«

On Jul 8, 3:45*pm, "Neil Harrington" <n...@home.net> wrote:
> Whisky-dave wrote:
> > On Jul 7, 4:19 am, "Neil Harrington" <n...@home.net> wrote:
> >> Whisky-dave wrote:
> >>> On Jul 6, 3:53 am, "Neil Harrington" <n...@home.net> wrote:
> >>>> Whisky-dave wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 4, 6:57 pm, "Neil Harrington" <n...@home.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> >>>>>>> David J Taylor <david-tay...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com> wrote in
> >>>>>>>> message
>
> >>>>>>>>> Then Windows is way overpriced (for me) --- it only covers a
> >>>>>>>>> small part of my set of tasks. It can perform more tasks with
> >>>>>>>>> lots of (often costly) 3rd party tools, but that makes it even
> >>>>>>>>> more expensive.
>
> >>>>>>>> So buy or download something else! You are not forced into
> >>>>>>>> Windows
>
> >>>>>>> At home, nope. At work ... different story.
>
> >>>>>>>> if you
> >>>>>>>> choose your hardware supplier with care.
>
> >>>>>>> Name me a few laptops that work well with Linux and where one
> >>>>>>> can get them without paying for Windows.
>
> >>>>>> You can do what a lot of Linux enthusiasts do -- buy a laptop,
> >>>>>> reformat the HDD and install Linux. From user reviews I've seen
> >>>>>> on NewEgg etc., that seems to be a fairly common way of getting a
> >>>>>> Linux laptop.Many of them are cheap enough (e.g., with Windows 7
> >>>>>> Starter) that there's little point to trying to find a laptop
> >>>>>> that doesn't already have an OS installed.
>
> >>>>> Why can;t peoole get a reduction if they don;t want windows on
> >>>>> their PC ?
>
> >>>> I don't know whether they can or not. It 's OK with me either way.
> >>>> The reduction probably wouldn't amount to much, if anything.
>
> >>> Isn't windows about $100 a copy ? 25% of a netbooks price .
>
> >> Yes, Windows is about $100 a copy (OEM Win7 Home Premium version for
> >> example) if you buy it separately to install yourself. If you buy a
> >> new computer it's already pre-installed and doesn't cost you
> >> anything.
>
> > That;'s teh key isn;t it, what makes windows popular is that it
> > doesn;'t cost anything,
>
> Seems like a good deal to millions of people, obviously.

Perhaps the words seems is the appropriate then.

>
> > well it does you just don;t get a choice which is the same with Apple.
>
> Of what "choice" are you being deprived? If you don't like the OS you can
> dump it and put it whatever you do like -- or just buy a barebones system
> and finish it up however you like. That's a lot more choice than you get
> with any Mac, isn't it?

Depends what you're buying doesn't it.
Yes, on my Mac I can install mac OS, Linux and most windows.



> > You do know why software supliers can be seen as drug dealers, free or
> > very cheap offers to get you hooked
> > and reeled in. The you have upgrade costs if yuo want to stay
> > compatable.
> > That's one of the big problems businesess have, so why do businesess
> > use word.....
> > because home users know how to use it because it is virtually given
> > away as is the OS.
> > MS know that thye'll make the money back in software sales over time.
>
> Is all that a serious objection, or are you just pulling my leg?

No it's the facts
Why do you have to bay $100 for windows software while HP and dell get
it for far less.


> >> What it
> >> costs the computer manufacturer I have no idea, but it must be a
> >> relatively small amount since you can buy the whole thing at retail
> >> for less than the parts would cost you without the OS.
>
> > Yep like any good drug dealer knows. This also has the efect of
> > cutting out compitition
> > as they just can't compeat at these scales of investment.
>
> So you're saying it works very well for everybody -- Microsoft, the computer
> maker, and the consumer all do well. I agree with you. It's a wonderful
> arrangement.

So wonderful that a company like Apple can charge what you see as a
fortune for computers
that aren't as good as PC.



> >>>> Try ordering a new car without an engine (or rear suspension, or
> >>>> whatever), and see what response you get.
>
> >>> That's not a very good comparison as I don;t think anyone ever has a
> >>> chance
> >>> to pick and chose an engine to their car.
>
> >> Why not? You could buy that separately too.
>
> > So why don't peole do it, why not buy a ford and put a ferrari engine
> > in it ?
>
> People *have* been doing that sort of thing for a very long time. Never
> heard of a "Fordillac" (Ford with a Cadillac engine)?

A you saying the world is a Fordillac buying worlod .

> They were popular -- *
> among performance enthusiasts who could afford to pay the bill -- way back
> in the 1950s. And a friend of mine several years ago put a late-model Buick
> V6 engine in a 1932 Ford coupe, and also put an independent front suspension
> on it.. You can do anything you want, if you're prepared to pay for it.
> Obviously some of the things you can do cost a lot more money than just
> buying a car as it comes off the assembly line.

Not too unlike the Mac then, if you're prepared to pay for good
quality or something a bit special compared to what everyone else is
happy with good for you. I thought that was the american way, not all
following each other like they did in china 'we all have the same
clothes and the same model bike because that is better for everyone.
Is the way of the world.


> >>> How many cars can take two or three engines,
>
> >> Many, if not most. My Chevy Malibu can be bought with either a four-
> >> or six-cylinder engine. Some cars have more engine choices than that.
>
> > Can it take another make of engine, that's cloer to the point
> > or are ytoy pleased by such a limited choice.
>
> I'm pleased with the choice, and don't find it limiting in the least.
>
> You seem to be a *very* hard fellow to please. You have all these choices
> available to you, and still you grumble and complain.

I don't, I can use Mac OS or windows or linux on my computers.
I also don;t feel I'm missing out by buying the cheaper 'home edition'

I was dragged around depatrment stores looking at vfridge freezers at
the weekend although I tended to gravitate
towards the computer sections. They hard quite impressive sections for
Apple Mac, the PC section looked a little pathetic, most of the PCs
had faults on them of some sort the Macs were all up and running and
for some reason they got far more attention than the PCs and this went
for tablets and the iPod style devices.

I guess it's a pity everyone can;t have the best in life.


> > Increase in cost yes, just like a cars, if onmly people could see the
> > differnce between computers like they do with cars.
>
> Again, you have all these wonderful choices. You can buy whatever you want
> and do whatever you want with it. PCs obviously offer a lot more choices,
> since you can buy all the parts individually and put together exactly the
> system you want (as I do), or buy a barebones system and just finish it the
> way you like (as I have also done). I don't believe you can do anything like
> that with a Mac, but I suppose as a Mac person you're content with that
> anyway.

Because there is little to gain from such things unless you're a high
end gamer.
What do you gain by building your own PC, for the average users there
is nothing.
At least with a shop brought computer you have some guarentee/
warrenty.
Lets see on average you pay more for each component adn you have to
buy the case install the software
check on incompabilities.


>
> So why aren't you happy?

I'm happy with my Mac and so are the vast majority of Mac users.
There's still a very steady stream of ex PCs users going over to mac
as peolpe realise there's more to using a computer than a pure spec
base process, just blike they do with cameras today.
It's a compact or P&S world out there too, but some of us are a bit
more choosy what's wrong with that, what;'s wrong for pointing out the
differencies in systems.
I have 24 PCs being built in my lab currently 4 are faulty, looks like
memory or mother board problems.
Not my concern, system support will just have to come back over and
sort it out.



>
> > Well in my brothers case it was already pre-installed with crap.
>
> So he could have just uninstalled the crap he didn't want. Nothing forced
> him to keep it, eh?

he didn;t know how to there was no such option.
he expected to take the computer out of the box and start using it.
He should have brought a Mac if he expected that.

>
> It's not that bad here. Some channels are worse than others, but I mostly
> just watch Fox News and that isn't bad.

is that a joke..........

Oh and I think I'll top myself as there's nothing decent to read now
the News of The World has gone

On Jul 9, 4:48*am, John Turco <j...@concentric.net> wrote:
> Whisky-dave wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 22, 2:16 am, "Neil Harrington" <n...@home.net> wrote:
> > > > Whisky-dave wrote:
> > > >> On Jun 20, 5:50 pm, "Neil Harrington" <n...@home.net> wrote:
> > > >>> Whisky-dave wrote:
>
> <edited for brevity>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > >>> Apple being one of the most successful, well financially according
> > > >>> to the stock market.
>
> > > >> And much the same applies at the consumer level. Every time I've
> > > >> gone into the local Staples, or even Walmart, I see rows of PCs --
> > > >> and no Macs.
>
> > > >>> So. I didn't know those stores sold quality goods.
>
> > > >> Sure they do. They're even better than the Dollar Tree.
>
> > > > Being in the UK I've no idea ....
> > > > But our cheap stores tend not to sell quality goods.
> > > > I'm talking of real physical stores not on-line ones.
>
> > > I was making what we call a joke.
>
> > Oh sorry I thought dollar tree was some store .
>
> <edited>
>
> "Dollar Tree" is a U.S. national chain. As its name implies, everything
> it sells costs $1.00 USD. (With a few exceptions, such as 50¢ greeting
> cards.)

We have poundland, poundshop, under a pound, under a fiver and now to
my area 99p or less.
They'll soon be selling PCs

tony cooper wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 22:48:09 -0500, John Turco <>
> > wrote:
> >
> > "Dollar Tree" is a U.S. national chain. As its name implies, everything
> > it sells costs $1.00 USD. (With a few exceptions, such as 50¢ greeting
> > cards.)
>
> Wasn't there, or isn't there, a chain in the UK called The Pound Store?
> Or, is that just a nickname for a store that sells cheap goods?


In a subsequent reply to me, within this same thread, "Whisky-dave" said:

"We have poundland, poundshop, under a pound, under a fiver and now to
my area 99p or less.
They'll soon be selling PCs "

--
Cordially,
John Turco <>

Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>

Whisky-dave wrote:
>
> > On Jul 9, 4:48 am, John Turco <j...@concentric.net> wrote:

<edited for brevity>

> > "Dollar Tree" is a U.S. national chain. As its name implies, everything
> > it sells costs $1.00 USD. (With a few exceptions, such as 50¢ greeting
> > cards.)
>
> We have poundland, poundshop, under a pound, under a fiver and now to
> my area 99p or less.

Thanks, for the information.

> They'll soon be selling PCs

Dollar Tree does carry some small gadgets. Mainly, it's s a good place
to obtain minor items (e.g., toothpaste, disposable razors).

--
Cordially,
John Turco <>

Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>

On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 17:07:38 -0500, John Turco <>
wrote:

>tony cooper wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 22:48:09 -0500, John Turco <>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > "Dollar Tree" is a U.S. national chain. As its name implies, everything
>> > it sells costs $1.00 USD. (With a few exceptions, such as 50¢ greeting
>> > cards.)
>>
>> Wasn't there, or isn't there, a chain in the UK called The Pound Store?
>> Or, is that just a nickname for a store that sells cheap goods?
>
>
>In a subsequent reply to me, within this same thread, "Whisky-dave" said:
>
> "We have poundland, poundshop, under a pound, under a fiver and now to
> my area 99p or less.
> They'll soon be selling PCs "

Yes, John, I follow the threads too.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

nospam <> wrote:
> Weisselberg <> wrote:

>> >> >> What claim? That Apple would love to jail the Mac the same way
>> >> >> they jail the iPhone?

>> >> > that's nothing but baseless speculation.

>> >> No, that's a truth. You may not like it, but ... Apple
>> >> *would* love it.

>> > why would they love it?

>> Because they'd make tons and tons of money.

> they already are making tons of money.

But not tons and tons. Ever known a company tell the shareholders:
"No, we don't want to make even more moneyx."?


>> > it's a stupid idea.

>> Only if they cannot pull it off.

> they can certainly try, but it will be a commercial disaster.

Certainly not. It could be a PR disaster, though.


>> > forbidding non-appstore apps, some of which can't even be in the app
>> > store for various reasons (installing kernel extensions, for instance),
>> > would be incredibly dumb. it's not a viable strategy and flat out
>> > stupid.

>> And it works with the iPhone and iPad, because ... ?

> you were talking about locking down the mac, not iphones and ipads.

Ah, it works with iPhone and iPad because I was talking about
the Mac. Not that you aren't talking about them, but your words
don't carry weight.


>> >> > there is *no* indication whatsoever that they are removing the other
>> >> > ways of installing apps, and frankly, that would be incredibly stupid
>> >> > if they did.

>> >> They are not ready for that ... yet.

>> > ok, so tell us when will they be ready.

>> Sure, just as soon as I have become part of the strategy team
>> for Apple, so I get exact dates.

> in other words, you're talking out your ass.

Ah, so you are talking out of your ass, since you are NOT part
of the strategy team.


>> >> >> Let's see a web app iPhone task killer, then ...

>> >> > task killers aren't needed.

>> >> They exist. But they cannot exist as web apps, right? QED.

>> > there are no native task killers on the iphone.

>> http://thebigboss.org/2008/12/20/sbs...ocesses-widget
>> doesn't exist, right. Sorry for that --- I'm stuck in an alternate
>> reality called 'real world'.

> that's for jailbroken phones. as i'm sure you know, once a phone is
> jailbroken, anything goes.

It's a native task killer. You cannot build a web app that does
that on a jailbroken phone. You need to have a native part.


> first you say there's no way to install apps without apple's approval
> and then you turn around and cite an app that can *only* be installed
> without apple's approval.

And?

> you can't have it both ways.

If you are not able to see contexts ...

Most people cannot or will not jailbreak the phone. A handful
jailbroken phones interest Apple less than a sack rice in China.


>> > they're not needed, and that's not even relevant.

>> They should not be needed.

> they're not needed. ios manages it on its own.

Or so the theory says.

-Wolfgang

Neil Harrington <> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> Neil Harrington <> wrote:
>>> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>>>> Neil Harrington <> wrote:

>>>>> Only crazy people want to run their cars on bio fuels. Even Al Gore
>>>>> doesn't want to do that, I'll bet.

[...]

>> There are quite some people who take E10 (10% Ethanol).
>> Not everyone. But far more than can be assumed to be crazy.
>> Thus disproving your point.
>> QED.

> That hardly "disproves" my point.

So you are saying all those who use E10 are crazy.

> Ethanol has substantially lower energy
> content than gasoline

So what?

> and is therefore inherently a poorer fuel

Only if your only stick of measurement is energy density, in which case
you'd better stick to antimatter.


> -- fuel consumption is worse --

Yes, so if you cross a trackless desert without fuel stations, do remember
to take some more drums of fuel with you.


> and also it is known to have damaged valves and
> caused gumminess in engines which encourages internal rusting.

And Coca Cola dissolves raw meat.


> Newer engines
> are apparently designed to cope with some of these problems,

Brasil has millions of vehicles running on pure ethanol.


> but the
> increased expense remains.

Only if the price of the fuel is the same per unit. Which is a
pretty naive assumption --- you should be smarter than that.


> Also, a very large amount of corn is converted
> into ethanol for the mix,

You are incorrectly assumimg most ethanol comes from corn.


> which has some effect in reducing the amount
> available for food,

We still have enough. Food shortage is a distribution problem,
not a question of arable land.


> or making it more expensive.

Mass production makes things more expensive?


> In addition to all that
> there have been questions raised about its toxicity

You shouldn't drink of it. Same as other fuels. Though there are
many ventures in the US that serve such stuff over the counter,
usually diluted with quite toxic Hydrogen Hydroxide for human
consumption, and noone cries "foul murder".


> -- some believe that
> it's worse for people's health and even contributes more to the Dread Al
> Gore Global Warming problem <snicker> than gasoline does.

Some people believe the Earth is flat. So?


> Nevertheless, it is of course still much loved by tree huggers who can be
> expected to demand even more of it for their gas tanks while they wait
> patiently for the coastal cities to all go underwater.

We really should expand our living area to the bottom of the sea.


>>>>>> The new Mac OS Lion will be $30 and as a home user you can have it
>>>>>> on as
>>>>>> many computers as you like, now compare that with windows 7 what
>>>>>> is it $130 per computer ?

>>>>> It's about $100 in OEM versions, which is generally what I buy.

>>>> I can get my OSses, GUI, programs[1] for much much less, and
>>>> legally copy them as often and to as many households and computers
>>>> as I like.

>>> But only by leaving the standard.

>> What standard?

> Windows. Mentioned a few times already.

Which Windows standard? There are so many of them, all not very
compatible to each other ...


>> On the contrary, that move brings me in line with many more
>> standards.

>>> It's still a Windows world out there.

>> I work with the Internet, where Windows is a poor cousin.

>>> Can you run Flight Simulator X?

>> FSX must be some standard software,

> Pretty much, yes.

Cite?

> MSFS is *the* flight sim software

Cite?


And yes, I am *sure* MSFS will let me process my photos better.


>> like ... uh ... Firefox,
>> Chrome and Internet Exploder all in one, the way you talk about it.

>> Can you run bonnie++?

> Never heard of it.

Most people have never heard of MSFS either.

> Ergo, I have no wish to run it, whatever it is.

Most small boys cannot imagine having anything to do with girls
(and enough have never even heard of sex). This often chances
once they grow up.

-Wolfgang

Alan Browne <> wrote:

> In effect, oil and gas are severely under priced - and would be at 10X
> the highest current pump price.

Would you like paying USD 91.00 per gallon?

-Wolfgang

Neil Harrington <> wrote:
> Whisky-dave wrote:
>> On Jul 7, 4:19 am, "Neil Harrington" <n...@home.net> wrote:
>>> Whisky-dave wrote:
>>>> On Jul 6, 3:53 am, "Neil Harrington" <n...@home.net> wrote:
>>>>> Whisky-dave wrote:
>>>>>> On Jul 4, 6:57 pm, "Neil Harrington" <n...@home.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>>>>>>>> David J Taylor <david-tay...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> message


>> That;'s teh key isn;t it, what makes windows popular is that it
>> doesn;'t cost anything,

> Seems like a good deal to millions of people, obviously.

Then they should love GNU/Linux: OS and tens of thousands of
programs don't cost you anything.


>>> What it
>>> costs the computer manufacturer I have no idea, but it must be a
>>> relatively small amount since you can buy the whole thing at retail
>>> for less than the parts would cost you without the OS.

>> Yep like any good drug dealer knows. This also has the efect of
>> cutting out compitition
>> as they just can't compeat at these scales of investment.

> So you're saying it works very well for everybody -- Microsoft, the computer
> maker, and the consumer all do well. I agree with you. It's a wonderful
> arrangement.

Same as with drugs: The drug makers, the importers, the
dealers, the consumers all do well. It's a wonderful
arrangement. (Of course the cost of it all is borne by the
public at large, just as with MS products.)



>> So why don't peole do it, why not buy a ford and put a ferrari engine
>> in it ?

> People *have* been doing that sort of thing for a very long time.

Let me guess ... 0.005% of the market? Completely irrelevant.

> Never
> heard of a "Fordillac" (Ford with a Cadillac engine)?

That's not a Forderrari, doesn't count.


>> Can it take another make of engine, that's cloer to the point
>> or are ytoy pleased by such a limited choice.

> I'm pleased with the choice, and don't find it limiting in the least.

I'd be pleased if Linux was put on every computer and whoever
wanted Windows would have to pay $200 or more extra for the
OS and more for Office, Outlook (Express) and so on. I'd
not find that limiting in the least.


> You seem to be a *very* hard fellow to please. You have all these choices
> available to you, and still you grumble and complain.

You are very easy to please: any crap will do, let's just
make it a standard in your mind.


>> Increase in cost yes, just like a cars, if onmly people could see the
>> differnce between computers like they do with cars.

> Again, you have all these wonderful choices. You can buy whatever you want
> and do whatever you want with it. PCs obviously offer a lot more choices,
> since you can buy all the parts individually and put together exactly the
> system you want (as I do), or buy a barebones system and just finish it the
> way you like (as I have also done). I don't believe you can do anything like
> that with a Mac, but I suppose as a Mac person you're content with that
> anyway.

You can buy all laptop parts individually?
You can buy all parts for cheaper than the finished computer?
You can buy most any computer for less if you forego an OS?

-Wolfgang

PeterN <> wrote:

> All cars and mainly four wheels and steel. All will take me from place
> to place.

Take a Citroën 2CV --- 4 wheels and an umbrella.

> Yet they are different and to paraphrase the Duck, I am willing to pay
> for some of the differences.

And are you willing to pay for parts you have neither need
nor want for?

-Wolfgang