"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> > Oxford brought up what OOP technologies run the web, not just create it.
> >
> > Oh, and that NeXT invented OO technologies.
>
> Which is not true, of course, but Oxford never let actual facts
> interfere with his being a fanboy.
and poor dumb "Elmo" wasn't smart enough to understand I "never" said
anything evenn remotely close that.
Elmo is basically your loser in life, very angry that he was never
successful. So he projects out to people like me who are.
Sorry Elmo, you are a waste of oxygen.
Say something, ANYTHING, intelligent... on your next post or you will be
plonked.
Oxford wrote:
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
>>> Oxford brought up what OOP technologies run the web, not just create it.
>>>
>>> Oh, and that NeXT invented OO technologies.
>> Which is not true, of course, but Oxford never let actual facts
>> interfere with his being a fanboy.
>
> and poor dumb "Elmo" wasn't smart enough to understand I "never" said
> anything evenn remotely close that.
>
> Elmo is basically your loser in life, very angry that he was never
> successful. So he projects out to people like me who are.
>
> Sorry Elmo, you are a waste of oxygen.
>
> Say something, ANYTHING, intelligent... on your next post or you will be
> plonked.
>
> -
<pointless cross-posting snipped>
If Verizon is now selling the iPhone (and they are not) this post would
be relevant here. Since Verizon is not selling the iPhone keep these
pointless post in some *other* group.
> No, it isn't because I don't 'follow the flow.' He was building an
> unjustifiable connection.
> e.g., That what is used to run a server today shows how important OO
> tech developed by NeXT was and therefore that NeXT was the prime source
> of inspiration in developing the Web.
My connection is perfect, the only missing ingredient is you and Justin
and Elmo haven't heard Tim "in his own words" explain why "Interface
Builder" lead to the creation of "www.app". Until you hear it in his
voice, you just won't understand this important part of computing
history.
No, NeXT was never the "inspiration", it was just the first "modern
TOOL" to allow Tim's childhood exposure to "Enquire" to become a reality.
-- Enquire was a name from a book written in 1858 that inspired
Berners-Lee: "Inquire Within: Anything You Want To Know."
> Mitch <mitch@hawaii.rr> wrote:
>
> > No, it isn't because I don't 'follow the flow.' He was building an
> > unjustifiable connection.
> > e.g., That what is used to run a server today shows how important OO
> > tech developed by NeXT was and therefore that NeXT was the prime source
> > of inspiration in developing the Web.
>
> My connection is perfect, the only missing ingredient is you and Justin
> and Elmo haven't heard Tim "in his own words" explain why "Interface
> Builder" lead to the creation of "www.app". Until you hear it in his
> voice, you just won't understand this important part of computing
> history.
>
> No, NeXT was never the "inspiration", it was just the first "modern
> TOOL" to allow Tim's childhood exposure to "Enquire" to become a reality.
There's no reason to suppose that had NeXT never existed the WWW
wouldn't have been created.
But this is beside the point - you keep trying to attach a "WWW halo
effect" to Apple simply because NeXT became OS X.
> > No, NeXT was never the "inspiration", it was just the first "modern
> > TOOL" to allow Tim's childhood exposure to "Enquire" to become a reality.
>
> There's no reason to suppose that had NeXT never existed the WWW
> wouldn't have been created.
>
> But this is beside the point - you keep trying to attach a "WWW halo
> effect" to Apple simply because NeXT became OS X.
and that's fair because NeXTSTEP turned into OSX, both with the same
lead programmer and CEO.
> -o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-
>
> <quote>
>
> Message-ID:
> <colalovesmacs-41D986.22551505092007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net>
>
> "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
> > I thought the "world wide web" has been around for many years. The iPhone
> > OS has a browser which can access it - That is all.
>
> yes, but it's the OS that started the "world wide web", it was called
> NeXT at the time, now it's called OSX.
>
> next time you type http:// - you have NeXT / Apple to thank.
>
> </quote>
>
> -o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-
>
>
> Apple had NOTHING to do with the creation of the WWW.
On szept. 6, 20:54, Mark Crispin <m...@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2007, Mitch wrote:
> >> To this, I can add that underwhelming 320x480 screen resolution. The
> >> screen on my Sony UX series handheld computer is not much larger (4.5"
> >> diagonal) in physical size, but has a respectable 1024x600 resolution.
> > That's a totally unreasonable comparison, because you haven't compared
> > two items of similar size.
>
> I was comparing screen size, not device size. The UX has a 1024x600
> resolution 4.5" diagonal screen. That is a LOT more pixels for not much
> more physical size.
>
> > Size means a LOT for devices like this. The division is along
> > shirt-pocket size. If it doesn't fit in a regular pocket, it can't be
> > compared toiPhone.
>
> Unfortunately for your argument, the UX does, in fact, fit into a shirt
> pocket.
>
> > What is really amazing is the number of people claiming there is
> > nothing new aboutiPhonewhen the phones they champion (regular smart
> > phones down to free phones) have only UP TO 240x320 (half)!
>
> Wrong comparison.
>
> As a phone, theiPhoneis a brick. Nor is its performance that of a
> particularly good phone. The world is full of quad-band GSM phones which
> are much less expensive and have comparable or superior performance.iPhone'sabsense of 3G is truly a stunning omission.
>
> As an Internet access device, it has inadequate screen resolution and
> unbelievable software limitations. Now, if it had a C compiler and the
> ability to ssh in (from Apple, not hacked), that might be a different
> matter; you could then port useful tools from fink & etc. ButiPhoneis
> by design a closed platform and locked to a particular carrier.
>
> Nobody claims that a 240x320 resolution phone is an Internet access
> device; that's why they have WAP for those bitty screens. TheiPhone, on
> the other hand, pretends to be an Internet access device with 320x480
> resolution. It falls short.
>
> TheiPhonetries to position itself as in-between the two. The problem
> with being an "in-between" product is that such products are rarely
> successful. History, including Apple's corporate history, is littered
> with failed "in-between" products. The model for success of an
> "in-between" product is that it combines the advantages of both; the
> reality of failure is that it combines the disadvantages of both.
>
> >> Now, granted, the UX is a bit heavier (largely due to the hard drive, the
> >> slide over keyboard, and the ports) and costs a lot more than aniPhone;
> >> but the UX is a full-fledged Windows Vista computer with 40GB of storage.
> > Then why are you comparing them?
>
> Handheld PCs, not WAP-based cell phones, are the closest comparable
> devices to theiPhoneon the market today. Compared to handheld PCs, theiPhonefalls short.
>
> The argument seems to go that "Safari is a nicer browser than the Windows
> Mobile version of IE, thus theiPhoneis better than a Windows Mobile
> device." The problem with this argument is that there are handheld
> devices that run full Windows, and thus full IE. Or Firefox. Or Opera.
>
> TheiPhonecould have offered full Mac OS X. It could at least offered a
> Mac OS X Mobile that allowed third-party applications like Windows Mobile
> does. But it does neither. It has only what Apple wants you to have.
>
> > If we are going to discount price, weight, and size, then every laptop
> > also bests those. Are you sure you know what you are trying to say?
>
> I am quite familiar with the comparables of handheld PCs, laptops, and
> cell phones. I use all three on a daily basis. My most important
> criterion is that a product justify its purpose for being in my toolkit,
> and not just look cool.
>
> The term "mobile device" is generally used to refer to a certain class of
> handheld devices; by definition that excludes laptops. Cell phones, PDAs,
> Blackberrys, andiPhoneare in this class. So, for that matter, is the
> Sony UX series; it is a mobile device with laptop software and, when
> docked, performs like a desktop.
>
> The jury is still out whether full Windows mobile devices have a future in
> the market. TheiPhonefaces a much narrower market. On top of that, it
> is a closed platform (which has always been Apple's Achilles' heel).
>
> My Sony UX replaces an old IPAQ as my PDA. It synchronizes very nicely
> with my Windows laptop and Windows desktop -- it even synchronizes with my
> Mac OS X desktop. I don't need special PDA software for it; if it runs on
> Windows it runs on the UX.
>
> Now, the UX is somewhat thick and heavy. It clearly needs to be replaced
> with a model that is thinner and lighter, otherwise that product line will
> die. It also needs a major price reduction; Sony is as bad as Apple in
> overpricing.
>
> But!! It has one huge advantage. Even if the UX product line dies, it is
> still useful. Even if I no longer want to carry it any more, I can plug
> it its docking station, hide it away, and it's a perfectly good desktop.
> And it can always run Linux or BSD.
>
> You can't say that about theiPhone. If iTunes ever shuts down, theiPhonebecomes a brick. Not only that, butiPhonehas a limited life
> built in from inception. The batteries are non-standard and must be
> replaced by Apple; no more batteries, no moreiPhone. The lack of 3G
> ultimately doomsiPhone.
>
> Put another way, my UX will be useful for years after all the iPhones
> become el cheapo collector's items on eBay like Newton.
>
> > No; just open office standards. Blackberry and Microsoft live in a
> > closed space, trying to trick business into getting in with them. Apple
> > doesn't play that way, and suffers because of it.
>
> The problem with that argument is that Apple sucks in its implementation
> of open standards as well.
>
> >>iPhonemight have been interesting if it had a good mail client. Alas,
> >>iPhonecontinues the tradition, from mobile phones in general and Apple in
> >> particular, of utter cluelessness on how to do Internet mail (note that
> >> Blackberry does Exchange, not Internet mail) and how to comply with RFCs.
> > That's funny, since the only complaint I have read is about Exchange
> > compatibility -- not something they get to choose at all!
>
> Perhaps that's because you don't work in Internet standards compliance and
> have deal with the fallout from Apple's shitty implementations. It
> required talent to do a worse job than Microsoft, but Apple succeeded.
>
> Nor do they pay any attention even when you tell them about their bugs.
> I am very familiar with Mail.app, having once uncovered how to erase the
> entire filesystem by sending a Mail.app user a message with certain
> properties. Months after I reported it, that charming little bug still
> wasn't fixed. They fixed it after I published the exploit.
>
> As with Outlook, I've tracked Mail.app's history over the years. I
> wouldn't think of using either piece of crapware for my own email; but
> periodically have to help some poor user who does.
>
> >> You can get a nice little GSM quad-band phone with a much less unpleasant
> >> service contract for considerably less than $100.
> > This coming from the guy who championed that small screens were nearly
> > useless? Are you kidding us? Did you even read what you wrote above?
>
> It's price/performance, lad. Price/performance.
>
> TheiPhonesimply is not good value for the price, even with the latest
> discounts. As a phone, it is ridiculously expensive and limited compared
> to devices that cost less than $100.
>
> As an Internet device, it is severely limited compared to other choices.
> For not much more money, you can get a phone and a laptop and have far
> greater capability.
>
> TheiPhoneis a gizmo that does neither thing very well in a small
> relatively attractive package. It is an "in-between" product between two
> well-established markets. Such products rarely have long-term success.
>
> >> -- Mark --
> > Wrong sig delimiter; please fix.
>
> How cute, another signature delimiter net.cop. Sorry, I will not change a
> practice of 30+ years in order to accomodate an unofficial convention.
>
> -- 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 szept. 6, 20:54, Mark Crispin <m...@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2007, Mitch wrote:
> >> To this, I can add that underwhelming 320x480 screen resolution. The
> >> screen on my Sony UX series handheld computer is not much larger (4.5"
> >> diagonal) in physical size, but has a respectable 1024x600 resolution.
> > That's a totally unreasonable comparison, because you haven't compared
> > two items of similar size.
>
> I was comparing screen size, not device size. The UX has a 1024x600
> resolution 4.5" diagonal screen. That is a LOT more pixels for not much
> more physical size.
>
> > Size means a LOT for devices like this. The division is along
> > shirt-pocket size. If it doesn't fit in a regular pocket, it can't be
> > compared toiPhone.
>
> Unfortunately for your argument, the UX does, in fact, fit into a shirt
> pocket.
>
> > What is really amazing is the number of people claiming there is
> > nothing new aboutiPhonewhen the phones they champion (regular smart
> > phones down to free phones) have only UP TO 240x320 (half)!
>
> Wrong comparison.
>
> As a phone, theiPhoneis a brick. Nor is its performance that of a
> particularly good phone. The world is full of quad-band GSM phones which
> are much less expensive and have comparable or superior performance.iPhone'sabsense of 3G is truly a stunning omission.
>
> As an Internet access device, it has inadequate screen resolution and
> unbelievable software limitations. Now, if it had a C compiler and the
> ability to ssh in (from Apple, not hacked), that might be a different
> matter; you could then port useful tools from fink & etc. ButiPhoneis
> by design a closed platform and locked to a particular carrier.
>
> Nobody claims that a 240x320 resolution phone is an Internet access
> device; that's why they have WAP for those bitty screens. TheiPhone, on
> the other hand, pretends to be an Internet access device with 320x480
> resolution. It falls short.
>
> TheiPhonetries to position itself as in-between the two. The problem
> with being an "in-between" product is that such products are rarely
> successful. History, including Apple's corporate history, is littered
> with failed "in-between" products. The model for success of an
> "in-between" product is that it combines the advantages of both; the
> reality of failure is that it combines the disadvantages of both.
>
> >> Now, granted, the UX is a bit heavier (largely due to the hard drive, the
> >> slide over keyboard, and the ports) and costs a lot more than aniPhone;
> >> but the UX is a full-fledged Windows Vista computer with 40GB of storage.
> > Then why are you comparing them?
>
> Handheld PCs, not WAP-based cell phones, are the closest comparable
> devices to theiPhoneon the market today. Compared to handheld PCs, theiPhonefalls short.
>
> The argument seems to go that "Safari is a nicer browser than the Windows
> Mobile version of IE, thus theiPhoneis better than a Windows Mobile
> device." The problem with this argument is that there are handheld
> devices that run full Windows, and thus full IE. Or Firefox. Or Opera.
>
> TheiPhonecould have offered full Mac OS X. It could at least offered a
> Mac OS X Mobile that allowed third-party applications like Windows Mobile
> does. But it does neither. It has only what Apple wants you to have.
>
> > If we are going to discount price, weight, and size, then every laptop
> > also bests those. Are you sure you know what you are trying to say?
>
> I am quite familiar with the comparables of handheld PCs, laptops, and
> cell phones. I use all three on a daily basis. My most important
> criterion is that a product justify its purpose for being in my toolkit,
> and not just look cool.
>
> The term "mobile device" is generally used to refer to a certain class of
> handheld devices; by definition that excludes laptops. Cell phones, PDAs,
> Blackberrys, andiPhoneare in this class. So, for that matter, is the
> Sony UX series; it is a mobile device with laptop software and, when
> docked, performs like a desktop.
>
> The jury is still out whether full Windows mobile devices have a future in
> the market. TheiPhonefaces a much narrower market. On top of that, it
> is a closed platform (which has always been Apple's Achilles' heel).
>
> My Sony UX replaces an old IPAQ as my PDA. It synchronizes very nicely
> with my Windows laptop and Windows desktop -- it even synchronizes with my
> Mac OS X desktop. I don't need special PDA software for it; if it runs on
> Windows it runs on the UX.
>
> Now, the UX is somewhat thick and heavy. It clearly needs to be replaced
> with a model that is thinner and lighter, otherwise that product line will
> die. It also needs a major price reduction; Sony is as bad as Apple in
> overpricing.
>
> But!! It has one huge advantage. Even if the UX product line dies, it is
> still useful. Even if I no longer want to carry it any more, I can plug
> it its docking station, hide it away, and it's a perfectly good desktop.
> And it can always run Linux or BSD.
>
> You can't say that about theiPhone. If iTunes ever shuts down, theiPhonebecomes a brick. Not only that, butiPhonehas a limited life
> built in from inception. The batteries are non-standard and must be
> replaced by Apple; no more batteries, no moreiPhone. The lack of 3G
> ultimately doomsiPhone.
>
> Put another way, my UX will be useful for years after all the iPhones
> become el cheapo collector's items on eBay like Newton.
>
> > No; just open office standards. Blackberry and Microsoft live in a
> > closed space, trying to trick business into getting in with them. Apple
> > doesn't play that way, and suffers because of it.
>
> The problem with that argument is that Apple sucks in its implementation
> of open standards as well.
>
> >>iPhonemight have been interesting if it had a good mail client. Alas,
> >>iPhonecontinues the tradition, from mobile phones in general and Apple in
> >> particular, of utter cluelessness on how to do Internet mail (note that
> >> Blackberry does Exchange, not Internet mail) and how to comply with RFCs.
> > That's funny, since the only complaint I have read is about Exchange
> > compatibility -- not something they get to choose at all!
>
> Perhaps that's because you don't work in Internet standards compliance and
> have deal with the fallout from Apple's shitty implementations. It
> required talent to do a worse job than Microsoft, but Apple succeeded.
>
> Nor do they pay any attention even when you tell them about their bugs.
> I am very familiar with Mail.app, having once uncovered how to erase the
> entire filesystem by sending a Mail.app user a message with certain
> properties. Months after I reported it, that charming little bug still
> wasn't fixed. They fixed it after I published the exploit.
>
> As with Outlook, I've tracked Mail.app's history over the years. I
> wouldn't think of using either piece of crapware for my own email; but
> periodically have to help some poor user who does.
>
> >> You can get a nice little GSM quad-band phone with a much less unpleasant
> >> service contract for considerably less than $100.
> > This coming from the guy who championed that small screens were nearly
> > useless? Are you kidding us? Did you even read what you wrote above?
>
> It's price/performance, lad. Price/performance.
>
> TheiPhonesimply is not good value for the price, even with the latest
> discounts. As a phone, it is ridiculously expensive and limited compared
> to devices that cost less than $100.
>
> As an Internet device, it is severely limited compared to other choices.
> For not much more money, you can get a phone and a laptop and have far
> greater capability.
>
> TheiPhoneis a gizmo that does neither thing very well in a small
> relatively attractive package. It is an "in-between" product between two
> well-established markets. Such products rarely have long-term success.
>
> >> -- Mark --
> > Wrong sig delimiter; please fix.
>
> How cute, another signature delimiter net.cop. Sorry, I will not change a
> practice of 30+ years in order to accomodate an unofficial convention.
>
> -- 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.
I just found the newest Iphone SimUnlocking method.
NO turbocard or other harware needed.
Awesome !
Oxford is WRONG... AGAIN! [was Re: iPhone outsells ALL smartphones in July]
On Sep 4, 10:10 am, Oxford <colalovesm...@mac.com> wrote:
> apple stock up 4.5 points on the news...
>
> -
>
> (Reuters) - Apple Inc'siPhoneoutsold all smartphones in the United
> States in July, its first full month on sale, accounting for 1.8 percent
> of all U.S. mobile handset sales, research group iSuppli said on Tuesday.
>
> ISuppli reiterated its forecast that Apple would sell 4.5 million
> iPhones this year, rising to more than 30 million in 2011.
>
> The two models of theiPhoneon the market sold more than Research in
> Motion's Blackberry series, the entire Palm portfolio and any individualsmartphonemodel from Motorola, Nokia or Samsung.
>
> ISuppli classifies theiPhoneas a crossover phone that competes with
> both smartphones, which have personal computer-like functions such as
> e-mail, and feature phones, which have extras such as cameras and music
> players.
>
> "While iSuppli has not collected historical information on this topic,
> it's likely that the speed of theiPhone'srise to competitive dominance
> in its segment is unprecedented in the history of the mobile-handset
> market," iSuppli said.
>
> "Apple achieved this in the face of numerous, well-entrenched
> competitors."
>
> Most buyers of iPhones in the United States in July were male, under 35
> and had a college degree, iSuppli said.
>
> A quarter of those who bought aniPhoneswitched to operator AT&T, which
> has an exclusive service agreement for theiPhonein the United States.
>
> TheiPhonewill go on sale in Europe later this year.
iSuppli Issues Clarification on Smart Phone Market Share Release
September 6, 2007
iSuppli Corp. would like to issue a clarification regarding its press
release of Sept. 4 regarding the Apple iPhone's market share relative
to competing smart phone models.
iSuppli's sell-through research and the subsequent press release
indicated that the iPhone outsold all smart phone models in July in
the United States on an individual basis. While iSuppli stands by this
analysis, it is important to note that iPhone's retail sales did not
exceed the combined retail sales of the entire BlackBerry line of
smart phones (approximately twice that of the iPhone if taken in
total) in the United States in July.
For more information, please contact:
Jonathan Cassell
Editorial Director and Manager, Public Relations
iSuppli Corporation
Office: 408.654.1714
Mobile: 408.921.3754 www.isuppli.com
Re: Oxford is WRONG... AGAIN! [was Re: iPhone outsells ALL smartphones in July]
In article <1192401791.563590.181370@i13g2000prf.googlegroups .com>,
Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> > TheiPhonewill go on sale in Europe later this year.
>
>
> http://www.isuppli.com/news/default.asp?id=8454
>
> iSuppli Issues Clarification on Smart Phone Market Share Release
>
> September 6, 2007
>
> iSuppli Corp. would like to issue a clarification regarding its press
> release of Sept. 4 regarding the Apple iPhone's market share relative
> to competing smart phone models.
>
> iSuppli's sell-through research and the subsequent press release
> indicated that the iPhone outsold all smart phone models in July in
> the United States on an individual basis. While iSuppli stands by this
> analysis, it is important to note that iPhone's retail sales did not
> exceed the combined retail sales of the entire BlackBerry line of
> smart phones (approximately twice that of the iPhone if taken in
> total) in the United States in July.
Aha, I see you're "playing games with statistics".
Re: 8 GB iPhone now $399! 
Linear Mode
