Let is be knownst that on Tue, 6 Feb 2007 17:19:04 +0000,
[email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)) writted:

>Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 16:53:25 +0000, [email protected] (David Horne, _the_
>> chancellor (*)) wrote:
>>
>> >Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>[]
>> >> The overall performance depends on how effectively the two processors are
>> >> used.
>> >
>> >You should stay off processors!
>> >
>> >I'm not commning either way...
>>
>> You are not what?
>
>Good point- commenting. It's called "typing on the lappy while realising
>that the train is just pulling into oxford road station." Quite what my
>excuse is for the other times, I've yet to figure out!

Be sure we'll hold you to account for it, just as you would for us,
you intolerant bastard.

)
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--










































Gosh, look! A smiley!

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 23:51:31 +0100, Deeply Filled Mortician
<deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:

>Let is be knownst that on Tue, 6 Feb 2007 17:19:04 +0000,
>[email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)) writted:
>
>>Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 16:53:25 +0000, [email protected] (David Horne, _the_
>>> chancellor (*)) wrote:
>>>
>>> >Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>[]
>>> >> The overall performance depends on how effectively the two processors are
>>> >> used.
>>> >
>>> >You should stay off processors!
>>> >
>>> >I'm not commning either way...
>>>
>>> You are not what?
>>
>>Good point- commenting. It's called "typing on the lappy while realising
>>that the train is just pulling into oxford road station." Quite what my
>>excuse is for the other times, I've yet to figure out!
>
>Be sure we'll hold you to account for it, just as you would for us,
>you intolerant bastard.

Real mail tools have spell checkers :-)

>
>)

Which is David and which is gRunge?
http://www.apple.com/getamac/
--

Martin

Mr Bartlett wrote:
> On 2007-02-06 17:18:17 +0100, B Vaughan<[email protected]> said:
>
>> On 6 Feb 2007 04:24:42 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> On 5 feb, 21:45, B Vaughan<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:00:41 +0100, Martin <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2006031,00.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've always hated MACs too. They're more expensive for starters, and
>>>> generally have less computing power.
>>>
>>>
>>> Martin made the same claim not so long ago. Why not see if you can
>>> make a more convincing case than he did?
>
>
> [...]
>
>> You could get two of them for one Mac and have money left over!
>
>
> Makes sense. For a start the Mac Pro has TWO processors. (And faster ones)
>
> B;
>

I think that you misread the specs as given that you deleted. It is the
PC with two processors and faster.

On 2007-02-07 05:56:49 +0100, "Frank F. Matthews"
<[email protected]> said:

>
>
> Mr Bartlett wrote:
>> On 2007-02-06 17:18:17 +0100, B Vaughan<[email protected]> said:
>>
>>> On 6 Feb 2007 04:24:42 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5 feb, 21:45, B Vaughan<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:00:41 +0100, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2006031,00.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I've always hated MACs too. They're more expensive for starters, and
>>>>> generally have less computing power.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Martin made the same claim not so long ago. Why not see if you can
>>>> make a more convincing case than he did?
>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> You could get two of them for one Mac and have money left over!
>>
>>
>> Makes sense. For a start the Mac Pro has TWO processors. (And faster ones)
>>
>> B;
>>
>
> I think that you misread the specs as given that you deleted. It is
> the PC with two processors and faster.

No it isn't. Look again.

Or, now I come to think about it - don't. I've been on this
merry-go-round with Martin just recently - I can't be bothered to do it
again. If you want to be wrong, go ahead.

B;
--
Encrypted e-mail address. Click to mail me:
http://cerbermail.com/?nKYh3qN4YG

Mr Bartlett <[email protected]> wrote:

[]
> Or, now I come to think about it - don't.

Now you're getting it!

I'm lusting after the 24 inch imac, but I'm going to resist...

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
(don't email yahoo address) usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

On 2007-02-06 22:58:16 +0100, "-hh" <[email protected]> said:

> [email protected] wrote:
>> B Vaughan<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I somehow don't a second processor would cost $1600.
>>
>> Then you simply don't know what you're talking about. Check the prices
>> of the processors alone.
>
> The Core 2 duo's are around $200 each in batches (thousands or
> higher). Which generally means that you'll have to wait for a
> secondary supplier to repackage them and sell them at retail. YMMV on
> what the unit markup would be, but its probably not going to be 800%
> for long.

The processors in the Mac Pro are not cheap C2D, they are Xeon
Woodcrest - significantly more expensive.

B;

--
Encrypted e-mail address. Click to mail me:
http://cerbermail.com/?nKYh3qN4YG

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:00:41 +0100, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2006031,00.html

A superficial swipe at the Mac. It's just the kind of fodder that
Maccers love to disassemble on their blogs.

I am a computer geek and audio/video genius. As such, I do have some
opinions on the subject.

The umbrella concept to consider is application. Computers are tools.
The Mac is perfect for people with limited computer knowledge - mouse
clickers. They want to click an icon and have magic happen. This
statement is a generalization, of course, as one of my best friends is
an advanced programmer who owns and operates a fiber-optic ISP, and he
uses Macs (mostly Terminal, but he still uses them). But the
generalization still holds, as most of my n00b friends (especially the
ladies) prefer Mac. There is no thinking involved. Take it out of the
box, plug in the Ethernet and click on stuff. Done. Who cares about L2
cache, northbridge bus performance and GPU pipelines? Just
clicky-click on stuff. Email, web, digital photos and the ubiquitous
iTunes, all delivered in elegant simplicity.

The Mac is the perfect tool for these folks.

Most graphic artists still work in Mac, mostly as a tradition. Years
ago, Motorola Macs really did have better overall rendering times.
Photoshop was optimized for use with these processors. But savvy PC
builders soon eclipsed Macs in pure rendering power. Few artists
switched, however. Who can blame them? They have a platform they know
and love. A well-designed (and cheaper) Wintel will out-perform their
beloved G5, but it's still ***NOT A G5***. Period.

Now, as I sing the praises of the PC, I'm not going to bother citing
specific benchmarks. These are all readily available with a Google
search. Instead, I'm going to talk about the real advantage of PC:
flexibility. The PC can be easily and affordably upgraded and
optimized by operators who have a clue. Mac, OTOH, being a fixed
proprietary unlicensed fascist state, offers you few options. You have
the mediocre Mac, the better Mac and the stupid-expensive Mac. Each
are limited and cannot be heavily customized. Furthermore, legacy
software will not run on them.

By contrast, I still run Eudora 3.0 on my PC. It does email, period.
No HTMLMail, no baubles, no easily hacked contact list. It doesn't
even install dll's in the OS. It stands alone and never fails. I have
a galaxy of options to upgrade my PC. I can install a video card that
will smoke any and all cards installed in Macs. I can buy RAM from
whoever is dirt cheap. I can (and do) endlessly re-configure my audio
interfaces. I can try (or use) an enormous universe of software apps,
plug-in's and clients.

Additionally, I can still use my ultra-efficient legacy stuff, such as
robocopy. Robocopy allows me to back up my data with amazing speed and
efficiency. It's a DOS command-line program, which would give 95% of
Mac users fits, but it works like a charm.

Reliability? I have not seen a blue screen in YEARS. Occasionally,
apps crash. Windows does not. Granted, I take great care to keep my
registry clean, my processes limited, my devices in order and my
hardware dust-free. I'm not your average user (and God knows PC has
far more n00bs using it than Mac!). But I humbly suggest that a
well-maintained WIN PC is less likely to lock up or crash than a Mac.
Furthermore, when a Mac does crash, it crashes HARD. Things got better
with OS-X, but OS-9 was a toilet IMHO.

Because Mac is a proprietary fascist state, Steve Jobs refuses to
license his OS, and this is why Maccers must goose-step to his drum.
When Motorola was dragging its feet creating a G5 chip for the new Mac
laptop (they had bigger fish to fry), Steve Jobs blew a gasket and
went to Intel with his hat out. This is the smartest rash decision
he's ever made. The Intel platform opens up Mac users to powers they
had not beheld before, and it drives a stake through the heart of all
those retards who claimed that Macs had more "computing power" than
PC. The lie is dead. Macs now light up with x86 architecture! HA HA HA
HA HA!

This is good for Maccers, and it's indifferent for PC users. I can
still build (or buy) a PC with more raw CPU power, more rendering
power and faster peripherals than Mac offers, at half the price. While
Apple readies their "next generation", savvy PC users have already
upgraded well beyond the Mac universe.

But all is not wine and roses in PC land. I am greatly disturbed about
Vista. It is the antithesis of what I seek in an OS. It is bloated and
employs childish security measures. My hope is that I can hang onto
WIN XP for 3 more years, and during this time Linux will evolve into a
solid media platform. Then, I will simply go Ubuntu (or whatever).

What I will not do is pay ungodly $$$ for a Mac.

- TR

On 7 feb, 07:32, VainGlorious <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:00:41 +0100, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2006031,00.html
>
> A superficial swipe at the Mac. It's just the kind of fodder that
> Maccers love to disassemble on their blogs.
>
> I am a computer geek and audio/video genius. As such, I do have some
> opinions on the subject.

[..."opinions" deleted ...]

Ya see - why bother paying to read ill-informed nonsense in the
Grauniad, when we can have a good laugh at folks frothing at the mouth
for free right here ?

B;

<[email protected]> wrote:

> On 7 feb, 07:32, VainGlorious <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:00:41 +0100, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2006031,00.html
> >
> > A superficial swipe at the Mac. It's just the kind of fodder that
> > Maccers love to disassemble on their blogs.
> >
> > I am a computer geek and audio/video genius. As such, I do have some
> > opinions on the subject.
>
> [..."opinions" deleted ...]
>
> Ya see - why bother paying to read ill-informed nonsense in the Grauniad,
> when we can have a good laugh at folks frothing at the mouth for free
> right here ?

I'm awaiting more opinions from these audio/video genii. I had a good
laugh last time someone brought up a 'professional' music toy here...

In the interest of self-disclosure though, there's no platform advantage
for professional music typesetting software. The best ones are cross
platform, and have been for a while now.

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
(don't email yahoo address) usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Let is be knownst that on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 00:02:00 +0100, Martin
<[email protected]> writted:

>On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 23:51:31 +0100, Deeply Filled Mortician
><deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
>
>>Let is be knownst that on Tue, 6 Feb 2007 17:19:04 +0000,
>>[email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)) writted:
>>
>>>Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 16:53:25 +0000, [email protected] (David Horne, _the_
>>>> chancellor (*)) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>[]
>>>> >> The overall performance depends on how effectively the two processors are
>>>> >> used.
>>>> >
>>>> >You should stay off processors!
>>>> >
>>>> >I'm not commning either way...
>>>>
>>>> You are not what?
>>>
>>>Good point- commenting. It's called "typing on the lappy while realising
>>>that the train is just pulling into oxford road station." Quite what my
>>>excuse is for the other times, I've yet to figure out!
>>
>>Be sure we'll hold you to account for it, just as you would for us,
>>you intolerant bastard.
>
>Real mail tools have spell checkers :-)
>
>>
>>)
>
>Which is David and which is gRunge?
>http://www.apple.com/getamac/

This marketing strategy for Macintosh is really pathetic.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On 7 feb, 08:59, Deeply Filled Mortician
<deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
> Let is be knownst that on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 00:02:00 +0100, Martin
> <[email protected]> writted:

> >Which is David and which is gRunge?
> >http://www.apple.com/getamac/
>
> This marketing strategy for Macintosh is really pathetic.

Sorry, Deep - you aren't an audio/video genius, so your opinion is
worthless.

B;

On 6 Feb 2007 23:39:29 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>On 7 feb, 07:32, VainGlorious <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:00:41 +0100, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2006031,00.html
>>
>> A superficial swipe at the Mac. It's just the kind of fodder that
>> Maccers love to disassemble on their blogs.
>>
>> I am a computer geek and audio/video genius. As such, I do have some
>> opinions on the subject.
>
>[..."opinions" deleted ...]
>
>Ya see - why bother paying to read ill-informed nonsense in the
>Grauniad, when we can have a good laugh at folks frothing at the mouth
>for free right here ?

When I posted the article the general idea was for you and David to have a good
laugh.

How much credibility do you give to other Guardian articles on subjects you know
less about?
--

Martin

On 7 Feb 2007 00:11:57 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>On 7 feb, 08:59, Deeply Filled Mortician
><deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
>> Let is be knownst that on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 00:02:00 +0100, Martin
>> <[email protected]> writted:
>
>> >Which is David and which is gRunge?
>> >http://www.apple.com/getamac/
>>
>> This marketing strategy for Macintosh is really pathetic.
>
>Sorry, Deep - you aren't an audio/video genius, so your opinion is
>worthless.

DFM is a visionary. He saw beauty, scrumptious food and beaches in Volendam.
--

Martin

On 7 feb, 10:07, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6 Feb 2007 23:39:29 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 7 feb, 07:32, VainGlorious <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:00:41 +0100, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2006031,00.html
>
> >> A superficial swipe at the Mac. It's just the kind of fodder that
> >> Maccers love to disassemble on their blogs.
>
> >> I am a computer geek and audio/video genius. As such, I do have some
> >> opinions on the subject.
>
> >[..."opinions" deleted ...]
>
> >Ya see - why bother paying to read ill-informed nonsense in the
> >Grauniad, when we can have a good laugh at folks frothing at the mouth
> >for free right here ?
>
> When I posted the article the general idea was for you and David to have a good
> laugh.

I'm sure we would have if it had been funny:-) However, we got to
laugh at UglyHalfwitted instead, so musn't grumble.

> How much credibility do you give to other Guardian articles on subjects you know
> less about?

It's interesting when you watch a TV documentary - Horizon, or
whatever - about something you know nothing about you often say "hey,
that's interesting", but when it's something you're familiar with -
maybe even a "genius" about - you say "what a load of bollox - that's
going to mislead people" !!

Veering dangerously on-topic, the Grauniad correspondent in Greece,
Helena Smith, must be the most Greek-ophobic person in the universe.
Her reports are nearly always utter nonsense.

B;

On 7 feb, 10:08, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7 Feb 2007 00:11:57 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >On 7 feb, 08:59, Deeply Filled Mortician
> ><deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
> >> Let is be knownst that on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 00:02:00 +0100, Martin
> >> <[email protected]> writted:
>
> >> >Which is David and which is gRunge?
> >> >http://www.apple.com/getamac/
>
> >> This marketing strategy for Macintosh is really pathetic.
>
> >Sorry, Deep - you aren't an audio/video genius, so your opinion is
> >worthless.
>
> DFM is a visionary. He saw beauty, scrumptious food and beaches in Volendam.

Damn - all I saw was Japanese tourists standing in giant clogs.

That's not strictly true - at lunchtime I also saw the dirty plates
from the previous diners that the waitress never bothered to clear
from my table.

B;