Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!! - Microsoft Windows

This is a discussion on Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!! - Microsoft Windows ; On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 08:22:52 +0000, George Graves wrote: > In article , > COLA Facts wrote: > >> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 02:03:21 -0700, Oxford wrote: >> >> >Michelle Steiner wrote: >> > >> >> Considering that ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 4 12 13 14 15 16 LastLast
Results 261 to 280 of 304

Thread: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

  1. Re: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

    On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 08:22:52 +0000, George Graves wrote:

    > In article <81709b513d64d162395da8cc07e78562@news.teranews.com>,
    > COLA Facts wrote:
    >
    >> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 02:03:21 -0700, Oxford wrote:
    >>
    >> >Michelle Steiner wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> Considering that if it weren't for Apple to be copied, Windows wouldn't
    >> >> exist, and that Apple led the way for commercial use of
    >> >>
    >> >> 3.5" floppies
    >> >> USB
    >> >> Firewire (they invented it)
    >> >> Quicktime (they invented it)
    >> >> etc.
    >> >
    >> >you can also add:
    >> >
    >> >color screens

    >>
    >> Nonsense.
    >>
    >>
    >> The first COLOR computer in the world was an Amiga.
    >>
    >>
    >> >laser printing

    >>
    >> Nonsense.
    >>
    >> >ink jet printing

    >> Nonsense.
    >>
    >> >cd roms

    >>
    >> Nonsense.
    >>
    >> >wireless

    >>
    >> Nonsense.
    >>
    >> >bluetooth

    >>
    >> Nonsense.
    >>
    >>
    >> >dvd burners

    >>
    >> Nonsense.
    >>
    >> >built in networking

    >>
    >> Nonsense.
    >>
    >> >tv tuners

    >>
    >> Nonsense.
    >>
    >> >telephony with geoport

    >>
    >> Proprietary crap that only Macs use.
    >> Nobody outside Macs uses it or even cares.
    >> It had 0 technical advantages.
    >>
    >>
    >> >pdf based screens

    >>
    >> Yeah, and only Mac users will be stupid enough to believe that taking a
    >> screenshot and saving a PICTURE as a PDF file is an innovation.
    >>
    >> >pda's

    >>
    >> Nonsense.
    >>
    >>
    >> >on and on...

    >>
    >>
    >> Nothing so far.
    >>
    >>
    >> >and what has the pc world really brought us?

    >>
    >> Everything that you are using today.
    >>

    >
    > It's hard to believe that you are really as ignorant as your above
    > responses show you to be and that with so little knowledge about the
    > subjects at hand that you would dare to try to post here. You must be a
    > masochist.


    Astounding, isn't it?

    --

    Elisp 3:51
    "He who disregards the Only True Editor or His Documentation strays far indeed."
    (setq load-path (cons (expand-file-name "~/XEmacs_Rules!/") load-path))

  2. Re: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

    On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 22:54:26 -0700, Oxford wrote:

    > Kirk Morris wrote:
    >
    >> I have worked on the insides of every Mac model ever made. Have you?
    >> (BTW, I have delayed making this claim until I finally got to work on a
    >> 20th Anniversary Mac, and that happened last week.)

    >
    > yes, I've worked with more macs inside and out than anyone posting
    > here... I own #1272, it's sitting right here... in a pippin, apple
    > settop box, a prototype xserve in 1997, lisa, apple ///, ipod, on and
    > on... have sucessfully answered over 25,000 apple questions, in 25 years
    > everything from an aristotle apple // server to a 10.3 panther server in
    > australia on thursday... you are no match for me!
    >


    Dude, you're dreaming.

    As George Graves was noting, your ignorance is vast.

    This kind of driven delusion might sway some people, but people who
    actually have the kind of knowledge you WISH you had see right through you.

    You might have answered 25,000 apple questions [snicker] but I doubt if
    you got many of them right.

    Definitely a legend in your own mind.

    >> I once wrote software that had to be tested on 5 variations of the Apple
    >> II to be sure that given routines worked the same way on them all.
    >>
    >> I've owned three NeXT's, and wrote some programs in Objective C as far
    >> back as 1995.
    >>
    >> You're a lightweight. Turn your advocacy on the rest of the world who
    >> could benefit from hearing these things the first time.

    >
    > no big whooop!
    >
    > here's a quiz question you cannot answer:
    >
    > how many signatures are found in the pippin?
    >
    > Oxford
    >
    > -


    --

    Elisp 3:51
    "He who disregards the Only True Editor or His Documentation strays far indeed."
    (setq load-path (cons (expand-file-name "~/XEmacs_Rules!/") load-path))

  3. Re: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

    In article ,
    Michelle Steiner wrote:

    > In article <86ff19878776f499642bbe969874a632@news.teranews.com>,
    > COLA Facts wrote:
    >
    > > You know jack ****.
    > > Apple didn't create anything.
    > > They stole it from Zerox [sic].

    >
    > No, they didn't. They licensed certain elements from Xerox and built
    > upon that with something new. The Macintosh's resemblance to the PARC
    > interface is like a Ferarri's resemblance to a horse and buggy.


    No, they did'nt. Apple never received or saw one line of code - they got
    two dog and pony shows displaying the hardware and software, and a Q&A
    session with the PARC developers. They paid for this "peek inside the
    kimono" (Job's phrase) with Apple stock. It was a chance for Jeff Raskin
    and the Mac team to "sell" the Mac concept to Jobs - it was at this demo
    that Jobs "saw the light", and became the Mac's main cheerleader at
    Apple.

    Apple already HAD a GUI well on it's way - that shared certain elements
    with the PARC GUI - because of Jeff Raskin and his team. Raskin had been
    part of a loose-knit community that had been developing GUI concepts
    years and years before - some of whom went on to Xerox, some of whom
    went to Apple.

    If you actually SAW an Alto or Star, you'd see how vastly different the
    two systems were, especially in execution of similar ideas. One could
    argue that Apple copied some look and feel, like icons, but it's like
    saying Toyota copied Ford's idea of round wheels - other companies had
    icons, windows, and other concepts similar to both Apple's and Xerox's -
    in fact, the mouse had already debuted at a conference years before PARC
    was even opened - but the ideas were ubiquitous to the GUI world, as I
    dimly recall the judge finding in the Xerox vs. Apple lawsuits.

  4. Re: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

    Tom Harrington writes:

    > In article ,
    > Gnarlodious wrote:
    >
    > > Entity John spoke thus:
    > >
    > > > Why not send an email to Apple and ask for WMA for iPod. It is superior
    > > > sounding.

    > > So are auditory hallucinations.

    >
    > Well, then, time to contact Apple and demand that iPods support auditory
    > hallucinations. Why settle for less?


    Don't forget the warmth of vinyl.

    --
    One Emacs to rule them all. One Emacs to find them,
    One Emacs to take commands and to the keystrokes bind them,

    All other programming languages wish they were Lisp.

  5. Re: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

    "John" writes:

    > Michelle Steiner wrote:
    > > In article ,
    > > "John" wrote:
    > >
    > >> Why not send an email to Apple and ask for WMA for iPod. It is
    > >> superior sounding. Why not demand the best sound quality from Apple?

    > >
    > > We already have the best sound quality from Apple. Why should Apple
    > > pay lots of money to MickeySoft for inferior quality?
    > >
    > > BTW, how are your diapers?

    >
    > Bull****!! WMA SOUNDS BETTER.


    This is easily settled. All I need is a WMA encoder for my Mac that
    works at least as well as iTunes for doing AAC. I've already done
    very extensive listening tests with a wide variety of music and
    determined that for a given bitrate, AAC will beat MP3 CBR. LAME's
    VBR encoding does give AAC a good run for the money though.

    Barring that, a trustworthy site that I can go to with music
    selections encoded at the same bitrates in each format might do. A
    scientific study would also included comparisons of the post-encoded
    waveforms with the original source.

    Unless WMA can show itself to be better to my ears, I will have zero
    interest in it.

    --
    One Emacs to rule them all. One Emacs to find them,
    One Emacs to take commands and to the keystrokes bind them,

    All other programming languages wish they were Lisp.

  6. Re: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

    "Kirk Morris" wrote on 12/21/03 10:46 AM:

    > On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 22:04:41 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >> "Kirk Morris" wrote on 12/20/03 9:23 PM:
    >>
    >>> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 21:04:40 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Kirk Morris" wrote on 12/20/03 8:15 PM:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:27:06 -0700, Oxford wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Kirk Morris wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Since you need education, junior, pay attention. If the eject command is
    >>>>>>> issued from the keyboard and the drive itself has no physical mechanism
    >>>>>>> that isn't software controlled and is not accessible from the outside,
    >>>>>>> then the drive has no eject button.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Read more, talk less.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> it still has an eject button... it's just been moved closer to the
    >>>>>> hands... nice touch...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> oxford
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> -
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Let's try again...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> If the eject command is issued from the keyboard and the drive itself has
    >>>>> no physical mechanism that isn't software controlled and is not accessible
    >>>>> from the outside, then the drive has no eject button.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Read more, talk less. Even you can learn.
    >>>>
    >>>> Why does this matter?
    >>>>
    >>>> I suppose Macs running OS 9 work just fine with 2 (or more) button mice.
    >>>> Only one button works, but if it is the buttons that are the important
    >>>> factor, and not the functionality, then OS 9 supported 2, 3, 4, and more
    >>>> button mice as well as any OS.
    >>>>
    >>>> Does not seem to make sense.
    >>>
    >>> Probably not. We were discussing here the lack of a physical eject button
    >>> on modren macs, not the number of buttons that a Mac can use on a mouse.
    >>> That was a different thread.

    >>
    >> But in both cases it is buttons.

    >
    > God, please save me.


    I think you are on the wrong thread.
    >
    >> The only reason the number of buttons or location matters is for
    >> functionality. If the Mac has the eject functionality in a different place
    >> than the PC, then it does not make sense to talk about the reasons the PC
    >> method is better than the Mac method without referring to the functionality.
    >>
    >> In other words, there may very well be reasons the button on the CD is better
    >> then having it on the keyboard, but just spouting that the "drive has no
    >> eject button" as if this were a thing of importance does not make sense.
    >>
    >> For the record: there are reasons, in my mind, that make each of the
    >> placements better than the other - they both have pros and cons.
    >>

    > I wish you'd think instead of react. I am not a PC advocate, I'm a Mac
    > consultant, repairman and salesperson.
    >
    > I am saying that not having a physical eject mechanism on the drives is a
    > pain in the butt. The old Mac system of being able to eject a disk
    > physically, with the power off and no keyboard, using a straightened paper
    > clip, had many advantages over the current keyboard control.


    I do not disagree.
    >
    > Hell, I'd settle for the mechanism used by the G4 400/450, where you had a
    > button on the drive itself.


    I liked the system on the IIgs: the button on the drive, but it did not
    eject the disk until it was ready. You did need power, but the disk was not
    in danger if you were in the middle of copying to it. It is much the way CD
    burners work on PC's now.
    >
    > I will simply tell you that not only is it a pain to not have a physical
    > eject mech, it's also a pain in the rear to wait for the whole system to
    > gather itself up and initialize before it can even READ the keyboard eject
    > command.
    >
    > The issue is much simpler than you seem to grasp.


    Actually, you just fulfilled my request of stating *why*. If you had done
    that before and I missed it, sorry.

    I do think there are also advantages to having the eject button on the
    keyboard, but I think your reasons are more important for most than the pros
    for the way Apple does it. I will add one: if you have more than one drive,
    which would you expect the keyboard button to eject? Having buttons on the
    drives seems better.

    One thing I would like, though, is to have the button above the drive
    opening - I have never liked closing a CD drive by pressing the tray - the
    button just seems like a better method to me.

    > Don't be paranoid.


    Why do you say that? You are out to get me, aren't you. You are one of
    them! Oh no!


  7. Re: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

    In article ,
    Snit wrote:

    > I suppose Macs running OS 9 work just fine with 2 (or more) button mice.


    Mine does.

    > Only one button works


    All three work on mine.
    --
    D.F. Manno
    dommanno@netscape.net
    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
    safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin)

  8. Re: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

    "D.F. Manno" wrote on 12/21/03 12:54 PM:

    > In article ,
    > Snit wrote:
    >
    >> I suppose Macs running OS 9 work just fine with 2 (or more) button mice.

    >
    > Mine does.


    In context I believe that was by default - if not, let me clarify: I meant
    that out of the box (no 3rd party drivers) the Mac can be said to work just
    fine with a two button mouse, but that only one would work.

    Of course, this is silly - my point was that the value of buttons is in
    their functions (and placement). I would assume that on your OS 9 Mac you
    used the appropriate drivers to make full use of the mouse.


  9. Re: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

    "Wally" writes:

    > Would that be the $150million "court of law"?
    >
    > "Both Apple and Microsoft executives denied that the Microsoft investment
    > represents a path to converging the companies' operating systems. However,
    > they said they had agreed to work out a settlement to a long-standing
    > dispute over whether Microsoft's Windows operating system infringes on any
    > of Apple's patents."
    >
    > http://news.com.com/2100-1001-202143.html


    It's interesting to look at that old article and see how things are
    now with Java, Safari, Netscape, et al.

    Oddly enough, I have not felt any compulsion to spend $300 of MS
    Office X.

    --
    One Emacs to rule them all. One Emacs to find them,
    One Emacs to take commands and to the keystrokes bind them,

    All other programming languages wish they were Lisp.

  10. Re: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

    Jeremy Nimmo writes:

    > COLA Facts wrote:
    > > http://www.themacobserver.com/articl...05/10.10.shtml
    > >
    > > ROFL!!!

    >
    > Do you have a problem that Apple does not want to fix the drives of morons
    > who not only buy 'copy-protected' CDs but put them in their computers when
    > they are told not to on the disc?


    I do. The machine should just spit the disc back out. Remember,
    these discs are not in a sperate section of the music store. They
    are lumped in with regular CDs and the consumer may not notice the
    labeling.

    --
    One Emacs to rule them all. One Emacs to find them,
    One Emacs to take commands and to the keystrokes bind them,

    All other programming languages wish they were Lisp.

  11. Re: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

    On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 12:22:21 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Kirk Morris" wrote on 12/21/03 10:46 AM:
    >
    >> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 22:04:41 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Kirk Morris" wrote on 12/20/03 9:23 PM:
    >>>
    >>>> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 21:04:40 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> "Kirk Morris" wrote on 12/20/03 8:15 PM:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:27:06 -0700, Oxford wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Kirk Morris wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Since you need education, junior, pay attention. If the eject command is
    >>>>>>>> issued from the keyboard and the drive itself has no physical mechanism
    >>>>>>>> that isn't software controlled and is not accessible from the outside,
    >>>>>>>> then the drive has no eject button.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Read more, talk less.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> it still has an eject button... it's just been moved closer to the
    >>>>>>> hands... nice touch...
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> oxford
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> -
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Let's try again...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> If the eject command is issued from the keyboard and the drive itself has
    >>>>>> no physical mechanism that isn't software controlled and is not accessible
    >>>>>> from the outside, then the drive has no eject button.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Read more, talk less. Even you can learn.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Why does this matter?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I suppose Macs running OS 9 work just fine with 2 (or more) button mice.
    >>>>> Only one button works, but if it is the buttons that are the important
    >>>>> factor, and not the functionality, then OS 9 supported 2, 3, 4, and more
    >>>>> button mice as well as any OS.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Does not seem to make sense.
    >>>>
    >>>> Probably not. We were discussing here the lack of a physical eject button
    >>>> on modren macs, not the number of buttons that a Mac can use on a mouse.
    >>>> That was a different thread.
    >>>
    >>> But in both cases it is buttons.

    >>
    >> God, please save me.

    >
    > I think you are on the wrong thread.
    >>
    >>> The only reason the number of buttons or location matters is for
    >>> functionality. If the Mac has the eject functionality in a different place
    >>> than the PC, then it does not make sense to talk about the reasons the PC
    >>> method is better than the Mac method without referring to the functionality.
    >>>
    >>> In other words, there may very well be reasons the button on the CD is better
    >>> then having it on the keyboard, but just spouting that the "drive has no
    >>> eject button" as if this were a thing of importance does not make sense.
    >>>
    >>> For the record: there are reasons, in my mind, that make each of the
    >>> placements better than the other - they both have pros and cons.
    >>>

    >> I wish you'd think instead of react. I am not a PC advocate, I'm a Mac
    >> consultant, repairman and salesperson.
    >>
    >> I am saying that not having a physical eject mechanism on the drives is a
    >> pain in the butt. The old Mac system of being able to eject a disk
    >> physically, with the power off and no keyboard, using a straightened paper
    >> clip, had many advantages over the current keyboard control.

    >
    > I do not disagree.


    We're on the same page. I just had the misfortune to appear here the same
    time that "COLA facts" [yuck] did, and his idiocy made it hard to tell who
    was saying what.

    >>
    >> Hell, I'd settle for the mechanism used by the G4 400/450, where you had a
    >> button on the drive itself.

    >
    > I liked the system on the IIgs: the button on the drive, but it did not
    > eject the disk until it was ready. You did need power, but the disk was not
    > in danger if you were in the middle of copying to it. It is much the way CD
    > burners work on PC's now.
    >>
    >> I will simply tell you that not only is it a pain to not have a physical
    >> eject mech, it's also a pain in the rear to wait for the whole system to
    >> gather itself up and initialize before it can even READ the keyboard eject
    >> command.
    >>
    >> The issue is much simpler than you seem to grasp.

    >
    > Actually, you just fulfilled my request of stating *why*. If you had done
    > that before and I missed it, sorry.
    >


    'S OK.

    > I do think there are also advantages to having the eject button on the
    > keyboard, but I think your reasons are more important for most than the pros
    > for the way Apple does it. I will add one: if you have more than one drive,
    > which would you expect the keyboard button to eject? Having buttons on the
    > drives seems better.
    >
    > One thing I would like, though, is to have the button above the drive
    > opening - I have never liked closing a CD drive by pressing the tray - the
    > button just seems like a better method to me.
    >
    >> Don't be paranoid.

    >
    > Why do you say that? You are out to get me, aren't you. You are one of
    > them! Oh no!


    ;-)

    --

    Elisp 3:51
    "He who disregards the Only True Editor or His Documentation strays far indeed."
    (setq load-path (cons (expand-file-name "~/XEmacs_Rules!/") load-path))

  12. Re: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

    Kirk Morris writes:

    > Since you need education, junior, pay attention. If the eject command is
    > issued from the keyboard and the drive itself has no physical mechanism
    > that isn't software controlled and is not accessible from the outside,
    > then the drive has no eject button.


    All the CD-ROM drives and burners I have ever used (mostly PC) have
    used software to eject the disc. Even when you press the button on
    the front panel of the drive, you are simply issuing a command
    directly to the drive's firmware to do the eject. If that drive is
    in a Linux box and the disc is mounted, pushing that button won't
    work. Not until you unmount the disc.

    Spring loaded mechanical eject buttons are rather ancient technology.
    Even a home stereo system CD player eject button is just sending a
    software eject command.

    --
    One Emacs to rule them all. One Emacs to find them,
    One Emacs to take commands and to the keystrokes bind them,

    All other programming languages wish they were Lisp.

  13. Re: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

    "Kirk Morris" wrote on 12/21/03 2:21 PM:

    > We're on the same page. I just had the misfortune to appear here the same
    > time that "COLA facts" [yuck] did, and his idiocy made it hard to tell who
    > was saying what.


    No harm done.


  14. Re: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

    Tell Wal-Mart what you will. I'll never spend a dollar there. The
    stores are stocked with junk. The workers are treated like ****. The
    clientelle gives me the creeps.

  15. Re: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

    In article ,
    Snit wrote:

    > "D.F. Manno" wrote on 12/21/03 12:54 PM:
    >
    > > In article ,
    > > Snit wrote:
    > >
    > >> I suppose Macs running OS 9 work just fine with 2 (or more) button mice.

    > >
    > > Mine does.

    >
    > In context I believe that was by default - if not, let me clarify: I meant
    > that out of the box (no 3rd party drivers) the Mac can be said to work just
    > fine with a two button mouse, but that only one would work.


    That's not true. Out of the box, with no 3rd party drivers, with both my
    Intellimous Explorer on my desktop Mac as well as my MacAlly IceMouse
    jr, both buttons work along with the scroll-wheel.

    --
    George Graves
    ------------------
    "Knowledge is Good"
    Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College

  16. Re: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

    In article
    ,
    "Billy White Jr." wrote:

    > In article ,
    > Michelle Steiner wrote:
    >
    > > In article <86ff19878776f499642bbe969874a632@news.teranews.com>,
    > > COLA Facts wrote:
    > >
    > > > You know jack ****.
    > > > Apple didn't create anything.
    > > > They stole it from Zerox [sic].

    > >
    > > No, they didn't. They licensed certain elements from Xerox and built
    > > upon that with something new. The Macintosh's resemblance to the PARC
    > > interface is like a Ferarri's resemblance to a horse and buggy.

    >
    > No, they did'nt. Apple never received or saw one line of code - they got
    > two dog and pony shows displaying the hardware and software, and a Q&A
    > session with the PARC developers. They paid for this "peek inside the
    > kimono" (Job's phrase) with Apple stock. It was a chance for Jeff Raskin
    > and the Mac team to "sell" the Mac concept to Jobs - it was at this demo
    > that Jobs "saw the light", and became the Mac's main cheerleader at
    > Apple.
    >
    > Apple already HAD a GUI well on it's way - that shared certain elements
    > with the PARC GUI - because of Jeff Raskin and his team. Raskin had been
    > part of a loose-knit community that had been developing GUI concepts
    > years and years before - some of whom went on to Xerox, some of whom
    > went to Apple.
    >
    > If you actually SAW an Alto or Star, you'd see how vastly different the
    > two systems were, especially in execution of similar ideas. One could
    > argue that Apple copied some look and feel, like icons, but it's like
    > saying Toyota copied Ford's idea of round wheels - other companies had
    > icons, windows, and other concepts similar to both Apple's and Xerox's -
    > in fact, the mouse had already debuted at a conference years before PARC
    > was even opened - but the ideas were ubiquitous to the GUI world, as I
    > dimly recall the judge finding in the Xerox vs. Apple lawsuits.


    I worked at PARC and used the Alto in the late seventies. Believe me the
    icons on the Alto were so primitive and did so little, that to say that
    Apple copied them would be like saying that Bridgestone got the idea for
    their Formula One tires from seeing a millstone.

    --
    George Graves
    ------------------
    "Knowledge is Good"
    Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College

  17. Re: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

    In article <211220031344037239%dom@invalid.invalid>,
    domanova wrote:

    > Tell Wal-Mart what you will. I'll never spend a dollar there. The
    > stores are stocked with junk. The workers are treated like ****. The
    > clientelle gives me the creeps.


    I buy shotgun shells from Wall Mart because it's convenient and they
    sell them much cheaper than I can re-load. But otherwise, I agree. The
    place gives me the creeps.

    --
    George Graves
    ------------------
    "Knowledge is Good"
    Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College

  18. Re: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

    In article ,
    David Steuber wrote:

    > Tom Harrington writes:
    >
    > > In article ,
    > > Gnarlodious wrote:
    > >
    > > > Entity John spoke thus:
    > > >
    > > > > Why not send an email to Apple and ask for WMA for iPod. It is superior
    > > > > sounding.
    > > > So are auditory hallucinations.

    > >
    > > Well, then, time to contact Apple and demand that iPods support auditory
    > > hallucinations. Why settle for less?

    >
    > Don't forget the warmth of vinyl.


    Especially when it's been heated in an oven for 20 minutes or so.

    --
    Tom "Tom" Harrington
    Macaroni, Automated System Maintenance for Mac OS X.
    Version 1.4: Best cleanup yet, gets files other tools miss.
    See http://www.atomicbird.com/

  19. Re: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

    "George Graves" wrote on 12/21/03 3:30 PM:

    > In article ,
    > Snit wrote:
    >
    >> "D.F. Manno" wrote on 12/21/03 12:54 PM:
    >>
    >>> In article ,
    >>> Snit wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I suppose Macs running OS 9 work just fine with 2 (or more) button mice.
    >>>
    >>> Mine does.

    >>
    >> In context I believe that was by default - if not, let me clarify: I meant
    >> that out of the box (no 3rd party drivers) the Mac can be said to work just
    >> fine with a two button mouse, but that only one would work.

    >
    > That's not true. Out of the box, with no 3rd party drivers, with both my
    > Intellimous Explorer on my desktop Mac as well as my MacAlly IceMouse
    > jr, both buttons work along with the scroll-wheel.


    What OS? I know OS X does this (I use a Logitech myself), but I did not
    think OS 9 did. Maybe one of the updates to it? I have not used OS 9 in a
    long time, other than very occasional uses of Classic Mode.


  20. Re: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

    In article ,
    "John" wrote:

    > Michelle Steiner wrote:
    > > In article ,
    > > "John" wrote:
    > >
    > >>>> Why not send an email to Apple and ask for WMA for iPod. It is
    > >>>> superior sounding. Why not demand the best sound quality from
    > >>>> Apple?
    > >>>
    > >>> We already have the best sound quality from Apple. Why should Apple
    > >>> pay lots of money to MickeySoft for inferior quality?
    > >>>
    > >>> BTW, how are your diapers?
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> Bull****!! WMA SOUNDS BETTER.

    > >
    > > Yes, "WMA SOUNDS BETTER." is bull****.

    >
    >
    >
    > Not according to a double blind study by Sound and Vision magazine. And not
    > according to my own testing.
    >
    >


    Reference please.

    --
    Alan Baker
    Vancouver, British Columbia
    "If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
    to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
    if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

+ Reply to Thread
Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 4 12 13 14 15 16 LastLast