Re: Look at this rubbish

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Jekyll and Hyde, Jun 21, 2008.

  1. "Bobs" <> wrote in message
    news:485c486f$...
    > http://blogs.nzherald.co.nz/blog/mac-planet/2008/6/20/pity-poor-it-guy/?c_id=1501832
    >
    > What a cretin. I especially like this bit
    >
    > "I don't have time to support another type of computer" or "It won't
    > integrate!" "It's not on our program for software support!"
    >
    > The looks on their faces when someone like me plugs in a MacBook, says
    > "Great, I'm online. Of these printers my Mac can already see on your
    > network, which one should I use?" is comical to say the least. Poor
    > things. How dare a damn Mac user so casually deal to their mana?
    >
    > ******
    >
    > So this tosser just connects his laptop to a corporate lan despite the
    > person in charge of it, saying no? The look on their faces in probably one
    > of utter amazement that this guy thinks it's perfectly acceptable to plug
    > in a networked device onto a lan despite not having permission to do so.


    Lol, the guy is a total tool. Macs don't work properly on Exchange mail
    server, and many intranet based apps these days REQUIRE IE. IE on the Mac
    hasn't been updated for years and is almost non functional.

    As far as running Windows goes, well then it's a pc isn't it. Given that
    Apple have given up on their own inferior (and always have been) cpus and
    dodgy benchmarking the only thing distinguishing them from a pc now is the
    OS. And if that OS is Windows then I'd call it a PC made by Apple, given
    that all the hardware is now mainstream PC hardware.

    J&H.
     
    Jekyll and Hyde, Jun 21, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In <485c7bf2$> Jekyll and Hyde wrote:

    > Lol, the guy is a total tool. Macs don't work properly on Exchange
    > mail server, and many intranet based apps these days REQUIRE IE. IE
    > on the Mac hasn't been updated for years and is almost non functional.


    So, much like the Windows version then? :p

    > As far as running Windows goes, well then it's a pc isn't it. Given
    > that Apple have given up on their own inferior (and always have been)
    > cpus


    The PowerPC CPU (Apple had a hand in it, but it was mainly Motorola and
    IBM) was always a much better design than Intel's x86. For some brief
    periods it was even faster (both in clock speeds and real world
    performance, not just benchmarks or specialised tasks) than anything in
    the PC world e.g. some of the 604e and G3 chips. Unfortunately Motorola
    and IBM both failed to keep up with Intel's spending. Everyone in the
    1990s was predicting the demise of the x86, but never considered that
    Intel and their cloners would be willing to spend billions of dollars
    fixing the x86 design.

    > and dodgy benchmarking


    Oh, there were some doozies.

    > the only thing distinguishing them from a
    > pc now is the OS. And if that OS is Windows then I'd call it a PC
    > made by Apple, given that all the hardware is now mainstream PC
    > hardware.
    >
    > J&H.


    The Mac hardware platform existed for one reason and one reason only: to
    run the Mac OS. Apple has been replacing their custom hardware with
    generic PC hardware bit by bit since the Mac was released, as soon as
    the PC hardware was good enough.

    --
    Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand -> http://roger.geek.nz
     
    Roger Johnstone, Jun 21, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jekyll and Hyde

    EMB Guest

    Freesias wrote:
    > On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 18:26:48 +1200, sam wrote:
    >
    >>> All Web Applications should be browser agnostic, and should conform to
    >>> the published W3C standards.
    >>>
    >>>

    >> An intranet isn't the web

    >
    > If it uses a web browser, and if the pages are served from a web server,
    > then the application should conform to all published W3C standards.
    >
    >

    Why?
     
    EMB, Jun 21, 2008
    #3
  4. Jekyll and Hyde

    David Empson Guest

    Freesias <> wrote:

    > On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 05:47:31 +0000, Roger Johnstone wrote:
    >
    > > Everyone in the
    > > 1990s was predicting the demise of the x86, but never considered that
    > > Intel and their cloners would be willing to spend billions of dollars
    > > fixing the x86 design.

    >
    > Has it been fixed? or just worked around?
    >
    > I thought that all x86 chips are fully backwards compatible all the way
    > back to the original 4-bit Intel CPU.


    No, definitely doesn't go back further than the 8088/8086. The next
    older one (8080) has a different register architecture and incompatible
    machine code, but translation of assembly language source code isn't too
    hard because the 8086 is generally a superset of the 8080.

    Still, that's compatibile all the way back to the late 1970s.

    --
    David Empson
     
    David Empson, Jun 21, 2008
    #4
  5. Jekyll and Hyde

    David Empson Guest

    sam <> wrote:

    > Roger Johnstone wrote:
    > > The Mac hardware platform existed for one reason and one reason only: to
    > > run the Mac OS. Apple has been replacing their custom hardware with
    > > generic PC hardware bit by bit since the Mac was released, as soon as
    > > the PC hardware was good enough.

    >
    > So whats happened to the PowerPC ?


    Used in every major game console (XBox 360, Playstation 3, Nintendo Wii)
    - all different variants but based on the PowerPC architecture.

    IBM seemingly weren't interested in advancing the PowerPC G5 fast enough
    to get sufficient performance boosts for Apple's high-end workstations
    (best was the 2.5 GHz dual-core G5, which was about two years after the
    original top-end G5 was 2.0 GHz; there was a 2.7 GHz single core model
    along the way).

    IBM never got the power/heat down far enough to allow a G5 to be used in
    a laptop, so Apple was forced to stick with G4 processors for its iBook
    and PowerBook (and Mac Mini).

    Motorola was dragging the chain on improving the G4, which in Apple's
    high-end laptops went from 500 MHz in early 2001 up to 1 GHz by late
    2002, 1.33 GHz was the best a year later, and the fastest they got (in
    Apple laptops) was 1.67 GHz for all of 2005 (while the G5 was around the
    2 to 2.5 GHz mark, and faster at the same clock speed).

    Switching to Intel at the start of 2006 made a huge difference. iMacs
    were about twice as fast (dual core), MacBook Pros almost four times
    faster (dual core and on a par with the iMac), and the quad core Mac Pro
    (Xeon) was significantly faster than the best quad core PowerMac G5.

    --
    David Empson
     
    David Empson, Jun 21, 2008
    #5
  6. In <1iiwx8q.cx638pqjekv7N%> David Empson wrote:
    > sam <> wrote:
    >
    >> Roger Johnstone wrote:
    >> > The Mac hardware platform existed for one reason and one reason
    >> > only: to run the Mac OS. Apple has been replacing their custom
    >> > hardware with generic PC hardware bit by bit since the Mac was
    >> > released, as soon as the PC hardware was good enough.

    >>
    >> So whats happened to the PowerPC ?

    >
    > Used in every major game console (XBox 360, Playstation 3, Nintendo
    > Wii) - all different variants but based on the PowerPC architecture.
    >
    > IBM seemingly weren't interested in advancing the PowerPC G5 fast
    > enough to get sufficient performance boosts for Apple's high-end
    > workstations (best was the 2.5 GHz dual-core G5, which was about two
    > years after the original top-end G5 was 2.0 GHz; there was a 2.7 GHz
    > single core model along the way).


    WWDC 2003: G5 2.0 GHz. Promised 3 GHz within a year. Cheers from crowd.
    WWDC 2004: G5 2.5 GHz. Apology from Steve Jobs.
    WWDC 2005: We're switching to Intel.

    There is no way Steve Jobs would have made a public promise that Apple
    would be shipping a 3 GHz CPU within one year unless he had a firm
    reassurance from IBM that they could do it. Embarrasing Steve Jobs is
    the last mistake you'll ever make if you want to do business with Apple.

    --
    Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand -> http://roger.geek.nz
     
    Roger Johnstone, Jun 22, 2008
    #6
  7. In <485ceea9$> EMB wrote:
    > Freesias wrote:
    >> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 18:26:48 +1200, sam wrote:
    >>
    >>>> All Web Applications should be browser agnostic, and should conform
    >>>> to the published W3C standards.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> An intranet isn't the web

    >>
    >> If it uses a web browser, and if the pages are served from a web
    >> server, then the application should conform to all published W3C
    >> standards.

    >
    > Why?


    I came across this blog entry just yesterday:

    Apple's MobileMe drops support for IE 6
    http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/1072-apples-mobileme-drops-support-
    for-ie-6

    Hardly shocking that Apple wouldn't support an old version of IE, but
    the comments are more interesting.

    ~~~~~~
    Lazlo 10 Jun 08
    On the open web, IE is a ?web browser?. On tens of thousands of
    intranets, IE is a ?web browser? and an application platform.

    With Microsoft?s hearty encouragement, enterprise customers have spent
    billions of dollars developing applications for that platform. Because
    most of these applications were designed during the IE6 era (which
    lasted over five years), and were written for a captive audience that
    was guaranteed to have IE6 , they frequently rely on behaviors specific
    to IE6 . Web-focused developers will sneer at this, but application
    development isn?t web development. If you?re writing Mac applications,
    you don?t ignore all the Mac-specific features and APIs available to you
    on the off chance you might want to do a Windows version someday.

    Along comes IE7 . It can?t peacefully coexist with IE6 so enterprise
    customers have two options: stick with IE6 , or test/fix every app that
    relies on IE to ensure that it works under IE7 . And the latter path
    requires another choice: you either limit the fixes to stuff that works
    in both IE6 and IE7 , or you get to deploy all the application changes
    simultaneously, while deploying IE7 to every single desktop in the
    entire organization at the exact same time. And if anything mission-
    critical breaks as a result, you get to back it all out again. Every
    last application, every last desktop.

    Not a lot of orgs have hundreds of thousands/millions of dollars to burn
    on development and QA just so they can have the exact same business
    functionality on a slightly more up-to-date platform.
    ~~~~~~
    Anonymous Coward 13 Jun 08
    I can?t believe I work for one of the large corporations who are still
    using IE6 (as standard), because some apps are not compatible with IE7 . ?
    The crazy thing is, I can?t believe the software policy is to support a
    particular browser (IE6) rather than web standards themselves.

    When we finally upgrade to IE7 the software policy will be to support
    IE7 . ? The problem will start all over again when IE8 is released ?
    most likely breaking support for some sites written specifically for IE7 .
    ~~~~~~

    --
    Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand -> http://roger.geek.nz
     
    Roger Johnstone, Jun 22, 2008
    #7
  8. In <485db468$> sam wrote:
    > Roger Johnstone wrote:
    >> In <1iiwx8q.cx638pqjekv7N%> David Empson wrote:
    >>> sam <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Roger Johnstone wrote:
    >>>>> The Mac hardware platform existed for one reason and one reason
    >>>>> only: to run the Mac OS. Apple has been replacing their custom
    >>>>> hardware with generic PC hardware bit by bit since the Mac was
    >>>>> released, as soon as the PC hardware was good enough.
    >>>> So whats happened to the PowerPC ?
    >>> Used in every major game console (XBox 360, Playstation 3, Nintendo
    >>> Wii) - all different variants but based on the PowerPC architecture.
    >>>
    >>> IBM seemingly weren't interested in advancing the PowerPC G5 fast
    >>> enough to get sufficient performance boosts for Apple's high-end
    >>> workstations (best was the 2.5 GHz dual-core G5, which was about two
    >>> years after the original top-end G5 was 2.0 GHz; there was a 2.7 GHz
    >>> single core model along the way).

    >>
    >> WWDC 2003: G5 2.0 GHz. Promised 3 GHz within a year. Cheers from
    >> crowd. WWDC 2004: G5 2.5 GHz. Apology from Steve Jobs. WWDC 2005:
    >> We're switching to Intel. There is no way Steve Jobs would have made
    >> a public promise that Apple would be shipping a 3 GHz CPU within one
    >> year unless he had a firm reassurance from IBM that they could do it.
    >> Embarrasing Steve Jobs is the last mistake you'll ever make if you
    >> want to do business with Apple.

    >
    > All hail SJ
    > Don't you get sick of all the hero worship ?


    Do I detect a touch of sarcasm? My crack about Steve's shunning was a
    funny comment demonstrating the way he does business. Do a web search
    for Mercurial CEO and half the hits will be about Steve Jobs. I didn't
    see any hero worshipping, although I do think he's done a fantastic job
    resurrecting Apple over the past 10 years though, and as a Mac user I
    appreciate that since it means my OS of choice is no longer under threat
    of disappearing in the foreseeable future.

    --
    Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand -> http://roger.geek.nz
     
    Roger Johnstone, Jun 22, 2008
    #8
  9. Jekyll and Hyde

    Enkidu Guest

    thingy wrote:
    > Jekyll and Hyde wrote:
    >> "Bobs" <> wrote in message
    >> news:485c486f$...
    >>> http://blogs.nzherald.co.nz/blog/mac-planet/2008/6/20/pity-poor-it-guy/?c_id=1501832
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> What a cretin. I especially like this bit
    >>>
    >>> "I don't have time to support another type of computer" or "It
    >>> won't integrate!" "It's not on our program for software support!"
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> The looks on their faces when someone like me plugs in a MacBook,
    >>> says "Great, I'm online. Of these printers my Mac can already
    >>> see on your network, which one should I use?" is comical to say
    >>> the least. Poor things. How dare a damn Mac user so casually deal
    >>> to their mana?
    >>>
    >>> ******
    >>>
    >>> So this tosser just connects his laptop to a corporate lan
    >>> despite the person in charge of it, saying no? The look on their
    >>> faces in probably one of utter amazement that this guy thinks
    >>> it's perfectly acceptable to plug in a networked device onto a
    >>> lan despite not having permission to do so.

    >>
    >> Lol, the guy is a total tool. Macs don't work properly on Exchange
    >> mail server,

    >
    > So this is a Macs fault? If Windows could get its act together or
    > even release the proper specs there would be no issue.
    >

    I can think of several ways to get a Mac working with Exchange, but
    isn't there a version of Office for Macs? That would provide Outlook for
    use with Exchange servers.
    >
    > Its a sad indication of the level of in-competance of IT departments
    > that they think they are there for IT, they decide what apps to
    > deploy because it suits them....what they should be there for is the
    > business.
    >

    Exchange/Outlook is still by far the best groupware tool out there.
    That's why corporate IT departments use them. GroupWise? Ptui!! It's a
    pile of manure.

    Both Exchange and Outlook really require a Windows platform. Since all
    clients will have to have Outlook it makes sense to standardise on
    mainly Microsoft apps.

    But if you have Windows you can have all the third party benefits,
    things like Ghost for cloning machines, and other non-Microsoft apps
    that people have written.
    >
    >> and many intranet based apps these days REQUIRE IE. IE on the Mac
    >> hasn't been updated for years and is almost non functional.

    >
    > If you are relying on a web based tool that only works properly in IE
    > then you are a fool.
    >

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    Have you ever noticed that if something is advertised as 'amusing' or
    'hilarious', it usually isn't?
     
    Enkidu, Jun 22, 2008
    #9
  10. "thingy" <> wrote in message
    news:485dcf5b$...
    > Jekyll and Hyde wrote:
    >> "Bobs" <> wrote in message
    >> news:485c486f$...
    >>> http://blogs.nzherald.co.nz/blog/mac-planet/2008/6/20/pity-poor-it-guy/?c_id=1501832
    >>>
    >>> What a cretin. I especially like this bit
    >>>
    >>> "I don't have time to support another type of computer" or "It won't
    >>> integrate!" "It's not on our program for software support!"
    >>>
    >>> The looks on their faces when someone like me plugs in a MacBook, says
    >>> "Great, I'm online. Of these printers my Mac can already see on your
    >>> network, which one should I use?" is comical to say the least. Poor
    >>> things. How dare a damn Mac user so casually deal to their mana?
    >>>
    >>> ******
    >>>
    >>> So this tosser just connects his laptop to a corporate lan despite the
    >>> person in charge of it, saying no? The look on their faces in probably
    >>> one of utter amazement that this guy thinks it's perfectly acceptable to
    >>> plug in a networked device onto a lan despite not having permission to
    >>> do so.

    >>
    >> Lol, the guy is a total tool. Macs don't work properly on Exchange mail
    >> server,

    >
    > So this is a Macs fault? If Windows could get its act together or even
    > release the proper specs there would be no issue.
    >
    > Its a sad indication of the level of in-competance of IT departments that
    > they think they are there for IT, they decide what apps to deploy because
    > it suits them....what they should be there for is the business.
    >
    > and many intranet based apps these days REQUIRE IE. IE on the Mac
    >> hasn't been updated for years and is almost non functional.

    >
    > If you are relying on a web based tool that only works properly in IE then
    > you are a fool.


    So call them fools, but it's the way it is.

    >> As far as running Windows goes, well then it's a pc isn't it. Given that
    >> Apple have given up on their own inferior (and always have been) cpus

    >
    > These were IBM's CPUs....and good ones. The architecture is without doubt
    > far superior to x86, the x86 is a triumph of development over design....


    This WAS true for a short time.

    > and
    >> dodgy benchmarking the only thing distinguishing them from a pc now is
    >> the OS.

    >
    > and you think Vista is great? poor you....virtually no enterprise business
    > is now seriously looking at Vista, its a dead duck...
    > And if that OS is Windows then I'd call it a PC made by Apple,


    No, I hate Vista with a vengeance and personally refer to it as "Fister"
    (explicit connatation intended).

    > Considering that in some circles its considered that the best hardware to
    > run Windows on is a mac book that's a sad indication of the PC market.
    >
    > given
    >> that all the hardware is now mainstream PC hardware.
    >>
    >> J&H.

    >
    > Just shows that the hardware really does not matter for most people....


    I always wondered how the Mac camp would cope with the change to Intel.
    Having only months earlier been repeatedly told by Apple and Jobs they were
    running the most advanced, fastest, and best cpu's on Earth, but the Intel
    cpu's were going to double that performance. How would they deal with this
    inconguity? Well they ignore it completely, that's how, luckily false
    advertising isn't illegal in the USA.

    J&H.
    >
    > regards
    >
    > Thing
    >
     
    Jekyll and Hyde, Jun 23, 2008
    #10
  11. Jekyll and Hyde <jekyll&> wrote:

    > I always wondered how the Mac camp would cope with the change to Intel.
    > Having only months earlier been repeatedly told by Apple and Jobs they were
    > running the most advanced, fastest, and best cpu's on Earth, but the Intel
    > cpu's were going to double that performance. How would they deal with this
    > inconguity? Well they ignore it completely, that's how, luckily false
    > advertising isn't illegal in the USA.
    >
    > J&H.


    What happened to you? Powerbook drop on your foot back in the 90's?
    --
    If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
     
    Jamie Kahn Genet, Jun 23, 2008
    #11
  12. In <485f5446$> Jekyll and Hyde wrote:
    > "thingy" <> wrote in message
    > news:485dcf5b$...


    >> Just shows that the hardware really does not matter for most people....

    >
    > I always wondered how the Mac camp would cope with the change to Intel.
    > Having only months earlier been repeatedly told by Apple and Jobs they
    > were running the most advanced, fastest, and best cpu's on Earth, but
    > the Intel cpu's were going to double that performance. How would they
    > deal with this inconguity? Well they ignore it completely, that's how,
    > luckily false advertising isn't illegal in the USA.


    Pretty simple really. They launched the Intel-based Macs with the new
    Core CPUs, which didn't exist when Apple made their performance claims.
    Indeed the reason Jobs gave for switching wasn't for speed (the G5 was
    still competitive with anything Intel had at the time) but for
    efficiency i.e. the PowerPC G5 was too hot to put in a laptop, whereas
    the upcoming Core CPUs that Intel had shown Apple would be capable of
    similar performance using much less power.

    --
    Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand -> http://roger.geek.nz
     
    Roger Johnstone, Jun 24, 2008
    #12
  13. "Roger Johnstone" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In <485f5446$> Jekyll and Hyde wrote:
    >> "thingy" <> wrote in message
    >> news:485dcf5b$...

    >
    >>> Just shows that the hardware really does not matter for most people....

    >>
    >> I always wondered how the Mac camp would cope with the change to Intel.
    >> Having only months earlier been repeatedly told by Apple and Jobs they
    >> were running the most advanced, fastest, and best cpu's on Earth, but
    >> the Intel cpu's were going to double that performance. How would they
    >> deal with this inconguity? Well they ignore it completely, that's how,
    >> luckily false advertising isn't illegal in the USA.

    >
    > Pretty simple really. They launched the Intel-based Macs with the new
    > Core CPUs, which didn't exist when Apple made their performance claims.
    > Indeed the reason Jobs gave for switching wasn't for speed (the G5 was
    > still competitive with anything Intel had at the time) but for
    > efficiency i.e. the PowerPC G5 was too hot to put in a laptop, whereas
    > the upcoming Core CPUs that Intel had shown Apple would be capable of
    > similar performance using much less power.
    >
    > --
    > Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand -> http://roger.geek.nz


    Everyone forgotten the G5 vs. Xeon comparisons?
    Apple switched from G5 to Xeons too.

    J&H.
     
    Jekyll and Hyde, Jun 25, 2008
    #13
  14. "thing" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Jekyll and Hyde wrote:
    > 8><----
    >> I always wondered how the Mac camp would cope with the change to Intel.
    >> Having only months earlier been repeatedly told by Apple and Jobs they
    >> were running the most advanced, fastest, and best cpu's on Earth, but the
    >> Intel cpu's were going to double that performance. How would they deal
    >> with this inconguity? Well they ignore it completely, that's how, luckily
    >> false advertising isn't illegal in the USA.
    >>
    >> J&H.
    >>> regards
    >>>
    >>> Thing
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    > Intel continued to put $ into the x86 cpus, IBM just didnt bother with
    > what was in effect a desktop version of thier server CPU sold in limited
    > numbers to Apple.
    >
    > The fundimental design of the x86 architecture is weaker than IBMs
    > cpu....but like I said Intel has done a Porsche 911, it too is a triumph
    > of development over design.
    >
    > regards
    >
    > Thing


    The design may have indeed been superior, but it's performance on the
    desktop that counts, and that's where Macs were left wanting, for years.

    J&H.
     
    Jekyll and Hyde, Jun 25, 2008
    #14
  15. Jekyll and Hyde

    David Empson Guest

    thing <> wrote:

    > Enkidu wrote:
    > > I can think of several ways to get a Mac working with Exchange, but
    > > isn't there a version of Office for Macs?

    >
    > There is, 2004, 2008.
    >
    > > That would provide Outlook for use with Exchange servers.

    >
    > I dont think the Mac version has it.


    No, but it does include Entourage, which is able to access e-mail,
    calendars and some other resources on an Exchange server. (I gather it
    is missing some features compared to Outlook, but I don't use any of
    these products so I can't say what they might be.)

    --
    David Empson
     
    David Empson, Jun 25, 2008
    #15
  16. Jekyll and Hyde

    Enkidu Guest

    whoisthis wrote:
    > In article <1ij3awu.1g9utawnyt45gN%>,
    > (David Empson) wrote:
    >
    >> thing <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Enkidu wrote:
    >>>> I can think of several ways to get a Mac working with Exchange, but
    >>>> isn't there a version of Office for Macs?
    >>> There is, 2004, 2008.
    >>>
    >>>> That would provide Outlook for use with Exchange servers.
    >>> I dont think the Mac version has it.

    >> No, but it does include Entourage, which is able to access e-mail,
    >> calendars and some other resources on an Exchange server. (I gather it
    >> is missing some features compared to Outlook, but I don't use any of
    >> these products so I can't say what they might be.)

    >
    > Compared to outlook, entourage is CRAP, so much so we are putting
    > parallels desktop and installing XP/Office on some staff Macs simply so
    > we get compatibility with the exchange server. Everything else we do is
    > on the Mac side.
    >
    > It also looks that the whole office suite is faster under the VM than
    > the native version under OSX.
    >
    > Personally I am waiting for Open Office 3 to see if it is better, if so
    > we will switch (assuming we get compatibility with other things such as
    > endnote/mathtype equivalents). Heck I think we will even get VB
    > compatibility with open office (missing from office 2008).
    >

    OO doesn't include an Exchange (MAPI) client does it? It would be
    interesting if it did.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    Have you ever noticed that if something is advertised as 'amusing' or
    'hilarious', it usually isn't?
     
    Enkidu, Jun 25, 2008
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Tony Evans

    Blocking Rubbish

    Tony Evans, Jun 28, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    1,059
  2. Roger Johnstone

    Re: Look at this rubbish

    Roger Johnstone, Jun 21, 2008, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    636
    Enkidu
    Jun 23, 2008
  3. PeeCee

    Re: Look at this rubbish

    PeeCee, Jun 21, 2008, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    314
    Jamie Kahn Genet
    Jun 22, 2008
  4. peterwn

    Re: Look at this rubbish

    peterwn, Jun 21, 2008, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    315
    Enkidu
    Jun 22, 2008
  5. Enkidu

    Re: Look at this rubbish

    Enkidu, Jun 22, 2008, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    597
Loading...

Share This Page