On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 06:22:29 +0000, [email protected] (David Horne, _the_
chancellor (*)) wrote:

>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...

Size isn't everything, David.
--

Martin

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 08:59:58 +0100, 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:
>
>>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.

I found both the Guardian article and the advert funny.
--

Martin

On 7 feb, 07:22, [email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
(*)) wrote:
> Mr Bartlett <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> []
>
> > Or, now I come to think about it - don't.
>
> Now you're getting it!

I'm a little slow, I confess :-)

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

Good luck - I ordered one less than an hour after they appeared on the
NL store. Gorgeous!!

B;

On 7 Feb 2007 01:15:17 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>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.

It gave another Mac enthusiast a good laugh.

>
>> 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" !!

It's something to do with the media's obsession to make everything dramatic.

Note the silly sci fi music that accompanies anything to do with science
nowadays.

I saw a reference on AFAIR a BBC website to the frequencies of a rocket
exploding and the resulting risk of putting two space telescopes into orbit with
the same rocket. No mention that the rockets that exploded were basically
prototypes.

You get articles like the following in journals that should know better.

"Europe's new heavy-lift Ariane 5 rocket exploded seven minutes into its maiden
flight late on Wednesday, destroying two satellites and showering debris into
the Atlantic Ocean.

In a fiercely competitive space launch market, the failure is a catastrophe for
Arianespace. Three of the 14 launches of all Ariane 5 models have now been total
failures."

>
>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.

Yes! Much of the Guardian reporting is utter nonsense, but more entertaining
than it was in the good old days when the reporting stuck to the facts.

I notice the Independent no longer offers cut price holidays to exotic places
alongside articles blaming global warming on cheap flights.
--

Martin

On Feb 7, 1:31 am, Mr Bartlett <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.

Ah, thanks for that reminder...I had overlooked that.

Looks like the Woodcrests were around $850 each, so while my
comparison with the iMac had CPU parity, B Vaughan's original
comparison didn't: her comparison was 1 * $200 CPU versus 2 * $850
CPUs, which alone explains $1500 of the $1600 difference. Change
both systems to using the same Dell 2007WFP monitor, and the Apple
would theoretically (after the above CPU handicapping) become roughly
$200 cheaper.


-hh

Good Grief Norway, build your own iTunes... better yet how bout an OS
or EVEN a media player... pathetic !!!!!!

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/1700AP_Norway_Apple_iTunes.html
Norway agency questions Apple music move
By DOUG MELLGREN
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
OSLO, Norway -- Norway's Consumer Council applauded signs of
willingness from Apple Inc. to open its iTunes music store to players
other than its iPod, but said Wednesday the company was skirting key
issues and passing responsibility to record companies.
Norway is leading a European campaign to force Apple to make its iTunes
online store compatible with rivals' digital music players. This month,
Norway's consumer regulator declared the lack of interoperability
illegal, and gave Apple until Oct. 1 to change it or face legal action
and possible fines.
In an open letter on Apple's Web site Tuesday, Chief Executive Steve
Jobs said he was ready to open iTunes to players other than iPods if
the world's major record labels abandoned their anti-piracy technology.
In the letter called "Thoughts on Music," Jobs argued for abolishing
the protections known as "Digital Rights Management," or DRM, saying
that technology was the main reason music sold through iTunes can't be
transferred to other portable players.
"We welcome Apple taking this problem seriously, and addressing it at
such a high level," Torgeir Waterhouse, senior adviser to the Consumer
Council, told The Associated Press. However, he said Apple was hiding
behind the record companies and distorting aspects of the dispute in
the letter.
Jobs said consumers unhappy with the current system should push the
world's four largest labels - Vivendi SA's Universal Music Group, EMI
Group PLC, Sony BMG Music Entertainment and Warner Music Group Corp. -
to sell their online catalogs without the DRM restrictions.



"It is clear that the record industry has some of the responsibility,
but that does not relieve Apple of responsibility," Waterhouse said.

"Our concern is, of course, that Apple and iTunes Music Store should be
addressing the issue of record companies and DRM themselves if it needs
to be addressed," said Waterhouse. "It's iTunes Music Store that's
providing a service to the consumers and therefore has the
responsibility."
Jobs wrote that consumer groups complain that users of iTunes or other
proprietary music stores are locked into buying music from one store
for one player. However, he said most music on the world's iPods is
from other sources, such as compact discs.
"It's hard to believe that just 3 percent of the music on the average
iPod is enough to lock users into buying only iPods in the future,"
wrote Jobs.
Waterhouse countered that the intent of Apple's DRM system, called
FairPlay, is to lock users into iTunes and iPods and that Jobs had
attempted to "turn the whole issue on its head."
"The issue our complaint addresses is, of course, the opposite: iTunes
Music Store customers are locked to the iPod," Waterhouse said.
Apple did not immediately return a call seeking comment Wednesday.
Last month, the consumer organizations in Finland, Norway, France,
Germany and the Netherlands launched a joint drive to force Apple to
change its policies.

Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 06:22:29 +0000, [email protected] (David Horne, _the_
> chancellor (*)) wrote:
>
> >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...
>
> Size isn't everything, David.

Oh, of course not, but for music notation, a good big screen (and the
imac does have a very good screen) is better than a small big screen.

--
(*) ... 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 Wed, 7 Feb 2007 16:45:16 +0000, [email protected] (David Horne, _the_
chancellor (*)) wrote:

>Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 06:22:29 +0000, [email protected] (David Horne, _the_
>> chancellor (*)) wrote:
>>
>> >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...
>>
>> Size isn't everything, David.
>
>Oh, of course not, but for music notation, a good big screen (and the
>imac does have a very good screen) is better than a small big screen.

Also good for watching TV :-)
--

Martin

Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 16:45:16 +0000, [email protected] (David Horne, _the_
> chancellor (*)) wrote:
>
> >Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 06:22:29 +0000, [email protected] (David Horne, _the_
> >> chancellor (*)) wrote:
> >>
> >> >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...
> >>
> >> Size isn't everything, David.
> >
> >Oh, of course not, but for music notation, a good big screen (and the
> >imac does have a very good screen) is better than a small big screen.
>
> Also good for watching TV :-)

From a distance, but if you're watching it from a couple of feet away, a
laptop screen is as good as a 40 inch widescreen!

--
(*) ... 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 Wed, 7 Feb 2007 17:01:11 +0000, [email protected] (David Horne, _the_
chancellor (*)) wrote:

>Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 16:45:16 +0000, [email protected] (David Horne, _the_
>> chancellor (*)) wrote:
>>
>> >Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 06:22:29 +0000, [email protected] (David Horne, _the_
>> >> chancellor (*)) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >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...
>> >>
>> >> Size isn't everything, David.
>> >
>> >Oh, of course not, but for music notation, a good big screen (and the
>> >imac does have a very good screen) is better than a small big screen.
>>
>> Also good for watching TV :-)
>
>From a distance, but if you're watching it from a couple of feet away, a
>laptop screen is as good as a 40 inch widescreen!

Yes, save your pennies. :-)
--

Martin

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.

Yes, I thought that's why, but I didn't find it funny and I've easily
laughed at stuff like that before. I didn't find it well written, and I
actually don't find the ads funny either. The one with the 'pc' with the
camera taped on his head is funny from a visual point of view- even if I
know perfectly well that you can get PCs with built in cameras.

I found people ranting about unrealistic price comparisons and confusing
processors while trying to sound a little bit superior about computers
in general (''I built my computer from scratch with some hay and an old
donut") a lot funnier!

--
(*) ... 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 Wed, 7 Feb 2007 17:15:47 +0000, [email protected] (David Horne, _the_
chancellor (*)) wrote:

>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.
>
>Yes, I thought that's why, but I didn't find it funny and I've easily
>laughed at stuff like that before. I didn't find it well written, and I
>actually don't find the ads funny either. The one with the 'pc' with the
>camera taped on his head is funny from a visual point of view- even if I
>know perfectly well that you can get PCs with built in cameras.
>
>I found people ranting about unrealistic price comparisons and confusing
>processors while trying to sound a little bit superior about computers
>in general (''I built my computer from scratch with some hay and an old
>donut") a lot funnier!

Whatever. Nothing should be taken too seriously here, especially travel advice.
:-)
--

Martin

"Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:04:12 -0800, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, Martin
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 07:54:54 -0800, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <[email protected]>, Deeply Filled
>>> >Mortician <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Let is be knownst that on Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:38:26 +0100, Martin
>>> >> <[email protected]> writted:
>>> >>
>>> >> >On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:25:21 -0800, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >>In article <[email protected]>, 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. But my first gut instinct
>>> >> >>> when I
>>> >> >>> saw one was that I hated this thing. The ad slogan then was, "You
>>> >> >>> already know how to use it." My retort was, "...because it
>>> >> >>> doesn't do
>>> >> >>> much of anything." In those days, PCs ran DOS and didn't have any
>>> >> >>> sort
>>> >> >>> of GUI.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>That slogan was NOT in existence w/ PCs ran DOS.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>Macs do NOT have less computing power than PCs, they have more.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >It depends on which models of Macs and PCs you are comparing..
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Perhaps you would like to tell us?
>>> >>
>>> >> Note he said 'computing power', which could in effect mean anything.
>>> >
>>> >Not my choice of terms.
>>> >
>>> >More important than the models, is the standard they are tested
>>> >against.
>>>
>>> Would you like to fully define what you meant when you said "Macs do NOT
>>> have
>>> less computing power than PCs, they have more."
>>
>>
>>What is the task ?
>>
>>For PS, benchmarks show Macs faster, After Effects, the PC is getting
>>much closer.
>
> Have you a pointer to the test results?
> --
>
> Martin
>

Years ago, Macs were better processor wise as they used the Motorola 68K,
which was much superior to the Intel Architecture. 23 bit addressing and no
segmentation registers. Removed lots of overhead in the program for bigger
than 64k size programs. The newer Intel running Native mode negates this
benefit. The major problem for the Mac was the closed architecture. You
had to buy cards or disk drives from Apple and there was not add on slots
like in a PC for interface cards to other equipment. Plus internally the
Mac was crap. Minimum power supply and no parity on internal busses. The
Publishing world embraced Macs for the reason they were tuned to desktop
publishing. Good programs and powerful processor. But for anything else
they were worthless. You could not add a ROM emulator or any of the other
add ons that every PC supported. Plus the added cost to deal with Apple.
The disk drive was the same disk drive as everybody else used, but had added
firmware to identify it as Apple and the Mac would then accept it for use.
PC equivelent to a Mac is processing power will always be cheaper. All the
competition from all the small factories in Asia drives the price down on a
PC.

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


Well, IIRC a whiles back they had one of their screaming full - page scare
headlines about the destruction of the forests, the looming shortage of
timber, etc. (let's call it the "wood" issue...). Directly above scare
headline was a banner touting their offer of "Free Postcards!" about
something or other...

--
Best
Greg

Martin wrote:

> I notice the Independent no longer offers cut price holidays to exotic
places
> alongside articles blaming global warming on cheap flights.
>

A pity :-(

--
Best
Greg