How come this hasn't been talked about here?

Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
news:g6jjoq$h5t$2@aioe.org:

> Even if I accept your premise that my $299 low-end PC will cost $599
> if I outfit it to match the features/specs of an entry-level Mac, it's
> MY option to do so or not to, depending on my needs for that
> particular PC.
>
>

Naw....just eliminate the Gates load from it and install a Linux. That'll
make the $299 low end PC MUCH faster and bring the price down to $129.
Even cheaper, buy a $25 Win98 box from the thrift shop and wipe the Micro
$not off it, install the Linux to the bare box and reduce your costs to
near zero. Add Open Office and you've got a serious business box for
nearly free!

It scares them to death....(c;

.....and save those old 128MB RAM sticks, too! Programs are in KB, not MB!

nospam wrote:
> In article <48877c62$0$20899$607ed4bc@cv.net>, Carl
> <crothman@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>> there is no modern mac that cannot update any ipod / iphone. as
>>>>>> long as that mac is running the minimum required software
>>>>>> version, ANY mac will update ANY apple device without issue.
>>>>> How do you KNOW this? Have you personally checked all "modern
>>>>> macs" David? And, by the way, what is a "modern mac"?
>>>>
>>>> My Mac was purchased new from Apple in May 2005. It is incapable
>>>> of updating an iPhone or iPod Touch, although it is capable of
>>>> updating an iPod Nano or iPod Shuffle.
>>>
>>> apple sold various macs in 2005. which one and what configuration?
>>>
>> What's the difference? The guy stated that "there is no modern mac
>> that cannot update any ipod / iphone" and followed that with "ANY
>> mac will update ANY apple device without issue" (the caps being his
>> own). So why are we now nit-picking which model this poster has? Is
>> this about to become one of those BUTs...?
>
> the difference is that it's baseless assertion.
>
> he needs to provide the hardware configuration so that others can test
> it for themselves to see if his assertion is correct. the fact that
> he's vague about exactly how to duplicate it suggests that it's bogus.
> and the fact that i asked people who own the same hardware if they had
> a problem and they said no indicates that it's not the *mac* that's
> the problem.
>
No, sorry. One of us is having trouble with the basic of the English
language here. Perhaps it's me. If someone says, "ANY mac will update ANY
apple device without issue" and the responder states that "My Mac was
purchased new from Apple in May 2005", that meets the criterion of "ANY
mac", and no further qualification is necessary.

Said another way, if some of youse guys is gonna state absolutes, you need
to live with what you've said afterwards. No "ands, ifs or buts" after the
fact please.

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008, Carl posted:
>> he needs to provide the hardware configuration so that others can test
>> it for themselves to see if his assertion is correct. the fact that
>> he's vague about exactly how to duplicate it suggests that it's bogus.
>> and the fact that i asked people who own the same hardware if they had
>> a problem and they said no indicates that it's not the *mac* that's
>> the problem.
> No, sorry. One of us is having trouble with the basic of the English
> language here. Perhaps it's me. If someone says, "ANY mac will update ANY
> apple device without issue" and the responder states that "My Mac was
> purchased new from Apple in May 2005", that meets the criterion of "ANY
> mac", and no further qualification is necessary.

Youngsters such as our fanboy have not yet developed adult reasoning
patterns, and so they can't be expected to understand your argument.

Interestingly, besides giving relevant case numbers in Apple's bug
tracker, I identified that it was a 1.25GHz PPC G4 based Mac desktop with
1GB of RAM. That narrows it down to a very few models that were sold in
May 2005. The particular model in question was introduced a few months
previously, and was still sold as recently as two years ago.

Now I expect the fanboy to claim that a PPC based Mac (or anything else
more than a year old) is not "modern". Try telling that to most adults
who expect a computer to be useful for more than a year or so.

> Said another way, if some of youse guys is gonna state absolutes, you need
> to live with what you've said afterwards. No "ands, ifs or buts" after the
> fact please.

The only absolute that I offer is that it is typical fanboy behavior to
deny that the object of worship has any flaws, or that anyone could
possibly be experiencing problems that are not due to that person's
stupidity.

It isn't just Apple fanboys who behave this way. It is associated with
other manufacturers of overpriced "elite" products marketed to mostly
younger consumers as the epitome of "quality". BMW and Sony come
immediately to mind, although both have lost considerable glitter in
recent years.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008, nospam posted:
>>>> Apple acknowledges the bug, and acknowledges that it is unfixed.
>>> where did they acknowledge it and what exactly did they say?
>> Apple's bugtracker.
> they specifically said all powerpc g4 mac minis are unsupported?

Silly child. Apple said no such thing.

Apple acknowledges that there is a bug, and that the bug is still unfixed.

That says nothing about being "unsupported". It merely says that they
haven't been able to fix it.

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy.

> sure, there are plenty of bugs, but which one specifically states that
> a powerpc g4 mac mini can't update an iphone/ipod touch, a hardware
> configuration that's explicitly supported by apple?

Silly child. Nobody said any such thing.

I said that some modern Macs can't update an iPhone/iPod Touch, that Apple
has acknowledged the bug and that it is unfixed; that this problem happens
on a PPC G4 Mac purchased new in May 2005; and that there are numerous
reports from other users who have the same problem.

> i don't doubt that you have a problem updating it, but to say that it's
> a hardware issue in *all* powerpc g4 mac minis is a *huge* leap.

Since nobody said "*all* PowerPC G4 Macs", your entire argument is a
straw man fallacy.

> in
> the last few days i asked numerous people if they had heard of this
> (including people at apple and people who own a ppc g4 mac mini) and
> they laughed, especially the ones who own a ppc g4 mac mini.

Once again, your argument is a fallacy: "my friends don't have a problem,
therefore there is no problem." Argumentiam ad ignorantiam. Converse
Accident.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.