enough of 9 vs X

[Ian Gregory]

I started reading comp.sys.mac.system when I ordered an iBook
a few months ago but it has outlived its usefulness (the group,
not the iBook!).

As one of the multitude of new Mac users who never considered
Apple hardware before the advent of Mac OS X, I am reasonably
impressed with Jaguar and expect improvements in Panther.

Of course this group is not specific to Mac OS X so I can't
complain about posts relating to earlier systems but am fed
up with the 9 vs X debate. Yes I understand that there are
people who were happy with 9 and that some of them will even
change platform rather than upgrade to X (they can't all be
trolls surely?) but that is not my problem. Anyway, I am now
monitoring some RSS feeds for relevant news about Mac OS X
and relying on search engines to find answers to my questions.

It has been interesting at times but the S/N ratio is now
just too low to bother - enough is enough!

--
Ian Gregory
Systems and Applications Manager
Learning and Information Services
University of Hertfordshire

[Phil Stripling]

Ian Gregory <i.h.gregory@herts.ac.uk> writes:

> I started reading comp.sys.mac.system when I ordered an iBook
> a few months ago but it has outlived its usefulness (the group,
> not the iBook!).

Okay, we'll shut it down. Just for you. (The group, not the iBook.)

When you get Usenet run the way you want, please let me know.

>SNIP<
> It has been interesting at times but the S/N ratio is now
> just too low to bother - enough is enough!

Buh-bye, Ian.
--
Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@
[url]http://www.PhilipStripling.com/[/url] | my domain is read daily.

[foo]

On 21 Jul 2003 14:13:20 GMT, Ian Gregory <i.h.gregory@herts.ac.uk>
wrote:

>I started reading comp.sys.mac.system when I ordered an iBook
>a few months ago but it has outlived its usefulness (the group,
>not the iBook!).
>
>As one of the multitude of new Mac users who never considered
>Apple hardware before the advent of Mac OS X, I am reasonably
>impressed with Jaguar and expect improvements in Panther.
>
>Of course this group is not specific to Mac OS X so I can't
>complain about posts relating to earlier systems but am fed
>up with the 9 vs X debate. Yes I understand that there are
>people who were happy with 9 and that some of them will even
>change platform rather than upgrade to X (they can't all be
>trolls surely?) but that is not my problem. Anyway, I am now
>monitoring some RSS feeds for relevant news about Mac OS X
>and relying on search engines to find answers to my questions.
>
>It has been interesting at times but the S/N ratio is now
>just too low to bother - enough is enough!

Why not just killfile the people and/or topics you don't like? It's
dead simple....

[George Williams]

Ian Gregory wrote:

> It has been interesting at times but the S/N ratio is now
> just too low to bother - enough is enough!

True, but secretly you enjoy the controversy and debate.
You'll find yourself sneaking back in here despite yourself.

[Sandman]

In article <3f1bf500$0$2876$afc38c87@news.easynet.co.uk>,
Ian Gregory <i.h.gregory@herts.ac.uk> wrote:

> I started reading comp.sys.mac.system when I ordered an iBook
> a few months ago but it has outlived its usefulness (the group,
> not the iBook!).
>
> As one of the multitude of new Mac users who never considered
> Apple hardware before the advent of Mac OS X, I am reasonably
> impressed with Jaguar and expect improvements in Panther.
>
> Of course this group is not specific to Mac OS X so I can't
> complain about posts relating to earlier systems but am fed
> up with the 9 vs X debate. Yes I understand that there are
> people who were happy with 9 and that some of them will even
> change platform rather than upgrade to X (they can't all be
> trolls surely?) but that is not my problem. Anyway, I am now
> monitoring some RSS feeds for relevant news about Mac OS X
> and relying on search engines to find answers to my questions.
>
> It has been interesting at times but the S/N ratio is now
> just too low to bother - enough is enough!

While it contains alot of other fluff, comp.sys.mac.advocacy doesn't contain
any 9 vs X threads really. Mostly everyone there seems to like X.

--
Sandman[.net]

[Ian Gregory]

In article <3F1C3BB5.C6BE0F07@mac.com>, George Williams wrote:

> Ian Gregory wrote:
>

>> It has been interesting at times but the S/N ratio is now
>> just too low to bother - enough is enough!

>
> True, but secretly you enjoy the controversy and debate.
> You'll find yourself sneaking back in here despite yourself.

How did you know! Yes I do enjoy a good argument which is probably
why I never bothered to learn about killfiles. However, I have a
time management problem so the sacrifice must be made. There are
clearly some helpful and knowlegable people who read this group
though, so if I get really stuck I might be back.

--
Ian Gregory
Systems and Applications Manager
Learning and Information Services
University of Hertfordshire

[Ian Gregory]

In article <3qsmozpyj2.fsf@shell4.tdl.com>, Phil Stripling wrote:

> Ian Gregory <i.h.gregory@herts.ac.uk> writes:
>

>> I started reading comp.sys.mac.system when I ordered an iBook
>> a few months ago but it has outlived its usefulness (the group,
>> not the iBook!).

>
> Okay, we'll shut it down. Just for you. (The group, not the iBook.)

Thanks Phil; now I don't have to worry that I will be missing out!
Do let me know if you need any advice on which group to axe next.

--
Ian Gregory
Systems and Applications Manager
Learning and Information Services
University of Hertfordshire

[JWolf6589]

Yes but remember that people are forced to upgrade to X, because developers
stop writing for 9.x. If 9.x had the same support as X maybe more would stay
with it.

Widows 2000 gets the same support as XP, and many will not upgrade from it.

[Anno Siegel]

Ian Gregory <i.h.gregory@herts.ac.uk> wrote in comp.sys.mac.system:

[csms is too noisy to read]

> ... enough is enough!

You got *that* right!

Anno

[Mike Rosenberg]

JWolf6589 <jwolf6589@aol.comnospam> wrote:

> Widows 2000 gets the same support as XP, and many will not upgrade from it.

Windows 2000 is an upgrade to Windows NT, and XP is an upgrade to
Windows 95/98/XP.

Of course, the original poster's point was to say that he thinks there
are too many 9 vs X discussions here, and as usual you've completely
missed the point.

--
Mike Rosenberg

<http://www.macconsult.com>
<http://bogart-tribute.net>

[forge]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 08:16:13 -0400, [email]mike@POSTTOGROUP.inva[/email]lid (Mike
Rosenberg) wrote:

>Windows 2000 is an upgrade to Windows NT, and XP is an upgrade to
>Windows 95/98/XP.

XP is an upgrade to XP???

Actually, and I may be full of it but I don't think so, XP is far
closer to W2K than to W98. W98 was still, to a point, a shell running
over a super-bare-bones version of DOS. XP is an operating system of
its own running over, IIRC, a Mach kernel. Just like W2K.

[Steven Fisher]

forge wrote:

> Actually, and I may be full of it but I don't think so, XP is far
> closer to W2K than to W98. W98 was still, to a point, a shell running
> over a super-bare-bones version of DOS. XP is an operating system of
> its own running over, IIRC, a Mach kernel. Just like W2K.

Erm. An NT kernel. But otherwise, you're right -- XP, technically, is
much more similiar to NT/2000.

However, I think Mike was referring to the product's placement in the
marketplace. In those terms, XP is more of an upgrade to 95/98/ME than W2K.

[forge]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 02:00:58 GMT, Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net>
wrote:

>However, I think Mike was referring to the product's placement in the
>marketplace. In those terms, XP is more of an upgrade to 95/98/ME than W2K.

Oh, yeah, I agree with that...

[Mike Rosenberg]

Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:

> However, I think Mike was referring to the product's placement in the
> marketplace. In those terms, XP is more of an upgrade to 95/98/ME than W2K.

Yes, that's what I meant.

--
Mike Rosenberg

<http://www.macconsult.com>
<http://bogart-tribute.net>