STANDARD >> starting in 1984 with the Mac. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > inception was little more than a printer I/O bus. It was only later that > Apple realized that it could be extended to do file sharing. Where did you hear this? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appletalk> ----- AppleTalk is a proprietary suite of protocols developed by Apple Inc for computer networking. It was included in the original Macintosh (1984) ... One problem for AppleTalk is that it was originally intended to be part of a project known as Macintosh Office, which would consist of a host machine providing routing, printer sharing and file sharing. ... Bonjour is Apple's implementation of ZeroConf, which was written specifically to bring NBP's ease-of-use to the TCP/IP world. ----- Not only was AppleTalk designed with networking in mind, it allowed for much of what is now known as zero-config networking, something that (as far as I know) no other consumer system had at the time (or for quite some time after). I remember the old Mac networks that were set up over the second line of the phone cables people already had in their houses - using both Macs and Apple IIgs machines. Such home networks were unheard of (or at least very rare) at that time in the PC world. SignatureOne who makes no mistakes, never makes anything. >> It's also a stretch to call AppleTalk "networking". AppleTalk at its >> inception was little more than a printer I/O bus. It was only later that >> Apple realized that it could be extended to do file sharing. > Where did you hear this? Did you use the original 128K Macintosh and its original floppy-based system? I did. They didn´t have file sharing originally. -- Mark -- http://panda.com/mrc Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote. "Mark Crispin" <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> stated in post alpine.LN8.0.99999.0711161408390.2772@Nokia-N800-39 on 11/16/07 3:08 PM: >>> It's also a stretch to call AppleTalk "networking". AppleTalk at its >>> inception was little more than a printer I/O bus. It was only later that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > They didn´t have file sharing originally. The Mac SE and other early Macs *did*... as did the Apple IIgs (though I do not know of it did with its original system). SignatureLook, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with walnut paneling and an all leather interior. ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.] > The Mac SE and other early Macs *did*... as did the Apple IIgs (though I do > not know of it did with its original system). Funny, I never had file sharing with my II GS. SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol "Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> stated in post slrnfjsg66.1l4.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net on 11/16/07 6:15 PM: > ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.] > >> The Mac SE and other early Macs *did*... as did the Apple IIgs (though I do >> not know of it did with its original system). > > Funny, I never had file sharing with my II GS. Slot 7's default... if you had it filled (say with a hard drive) you lost that capability. SignatureNever stand between a dog and the hydrant. - John Peers > > The Mac SE and other early Macs *did*... as did the Apple IIgs (though I do > > not know of it did with its original system). > > Funny, I never had file sharing with my II GS. sure you did, every Apple IIgs had AppleTalk / LocalTalk file sharing as standard. You could add Ethernet as well. You could even BOOT it via an AppleShare Server remotely if you wanted via the Apple Workstation Card. Gosh people! know your history before you post! - > "Mark Crispin" <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> stated in post > alpine.LN8.0.99999.0711161408390.2772@Nokia-N800-39 on 11/16/07 3:08 PM: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > The Mac SE and other early Macs *did*... as did the Apple IIgs (though I do > not know of it did with its original system). What was their bit transmission rates? I don't know what Apples utilization percentage was, but ethernet was measured to be around 27%. After that the networks would bog down. "Maverick" <Sun@ranch.org> stated in post L5-dnY--4qXSwqPanZ2dnUVZ_q_inZ2d@bresnan.com on 11/16/07 8:26 PM: >> "Mark Crispin" <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> stated in post >> alpine.LN8.0.99999.0711161408390.2772@Nokia-N800-39 on 11/16/07 3:08 PM: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I don't know what Apples utilization percentage was, but ethernet was > measured to be around 27%. After that the networks would bog down. I have no idea what the details of the network were... but I do know you could get a RJ9 connector for it and use your home phone wiring (assuming your house was wired for a second line you were not using). It was, of course, painfully slow by today's standards, but the files moved tended to be a lot smaller also. You could even run application over it - from one Mac to another, though that was a bit slow even for the time. SignatureI am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic. > "Maverick" <Sun@ranch.org> stated in post > L5-dnY--4qXSwqPanZ2dnUVZ_q_inZ2d@bresnan.com on 11/16/07 8:26 PM: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > be a lot smaller also. You could even run application over it - from one > Mac to another, though that was a bit slow even for the time. Ok. The slowness part makes a bit of sense when you are using twisted pair wiring. I didn't know Apple tried networking on the old Macs. But now I do. "Maverick" <Sun@ranch.org> stated in post XPGdnUoep9O94d3anZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@bresnan.com on 11/18/07 10:53 AM: >> "Maverick" <Sun@ranch.org> stated in post >> L5-dnY--4qXSwqPanZ2dnUVZ_q_inZ2d@bresnan.com on 11/16/07 8:26 PM: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > pair wiring. > I didn't know Apple tried networking on the old Macs. But now I do. Looking just now I found you can still buy PhoneNet (and PhoneNet compatible) Adaptors (LocalTalk to RJ11). As a correction, I said RJ9 above... should have been RJ11. If I recall correctly RJ9 is generally used for the handsets on phones (those that are still wired!) Signature"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson > Ok. The slowness part makes a bit of sense when you are using twisted > pair wiring. > I didn't know Apple tried networking on the old Macs. But now I do. More than that -- they enabled several kinds of networking, invented their own, compromised two other methods, and helped put together null-modem functions in early models. Today, they are one of the few which enables so many operations over a network, like installations and running apps and checking remote servers and more. That's not just 'able' to network. Apple may have done the most, in the most effective ways. Comparing Windows networking is like an education in how things can be made technical, clumsy and annoying and still not work right. >>Ok. The slowness part makes a bit of sense when you are using twisted >>pair wiring. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Comparing Windows networking is like an education in how things can be > made technical, clumsy and annoying and still not work right. I can imagine. I suppose that Wozniak was involved in the networking design of the electronics. His work on the most minimal floppy drive interface was genius and yet low cost. All of the traces were on one side and the parts on the other side. > "Mark Crispin" <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> stated in post > alpine.OSX.0.99999.0711160749460.3800@pangtzu.panda.com on 11/16/07 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appletalk> > ----- I love it when Oxtard and his clones quote from wikipedia like it is the word of God. Hey Snot- you'll need to do s little better finding authoritative sources. "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post Xns99EAA3C8448C9isheforreal@216.196.97.142 on 11/16/07 4:06 PM: >> "Mark Crispin" <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> stated in post >> alpine.OSX.0.99999.0711160749460.3800@pangtzu.panda.com on 11/16/07 [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Hey Snot- you'll need to do s little better finding authoritative sources. So you don't like the Wiki reference... OK, here is straight from Apple: <http://developer.apple.com/MacOs/opentransport/docs/dev/Inside_AppleTalk.pd f> ----- The AppleTalk protocol architecture almost did not happen. Bob Belleville proposed an external, device-interconnect bus for the then-closed Macintosh personal computer. Creating a network system was my somewhat clandestine idea; when I described the network architecture to Bob on January 24, 1984, about two hours after the Macintosh introduction, I did so with some trepidation. I am grateful to him for his forthright admission that I had made AppleTalk into something much more comprehensive than he had anticipated and for his full support! In its early days, any new idea is tender and vulnerable. I am especially grateful to Ed Taft of Adobe Systems, one of the most widely known members of the networking community, for his very thorough review and his advice in late 1983 and early 1984. His extremely encouraging comments bolstered my own commitment to build this system; without his encouragement, compromises to ³conventionalism² might have crept in. ----- From day one it was about networking. Read the rest of that link for more details. :) SignatureComputers are incredibly fast, accurate, and stupid: humans are incredibly slow, inaccurate and brilliant; together they are powerful beyond imagination. --Albert Einstein > The AppleTalk protocol architecture almost did not happen. > Bob Belleville proposed an external, device-interconnect bus [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 1984, about two hours after the Macintosh introduction, I did > so with some trepidation. All this says is that the designer had the foresight to make it extensible for other purposes, instead of doing what he was told to do. That doesn't alter the fact that there was nothing more at the time than a glorified printer bus. File sharing via TOPS didn't even exist a year or so later, after Jobs was forced out and the Mac Plus came out. Nor was the idea of networking machines a particularly new or innovative idea in 1984. Stanford had been doing that, and making PCs based upon the Motorola 68K (SUN stands for "Stanford University Network"), years earlier. MIT was even earlier at the game, with Chaosnet and Lisp Machines, in the mid 1970s. Apple may have been the first with home user networked computers (and certainly that happened with Mac Plus), but that is something quite a bit different. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum. "Mark Crispin" <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> stated in post alpine.WNT.0.99999.0711161630490.5744@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washignton.EDU on 11/16/07 5:52 PM: >> The AppleTalk protocol architecture almost did not happen. >> Bob Belleville proposed an external, device-interconnect bus [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > certainly that happened with Mac Plus), but that is something quite a bit > different. The fact Apple was the first personal computer with the ability to do home networking pretty much is the point - that and the idea that AppleTalk was designed with such networking in mind. And it was. From the same document as above: ----- We could not use existing network protocol architectures to achieve our goal of seamlessly extending the user¹s computing experience. We chose instead to develop our own architecture in which we would utilize standard technology where appropriate and innovate freely where necessary. ----- ----- Key goals of the AppleTalk architecture Versatility The system should serve as the basis for a broad variety of applications, ranging from an external bus for attaching a few peripheral devices to a single Macintosh computer, to a network system connecting thousands of computer systems dispersed over a potentially wide area. Our objective of having a general-purpose design for AppleTalk made it imperative that we carefully construct the protocols with an eye to future, as-yet-undefined applications. Computer networks are among the most promising technologies for bridging the operating system incompatibilities of the diverse types of computers in use today. The most valuable resource in these systems is the information generated by users. Network technology should allow users to exchange and share this information without concern for the special format and internal idiosyncrasies of dissimilar computer systems. To achieve this goal, the network system must be designed from its inception to allow any type of computer to participate as an equaland to the best of its ability. ----- From there it talks about being plug and play (something that did not come to MS OSs until much later), Peer-to-Peer, Simplicity, etc. As I said, read - or even just skim - the document I pointed you to. SignatureThe answer to the water shortage is to dilute it. > Apple may have been the first with home user networked computers (and > certainly that happened with Mac Plus), but that is something quite a bit > different. it was the first in businesses as well, at least on a large scale. items like this were quite popular in business. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=270134187975 and by the way, AppleTalk was initiated in late 1983. > "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post > Xns99EAA3C8448C9isheforreal@216.196.97.142 on 11/16/07 4:06 PM: [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > From day one it was about networking. Read the rest of that link for > more details. :) Sorry, Snot- what is written above does not support that. It shows that it was designed as an I/O bus. Now how about trying some independent, non-fanboi source? "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post Xns99EACC60A4D03isheforreal@216.196.97.142 on 11/16/07 8:05 PM: >> "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post >> Xns99EAA3C8448C9isheforreal@216.196.97.142 on 11/16/07 4:06 PM: [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > Now how about trying some independent, non-fanboi source? Gee, neither Wikipedia not *Apple* know what AppleTalk was designed for - but you do, eh? LOL! Oh, and you made a typo with my name. Again. SignatureOne who makes no mistakes, never makes anything. Snit <CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in news:C363AE04.99B2F% CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com: > Gee, neither Wikipedia not *Apple* know what AppleTalk was designed for - > but you do, eh? Actually, I do. > LOL! Oh, and you made a typo with my name. Again. No- I was correcting your typo. "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post Xns99EAD0B74891Fisheforreal@216.196.97.142 on 11/16/07 8:31 PM: > Snit <CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in news:C363AE04.99B2F% > CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > No- I was correcting your typo. Ah, so you think: * Wikipedia is wrong about Apple technologies... but you are right. * Apple is wrong about Apple technologies... but you are right. * I am wrong about how to spell my online name... but you are right. OK, well at least now I know what type loon you are. Thanks for making that clear! SignatureTry not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value. --Albert Einstein > "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post > Xns99EAD0B74891Fisheforreal@216.196.97.142 on 11/16/07 8:31 PM: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > OK, well at least now I know what type loon you are. Thanks for > making that clear! No problem, Snot. When you decide to explore the other ares of the internet, you'll see that your interpretation of what you read was wrong. "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post Xns99EB5146FA7B1isheforreal@216.196.97.142 on 11/17/07 7:59 AM: >> "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post >> Xns99EAD0B74891Fisheforreal@216.196.97.142 on 11/16/07 8:31 PM: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > No problem, Snot. When you decide to explore the other ares of the > internet, you'll see that your interpretation of what you read was wrong. I look forward to your supporting links. As if. LOL! Face it, you have *nothing* to back up your view. Not a thing. SignatureSatan lives for my sins... now *that* is dedication! > "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post > Xns99EB5146FA7B1isheforreal@216.196.97.142 on 11/17/07 7:59 AM: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Face it, you have *nothing* to back up your view. Not a thing. You seem awfully sure. Tell you what, Booger- I'll give you a little time to research and retract before I post a link. >> LOL! >> >> Face it, you have *nothing* to back up your view. Not a thing. > > You seem awfully sure. Tell you what, Booger- I'll give you a little > time to research and retract before I post a link. Nope- changed my mind. http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?product_code=347864 &pfp=nov11 Eat it, Snot. "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post Xns99EB75931FF57isheforreal@216.196.97.142 on 11/17/07 11:33 AM: >>> LOL! >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Eat it, Snot. And you just on the verge of offering your comparison, right? Right? Oh.... never mind. You are not into actually supporting your claims. Oh well. At least now you have slightly more than *nothing* to try to back up your claims - you have ... gasp... a *link* ... but you failed to make any real comparison. Maybe you will in your next post? SignatureDear Aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1123221217782777472 > "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post > Xns99EB75931FF57isheforreal@216.196.97.142 on 11/17/07 11:33 AM: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Maybe you will in your next post? Maybe I decided to let everybody make their own comparison instead of pasting the website contents here. It's called Usenet ettiquette and is apparently something you Apple fanbois have no concept of. Of course, you are obviously too stupid to see that the webpage takes you to a laptop containing much more functional;ity than a $1000 crapbook. Funny- you wanted a link and now that one's been provided, you need somebody to walk you through it. Too bad Snot is so unintelligent. "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post Xns99EBAF9B5D0A1isheforreal@216.196.97.142 on 11/17/07 5:15 PM: >>> Nope- changed my mind. >>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Funny- you wanted a link and now that one's been provided, you need > somebody to walk you through it. Too bad Snot is so unintelligent. Ok, so you cannot show that the machine fits the criteria. No problem. Better luck next time! SignatureI am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic. > "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post > Xns99EBAF9B5D0A1isheforreal@216.196.97.142 on 11/17/07 5:15 PM: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Ok, so you cannot show that the machine fits the criteria. No > problem. Better luck next time! And yet you can't prove that it does not fit the criteria, or you would have gladly posted it here. In fact, it fits all criteria. Quit acting like a spoiled child that needs to be spoonfed everything. If it doesn't fit the criteria, prove it here. "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post Xns99EBB51F51D55isheforreal@216.196.97.142 on 11/17/07 5:48 PM: >> Ok, so you cannot show that the machine fits the criteria. No >> problem. Better luck next time! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > In fact, it fits all criteria. Quit acting like a spoiled child that needs > to be spoonfed everything. If it doesn't fit the criteria, prove it here. Fewer words from you in this post - but not a word of support for your claims: * Wikipedia is wrong about Apple technologies... but you are right. * Apple is wrong about Apple technologies... but you are right. * I am wrong about how to spell my online name... but you are right. * You can find a $700 laptop that does more than the Mac Oxford pointed to. Maybe in your next post? Signature"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson > "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post > Xns99EBB51F51D55isheforreal@216.196.97.142 on 11/17/07 5:48 PM: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Maybe in your next post? Maybe in my last post- you posted this list before. Remember, Snot? Are did you get distracted by a Barney rerun on TV? "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post Xns99EBB75FD5E27isheforreal@216.196.97.142 on 11/17/07 6:01 PM: >> "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post >> Xns99EBB51F51D55isheforreal@216.196.97.142 on 11/17/07 5:48 PM: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Maybe in my last post- you posted this list before. Remember, Snot? Are > did you get distracted by a Barney rerun on TV? More from you - but not a word of support for your claims. * Wikipedia is wrong about Apple technologies... but you are right. * Apple is wrong about Apple technologies... but you are right. * I am wrong about how to spell my online name... but you are right. * You can find a $700 laptop that does more than the Mac Oxford pointed to. Maybe in your next post? SignatureComputers are incredibly fast, accurate, and stupid: humans are incredibly slow, inaccurate and brilliant; together they are powerful beyond imagination. --Albert Einstein "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post Xns99EB75134B981isheforreal@216.196.97.142 on 11/17/07 11:30 AM: >> "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post >> Xns99EB5146FA7B1isheforreal@216.196.97.142 on 11/17/07 7:59 AM: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > You seem awfully sure. Tell you what, Booger- I'll give you a little time > to research and retract before I post a link. You forgot to support your claim. Oh well. Let's not forget what type fool you are; you think: * Wikipedia is wrong about Apple technologies... but you are right. * Apple is wrong about Apple technologies... but you are right. * I am wrong about how to spell my online name... but you are right. That is funny. Really. SignatureLook, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with walnut paneling and an all leather interior. > > From day one it was about networking. Read the rest of that link for > > more details. :) > > Sorry, Snot- what is written above does not support that. OMG, you did say that. For a moment there I was doubting that anyone could be dumber than Oxtard and Snit, but there you are. > It shows that > it was designed as an I/O bus. Try reading the document itself instead of just Snit's snips. The first words in the Acknowledgments are "The Development of the AppleTalk network system spans more than a five-year period." The rest talks about a networking system designed to link computers with file servers and LaserWriters. You can quibble all you want, but that's not an I/O bus. > Now how about trying some independent, non-fanboi source? How about you name the criteria first. SignatureTimberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com "When you post sewage, don't blame others for emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L. "Timberwoof" <timberwoof.spam@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> stated in post timberwoof.spam-5D3E7D.22560717112007@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net on 11/17/07 11:56 PM: >>> From day one it was about networking. Read the rest of that link for >>> more details. :) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > OMG, you did say that. For a moment there I was doubting that anyone > could be dumber than Oxtard and Snit, but there you are. Well, wow... thanks for the support. :) >> It shows that it was designed as an I/O bus. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > designed to link computers with file servers and LaserWriters. You can quibble > all you want, but that's not an I/O bus. Exactly. >> Now how about trying some independent, non-fanboi source? > > How about you name the criteria first. Well, we know that both Wikipedia and Apple are right out. :) SignatureThe difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. --Albert Einstein In article <timberwoof.spam-5D3E7D.22560717112007@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net>, > > > From day one it was about networking. Read the rest of that link for > > > more details. :) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > OMG, you did say that. For a moment there I was doubting that anyone > could be dumber than Oxtard and Snit, but there you are. I think Oxford 'dumbness' is directly proportionate to his trolling. > > It shows that > > it was designed as an I/O bus. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > How about you name the criteria first. > In article > <timberwoof.spam-5D3E7D.22560717112007@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net>, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I think Oxford 'dumbness' is directly proportionate to his trolling. I know. I caught him over in the Vista newsgroup pretending to be the Mayor. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message