«

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:

> In message <1hlj3xa.12mn1xp198rfw4N% z>, Jamie Kahn
> Genet wrote:
>
> > Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:
> >
> >> In message <450508a5$>, thingy wrote:
> >>
> >> > Earl Grey wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 07:24:53 +1200, thingy wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Ub[u]ntu....but to be honest, I'd go Mac......but th[at]'s $.
> >> >>
> >> >> Have a look at the prices of mac minis on trademe
> >> >
> >> > Well with the duo intel based ones out, I'd expect them to be flogged
> >> > off. The mac mini was bearly up to anything beyond web browsing....
> >>
> >> They might work better with Linux installed on them. OS X has well-known
> >> issues with multitasking, which could be having a performance impact.
> >
> > You're joking, right? OSX has some VERY MINOR performance issues, but
> > NOTHING that would seriously impact the OPs Uncle, or 99.9% of Mac
> > users. All _I_ get is blazing speed in multiple apps running in multiple
> > threads on multiple CPU cores.
> >
> > Frankly I'm tempted to label you a troll. What you said is THAT
> > laughable.
>
> I'll be kind and assume you're just ignorant
> <http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2520&p=2>. But Apple has known
> about threading performance issues for the last 5 years
> <http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn/tn2028.html>, and they've never
> been fixed.

I'll be kind and assume you've never used a modern Mac and enjoyed the
blazing speed. Thank you, but AS I SAID, I am aware "OSX has some VERY
MINOR performance issues" (why am I having to quote from text only a few
lines above this???). But if you seriously think these issues are a good
reason for the OP's uncle to NOT get a Mac... well - you're a troll.
Simple as that. I mean - DID YOU EVEN READ WHAT HIS NEEDS WERE? FFS
- I _DO_ need a fast Mac for some of my work and I'm very happy with
what I've got. Likewise the vast majority of G5 and Intel Mac users.

But the real test is to ACTUALLY be IN the Mac community and have BEEN
following Mac news for years. These MINOR performance issues Apple has
yet to substantively address are not, funnily enough, a feature of the
Mac news landscape. They are not regularly discussed in Mac forums. In
fact, the only reason I was aware there were some issues is I read an
Ars Technica review of OSX a while back, and it was hardly a major issue
in that review, either.

So it seems the vast majority of Mac users really don't care that Linux
is slightly faster in some cases. It seems they're happy with the
blazing speed they have on the G5 and Intel Macs.

Conclusion: you are a troll. Go back under your bridge Gooood troll!

Regards,
Jamie Kahn Genet
--
"The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe
is that it has never tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes (Bill
Watterson)

In message <1hlnciv.1uwxw6bn0vvx2N% >, Jamie Kahn
Genet wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:
>
>> In message <1hlj3xa.12mn1xp198rfw4N% z>, Jamie
>> Kahn Genet wrote:
>>
>> > Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In message <450508a5$>, thingy wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Earl Grey wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 07:24:53 +1200, thingy wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Ub[u]ntu....but to be honest, I'd go Mac......but th[at]'s $.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Have a look at the prices of mac minis on trademe
>> >> >
>> >> > Well with the duo intel based ones out, I'd expect them to be
>> >> > flogged off. The mac mini was bearly up to anything beyond web
>> >> > browsing....
>> >>
>> >> They might work better with Linux installed on them. OS X has
>> >> well-known issues with multitasking, which could be having a
>> >> performance impact.
>> >
>> > You're joking, right? OSX has some VERY MINOR performance issues, but
>> > NOTHING that would seriously impact the OPs Uncle, or 99.9% of Mac
>> > users. All _I_ get is blazing speed in multiple apps running in
>> > multiple threads on multiple CPU cores.
>> >
>> > Frankly I'm tempted to label you a troll. What you said is THAT
>> > laughable.
>>
>> I'll be kind and assume you're just ignorant
>> <http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2520&p=2>. But Apple has known
>> about threading performance issues for the last 5 years
>> <http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn/tn2028.html>, and they've never
>> been fixed.
>
> I'll be kind and assume you've never used a modern Mac and enjoyed the
> blazing speed. Thank you, but AS I SAID, I am aware "OSX has some VERY
> MINOR performance issues" (why am I having to quote from text only a few
> lines above this???).

Perhaps because the performance issues reported in the Anandtech review were
a bit more than minor. They seem to be a direct consequence of the
microkernel-based design--the Technote I referenced above mentions the
expense of using Mach threads to do OS X multithreading.

> But if you seriously think these issues are a good
> reason for the OP's uncle to NOT get a Mac... well - you're a troll.

Man, talk about sensitive. Mac fanatics can really be vicious and strike
like a snake, can't they.

> But the real test is to ACTUALLY be IN the Mac community and have BEEN
> following Mac news for years. These MINOR performance issues Apple has
> yet to substantively address are not, funnily enough, a feature of the
> Mac news landscape. They are not regularly discussed in Mac forums.

And that proves ... ?

<http://groups.google.co.nz/groups?selm=ldo->

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:

> In message <1hlnciv.1uwxw6bn0vvx2N% >, Jamie Kahn
> Genet wrote:
>
> > Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:
> >
> >> In message <1hlj3xa.12mn1xp198rfw4N% z>, Jamie
> >> Kahn Genet wrote:
> >>
> >> > Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In message <450508a5$>, thingy wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Earl Grey wrote:
> >> >> >> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 07:24:53 +1200, thingy wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> Ub[u]ntu....but to be honest, I'd go Mac......but th[at]'s $.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Have a look at the prices of mac minis on trademe
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Well with the duo intel based ones out, I'd expect them to be
> >> >> > flogged off. The mac mini was bearly up to anything beyond web
> >> >> > browsing....
> >> >>
> >> >> They might work better with Linux installed on them. OS X has
> >> >> well-known issues with multitasking, which could be having a
> >> >> performance impact.
> >> >
> >> > You're joking, right? OSX has some VERY MINOR performance issues, but
> >> > NOTHING that would seriously impact the OPs Uncle, or 99.9% of Mac
> >> > users. All _I_ get is blazing speed in multiple apps running in
> >> > multiple threads on multiple CPU cores.
> >> >
> >> > Frankly I'm tempted to label you a troll. What you said is THAT
> >> > laughable.
> >>
> >> I'll be kind and assume you're just ignorant
> >> <http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2520&p=2>. But Apple has known
> >> about threading performance issues for the last 5 years
> >> <http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn/tn2028.html>, and they've never
> >> been fixed.
> >
> > I'll be kind and assume you've never used a modern Mac and enjoyed the
> > blazing speed. Thank you, but AS I SAID, I am aware "OSX has some VERY
> > MINOR performance issues" (why am I having to quote from text only a few
> > lines above this???).
>
> Perhaps because the performance issues reported in the Anandtech review were
> a bit more than minor. They seem to be a direct consequence of the
> microkernel-based design--the Technote I referenced above mentions the
> expense of using Mach threads to do OS X multithreading.

Yes - THOSE are the minor issues. Now please TRY to provide SOME
evidence that these minor issues are a) enough to make ANY difference to
the OP's Uncle (do you ACTUALLY REMEMBER his needs??? Did you even
bother READING them??? You seem to be doing a marvelous job ignoring
them), b) are widely reported, and c) are severely affecting sales of
Macs to people such as the OP's uncle, or really, ANYONE forming a
significant share of the Mac market.

I will wait here, shall I?

> > But if you seriously think these issues are a good
> > reason for the OP's uncle to NOT get a Mac... well - you're a troll.
>
> Man, talk about sensitive. Mac fanatics can really be vicious and strike
> like a snake, can't they.

That's because you're a moron trying to suggest that someone with
extremely modest needs would be affected by these minor issues. You'd
still be a moron to try and suggest that someone with pro needs - e.g.
video, audio, graphic editing, etc - take your pick from the prominent
pro segments of the Mac market - would be seriously affected. Once again
- I'll wait here, shall I? Shouldn't take you long, should it? Please -
give me the story of an average Mac home user, or Mac using video pro
(as one of many pro user examples) who switched to WinPCs because of
these minor issues. Knock yourself out - go on. I ENCOURAGE you.

> > But the real test is to ACTUALLY be IN the Mac community and have BEEN
> > following Mac news for years. These MINOR performance issues Apple has
> > yet to substantively address are not, funnily enough, a feature of the
> > Mac news landscape. They are not regularly discussed in Mac forums.
>
> And that proves ... ?
>
> <http://groups.google.co.nz/groups?
> g.co.nz>

LMAO - and that's all the response THAT poorly written and obvious as
**** false parable needs.

The reason people like you **** me off so much is not that I'm some kind
of fanatic , as you'd LOVE to try and make out (first step of morons
like you who give bad advice - try and discredit the people who call you
on it). THe REASON is your original post. Anyone with half a brain will
need no more explanation than that, but since you're clearly not too
bright, I'll spell it out:

You gave utterly wrong, and worse - INTENTIONALLY wrong advice - and you
did it because you have personal and utterly spurious issues with Macs.
Who knows - maybe a PowerBook fell off a desk onto your foot one day, or
a Mac user was mean to you (poor baby), or maybe you can't stand people
who are having a better computing experience than you (I won't bother
speculating on WHY this is an issue for you - I think that's better left
to professionals), or maybe you actually are a pure troll, trolling for
no other reason than to elect a reaction.

Either way - stop complaining when people call you on your laughably bad
advice. It just makes you look far, far worse. God, you'd NEVER get away
with this **** in RL. ****wits like you ruin computing for the rest of
us by giving **** advice and leaving technicians like me to clean up the
mess. You really get off on that, don't you?

Regards,
Jamie Kahn Genet
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

In message <1hlq5jg.1jiwizk1uzuukaN% z>, Jamie Kahn
Genet wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:
>> In message <1hlnciv.1uwxw6bn0vvx2N% >,
>> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
>>
>>> ... you're a troll.
>>
>> Man, talk about sensitive. Mac fanatics can really be vicious and strike
>> like a snake, can't they.
>
> That's because you're a moron...

*Sigh* typical. Point out some basic facts, get called names. That's exactly
what fanatics do.

>> > But the real test is to ACTUALLY be IN the Mac community and have BEEN
>> > following Mac news for years. These MINOR performance issues Apple has
>> > yet to substantively address are not, funnily enough, a feature of the
>> > Mac news landscape. They are not regularly discussed in Mac forums.
>>
>> And that proves ... ?
>>
>>
<http://groups.google.co.nz/groups?
>> g.co.nz>
>
> LMAO - and that's all the response THAT poorly written and obvious as
> **** false parable needs.
>
> The reason people like you **** me off so much is not that I'm some kind
> of fanatic...

With respect, let me quote you the following definition: "a fanatic is
someone who has lost sight of his original goals". Whatever your original
goals were in using Macs, I would say they are way out of sight now.

> , as you'd LOVE to try and make out (first step of morons
> like you who give bad advice - try and discredit the people who call you
> on it). THe REASON is your original post. Anyone with half a brain will
> need no more explanation than that, but since you're clearly not too
> bright...
>
> Either way - stop complaining when people call you on your laughably bad
> advice. It just makes you look far, far worse. God, you'd NEVER get away
> with this **** in RL. ****wits like you ruin computing for the rest of
> us by giving **** advice and leaving technicians like me to clean up the
> mess.

"Methinks he doth protest too much." Why the massive rant? Why so overly
sensitive? Have I touched a sore nerve somewhere? Made you feel embarrassed
about something?

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:

> In message <1hlq5jg.1jiwizk1uzuukaN% z>, Jamie Kahn
> Genet wrote:
>
> > Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:
> >> In message <1hlnciv.1uwxw6bn0vvx2N% >,
> >> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> >>
> >>> ... you're a troll.
> >>
> >> Man, talk about sensitive. Mac fanatics can really be vicious and strike
> >> like a snake, can't they.
> >
> > That's because you're a moron...
>
> *Sigh* typical. Point out some basic facts, get called names. That's exactly
> what fanatics do.
>
> >> > But the real test is to ACTUALLY be IN the Mac community and have BEEN
> >> > following Mac news for years. These MINOR performance issues Apple has
> >> > yet to substantively address are not, funnily enough, a feature of the
> >> > Mac news landscape. They are not regularly discussed in Mac forums.
> >>
> >> And that proves ... ?
> >>
> >>
> <http://groups.google.co.nz/groups?
> >> g.co.nz>
> >
> > LMAO - and that's all the response THAT poorly written and obvious as
> > **** false parable needs.
> >
> > The reason people like you **** me off so much is not that I'm some kind
> > of fanatic...
>
> With respect, let me quote you the following definition: "a fanatic is
> someone who has lost sight of his original goals". Whatever your original
> goals were in using Macs, I would say they are way out of sight now.
>
> > , as you'd LOVE to try and make out (first step of morons
> > like you who give bad advice - try and discredit the people who call you
> > on it). THe REASON is your original post. Anyone with half a brain will
> > need no more explanation than that, but since you're clearly not too
> > bright...
> >
> > Either way - stop complaining when people call you on your laughably bad
> > advice. It just makes you look far, far worse. God, you'd NEVER get away
> > with this **** in RL. ****wits like you ruin computing for the rest of
> > us by giving **** advice and leaving technicians like me to clean up the
> > mess.
>
> "Methinks he doth protest too much." Why the massive rant? Why so overly
> sensitive? Have I touched a sore nerve somewhere? Made you feel embarrassed
> about something?

Good on you for not addressing ANY of the points I brought up, not least
of which was that your advice was utterly absurd (in that the issues do
not affect the OPs uncle or ALMOST ALL OTHER segments of the Mac market,
for that matter) and was a waste of the OPs and everyone else's time.

For a troll your rebuttal was pretty damn lame. I refer you to
comp.sys.mac.advocacy for how to troll more effectively.

Good luck,
Jamie Kahn Genet
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Ray Greene wrote:
> On 10 Sep 2006 03:43:24 -0700, wrote:
>
> >Hi all, my uncle has Windows XP installed on his computer and is
> >forever having problems (Read Malware, spyware etc) which I have to
> >constantly fix for him.
> >
> >He's not the most computer literate person ever and all he wants to do
> >is surf the net and check his emails so I am thinking of installing
> >Linux (Specifically Ubuntu).
> >
> >Any other opinions about the best Linux distro for a complete novice
> >more than welcome. He does not have any fancy hardware but likes to
> >play around with imaging editing software occasionally.
>
> I think Xandros is the easiest Linux to use, it's very Windows-like.
> The is a free Open Circulation Edition, I'm not sure what the difference is
> between this and the paid for version.

The Open Circulation Edition is like the old Xandros 3.0 Standard
Edition, but the built-in CD burning (CD burning integrated into
Xandros File Manager) was/is limited to 4X speed, and DVD burning is
disabled outright. However, you could add the Xandros 3.0 repositories
from http://www.archlug.org/apt in order to install dvdrwtools (which
will add the ability to burn DVDs) and k3b (which can be used to get
around the 4X burning limitation within Xandros File Manager). I should
know because I have used Xandros since summer 2004 starting with
Xandros 2.01 OCE...right now I'm using Xandros 3.0.3 Business Edition
on my laptop. It's quite possibly the best OS I have ever used. In
fact, I have upgraded my version of KDE on Xandros 3.0 to KDE 3.5.

In message <1hlty9p.rvy8xr1xoxxvvN% >, Jamie Kahn
Genet wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:
>
>> In message <1hlq5jg.1jiwizk1uzuukaN% z>, Jamie
>> Kahn Genet wrote:
>>
>> > Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:
>> >> In message <1hlnciv.1uwxw6bn0vvx2N% >,
>> >> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> ... you're a troll.
>> >>
>> >> Man, talk about sensitive. Mac fanatics can really be vicious and
>> >> strike like a snake, can't they.
>> >
>> > That's because you're a moron...
>>
>> *Sigh* typical. Point out some basic facts, get called names. That's
>> exactly what fanatics do.
>>
>> >> > But the real test is to ACTUALLY be IN the Mac community and have
>> >> > BEEN following Mac news for years. These MINOR performance issues
>> >> > Apple has yet to substantively address are not, funnily enough, a
>> >> > feature of the Mac news landscape. They are not regularly discussed
>> >> > in Mac forums.
>> >>
>> >> And that proves ... ?
>> >>
>> >>
>>
<http://groups.google.co.nz/groups?
>> >> g.co.nz>
>> >
>> > LMAO - and that's all the response THAT poorly written and obvious as
>> > **** false parable needs.
>> >
>> > The reason people like you **** me off so much is not that I'm some
>> > kind of fanatic...
>>
>> With respect, let me quote you the following definition: "a fanatic is
>> someone who has lost sight of his original goals". Whatever your original
>> goals were in using Macs, I would say they are way out of sight now.
>>
>> > , as you'd LOVE to try and make out (first step of morons
>> > like you who give bad advice - try and discredit the people who call
>> > you on it). THe REASON is your original post. Anyone with half a brain
>> > will need no more explanation than that, but since you're clearly not
>> > too bright...
>> >
>> > Either way - stop complaining when people call you on your laughably
>> > bad advice. It just makes you look far, far worse. God, you'd NEVER get
>> > away with this **** in RL. ****wits like you ruin computing for the
>> > rest of us by giving **** advice and leaving technicians like me to
>> > clean up the mess.
>>
>> "Methinks he doth protest too much." Why the massive rant? Why so overly
>> sensitive? Have I touched a sore nerve somewhere? Made you feel
>> embarrassed about something?
>
> Good on you for not addressing ANY of the points I brought up, not least
> of which was that your advice was utterly absurd (in that the issues do
> not affect the OPs uncle or ALMOST ALL OTHER segments of the Mac market,
> for that matter) ...

I'm still mystified as to how you were able to deduce so much about the OP's
needs to be so definite about your conclusions. Especially since I was
responding to performance issues which had already been raised by others.

The fact is, OS X has multitasking performance limitations which seem to be
a direct consequence of its microkernel-based design. It seems only fair to
mention such issues to a prospective purchaser, and a bit presumptuous to
decide, on their behalf, that the problem will never bite them, right?