Posted on 03/08/2005 12:06:04 PM PST by r5boston
Nearly a decade ago, just a few months after Microsoft shipped Windows 95, I asked Bill Gates if it was a conscious decision in the development of that product to give Windows more of a Mac look and feel. Of course I knew he'd say it wasn't, but I couldn't resist asking. "There was no goal even to compete with Macintosh," Gates proclaimed. "We don't even think of Macintosh as a competitor."
That was a crock, so I pressed the issue a little. I asked him how he accounted for the widespread perception that Windows 95 looked a lot like Mac 88, and whether the similarity was just a coincidence. I didn't expect a sobbing confession of mimicry, but I thought it would be cool to see how he'd respond. Surprisingly enough, Gates shifted gears and became more forthcoming.
(Excerpt) Read more at macworld.com ...
It's obvious in 726. You claim to have said they're completely different things ("that's what I said") yet you immediately contradict yourself ("although they are not completely different things.")
OK. So now you are claiming firmware is not software?
Either you are just a disrupter or you actually have a position - as of right now you have no position and you seem to be just trying to disrupt - is that your game?
So your position now is firmware is not software?
The next question may be: Troll often?
It's got nothing to do with what I might be claiming. I'm asking you to point out where I said what you claim I said in #1. Can you do it?
I have no idea what you are talking about - I did not use the term "we" in message #737
I did mention the term "we" is message #727 - who is that "we" - you jumped into the middle of an exchange between myself and antiRepublicrat. That was the "we" I was talking about.
Sorry. That "gotcha" backfired on you.
You're such an imbecile. I'm done with you now. Here is a quote from your 737:
Now that have you nailed down to a position, lets [sic] evaluate it.
Do not expect any further polite response or discussion from me. You are a troll of the highest caliber.
Sorry, I don't play games with trolls.
You said you never said firmware was not software so I just assumed your position was the inverse. Clearly you are too chicken to take a position - you are just here to snipe and troll.
If you do not have a position, you are a troll.
It is much easier to set on the sidelines and snipe and troll - it is a lot harder to present a position and support it.
Golly you trolls sure do like personal insults.
Now that you have opened us up to personal insults:
Boy you are a complete moron.
I agreed they are different - just not completely different.
If you think that contradicts my statement - clearly you are to stupid to understand the meaning of the word "contradict"
HINT: "different" and "completely different" are not contradicting terms.
Contradict: To assert or express the opposite of (a statement).
Are you trying to claim "different" and "completely different" are opposite terms?
Moron troll.
Oh goody. You are a spelling nazi troll too.
Spelling nazi trolls are very popular on Freerepublic
I agree with antiRepublicrat. You dont seem to be seeing his point.
A vehicle class has many properties. A derived class is still a vehicle, but may override some of the properties. It is still a vehicle, but it is CALLED a taxi, or bus, or car (instead of the default "vehicle")
The vehicle CLASS has a property containing TEXT "vehicle" by default, but it could just as easily contain "xxx" as default, or better "name me" as default.
First of all I am not "Grasshopper" to your "wise mentor"... stop using it to denigrate me and my expertise. It is neither funny nor appreciated because it is merely another form of ad hominem attack intended to disparage my comments.
It is fallacious logic to try and equate the subset with the whole. To overcome this Petronski was forced to make absurd statements (rather than simply correct the faulty logic).
And please stop trying to teach me elementary logic. I paid for one year of college over 30 years ago by tutoring other students in Logic... and, Dog, my friend, it is YOU who are spouting nonsense. Petronski is correct.
You state correctly above that it is fallacious logic to "equate the subset with the whole" but, Dog, it is you who claimed "Socrates (the subset) = (equals) Man (the whole).
Petronsky, and others, have rightly pointed out to you that for your syllogism to be true, a delimiter must be included to limit the set "man" making it "a man". You seem to be unable to grasp this important distinction or you are being deliberately obtuse.
Some people simple refuse to admit they are wrong.
How right you are... because you have just described yourself on this ENTIRE thread.
Ok, just did. And since you did not answer, the answer is that you have not taken a course in economics. I also note that your probably have not taken a course in logic either.
And in the computing world, where has the herd headed? They are following Bill Gates' Windows ...
So I am a liar? I told you my experience with my Macintosh OSX running classic and my clients' experiences with OSX running classic. You have NO experience except what you have heard third hand.
As I told you I reviewed thos 537 queries... and about 90% were of the "How do I..." category. Those queries spanned more than three years... which translates to ONE question every two days. Whow! According to Bush2000 its an epidemic.
Many of those 537 did not even address Classic mode questions.
Many of them related to earlier versions of OSX... including OSX.0 which did have problems with printer drivers not being available yet... this is discernable merely by looking at the posting date.
You claim a "ton of problems" while I find only about 50 or so that might be considered "problems" and most of those received quick answers on how to solve the problem... and sometimes it was not even a problem. 50 or even 537 in a universe of 14,000,000 is certainly NOT a "ton of problems."
Shall we visit a help forum for Windows and see how many problems THEY are having? How about problems with "legacy" Windows apps?
You are the one who has been using loose analogies... do you not understand the concept?
Thank you.
Some free advice, whether you want it or not: don't feed the trolls. Life is too short for this fool.
You always start with insults... I have been working in the computer industry for 26 years. I majored in Business Administration with minors in economics and pholosophy. I have an IQ of over 150... I do not have "problems with reading comprehension"... my problems is that I, like Petronsky, do comprehend what you write, but cannot see beyond your imprecision to what you really want to say.
EVERYTHING stored on media is data of some form or another... some data is used as instructions sets, some data is manipulated by those instruction sets, and some data is there for identification purposes and inaccessible to the device reading the other data. It is how that data is used that differentiates what kind of data it is. For example a medium might contain a Windows applications. That data can be read into the computer and executed to do something... or it might be read into an editor as data for revision... its data.
Semantics again. When I updated my Macintosh Cube to be able to use OSX, lo these many years ago, I had to download and execute a program that updated my FIRMWARE before I could install OSX.0. Did this program go in and pull out a ROM and replace it with another chip?
Some of the data on Firmware may be simple jump tables... read a location, jump to a memory locations. That is not data used as "software" but data used as "information" by another piece of software. It is perfectly possible for this data to be actually hardwired in the hardware.
This is pointless. We have you spending a large amount of time trying to explain how smart you think you are (yet you make very ill-informed comments about computer technology) - and we have the troll Petronski sniping from the sidelines and spewing insults all the while too chicken to actually take a position.
I will leave you to your circle jerk.
Dog, dictionaries lag behind changing technology... especially in "jargon" and "idiom" usages. Circa 1944 the term "computer" could be found in dictionaries... its definition was a person who applied mathematics to data to obtain results. There was no mention of hardware. Does that mean that we are forever stuck with that definition? Of course not.
This is really funny, Dog, we have come full circle. You started by citing outdated and therefore wrong information about the iPod batteries... and you are now arguing a point using a definition that has been outdated by current computer design.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.