In article <rJXQJ.14202$Icha.7940@fx11.iad>, rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch>
wrote:

> Well, how ridiculously wrong he was about the original Macintosh and the
> Apple IIgs suggests that he's a propagandist rather than any kind of
> technical user.

oh, it's very definitely not wrong.

your animosity towards apple won't let you accept that your beliefs
might be incorrect, and not just with this either.

> However, I don't mind giving him the benefit of the
> doubt in some respects.

ok.

In article <9OQQJ.42752$Mpg8.1475@fx34.iad>, rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch>
wrote:

> >>>> Much of it has to do with the
> >>>> fact that Apple assumes that you are buying their hardware to use their
> >>>> operating system. You can use another system, but they tend to make you
> >>>> jump through hoops to do so.
> >>>
> >>> false. apple even provides a utility to install windows, called boot
> >>> camp. they also fully support linux. they don't care what os someone
> >>> uses.
> >>
> >> You're still jumping through hoops since you're installing Windows
> >> within the MacOS operating system rather than going straight to the
> >> BIOS, setting it up to load a USB key containing the ISO and installing
> >> it that way.
> >
> > i'm not jumping and your knowledge of macs is severely lacking.
>
> Because I haven't been convinced to drink the Kool-Aid and buy one. I'm
> tasked with fixing them when they inevitably fail for others and that
> experience is much of the reason why I don't want to buy one for
> myself... the price for what you get adds to that.

there is no kool-aid.

> > first of all, macs have efi, not bios.
>
> I say BIOS out of habit, since that's what it's been since the beginning.

many people do, but it's incorrect.

> > second, windows can easily be installed and booted natively.
>
> Good to know: I wasn't aware that they made it possible.

like i said, your knowledge about macs and apple for that matter, is
severely lacking.

installing other operating systems has always been possible.

in fact, back in the 90s, apple had its own linux distro:
<https://www.mklinux.org>
MkLinux is a project begun by the OSF Research Institute (now
Silicomp RI) and Apple Computer to port Linux, a freely distributed
UNIX-like operating system, to a variety of Power Macintosh platforms
running on top of OSF Research Institute's implementation of the Mach
microkernel.

Andy Burnelli wrote:

> rabidR04CH wrote:
>
>> Microsoft _can_ blacklist a product key. If the product key itself is blocked,
>> you can still install Windows, obviously, but not activate it.
>
> Well, that's what I was afraid of.

Nothing in the licence agreement requires you to login with an MSA, or mentions
an MSA in relation to activation.

<https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Useterms/Retail/Windows/11/Useterms_Retail_Windows_11_English.htm>

Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> You are a very simple Troll. You do not understand the concept of
> IP-addresses.
>
> Everybody should use the TOR-network or VPN.

This is what happens when you use a TOR network or VPN with Apple iCloud.
<https://i.postimg.cc/q75t7MSk/appleid03.jpg> Apple _disables_ your acct!

If Apple can lock you out of your own devices on a mere whim, why can't
Microsoft (now that Microsoft is forcing Apple-like logins on Windows 11)?

Andy Burns wrote:

> Nothing in the licence agreement requires you to login with an MSA, or mentions
> an MSA in relation to activation.
>
> <https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Useterms/Retail/Windows/11/Useterms_Retail_Windows_11_English.htm>

Since you're not an iKook I take you seriously, where the news said that an
Internet account will be required in the future Windows 11 pro (and that
it's required for the current Windows 11 Home).

Can you clarify that assessment with the MSA account you discuss above?
Are they two different things?

Am 22.02.22 um 08:30 schrieb nospam:
> In article <sv1vt4$8dq$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Your Name
> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>
>>> People who log into the iCloud should always do it from their own home.
>>> That way Apple can know it's them and not some criminal logging in.
>
> obvious trolling.
>
>> Most people do not have a static IP address, so there's no actual way
>> to tell if they're "at home" or not.
>
> yes there is. you're incorrectly assuming ip address is the only thing
> to use.

They use other means but they are not in the position to log where you
are if you are not at home. Especially with a VPN or TOR.
And I quite often use my banking login when I travel in Europe using
Wifi or my own phone as gateway. Never ever had an issue.

Even when using it intercontinental from places they have no clue
whether it could be me or not. With 2FA-authenitication this is
absolutely irrelevant to know the IP or other location-based data.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Andy Burnelli wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> Nothing in the licence agreement requires you to login with an MSA, or
>> mentions an MSA in relation to activation.
>>
>> <https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Useterms/Retail/Windows/11/Useterms_Retail_Windows_11_English.htm>
>
> Since you're not an iKook I take you seriously, where the news said that an
> Internet account will be required in the future Windows 11 pro (and that
> it's required for the current Windows 11 Home).

I haven't touched Windows 11 at all, and the version of Pro that's going to
require an MSA doesn't exist yet.

I suspect it will mean an MSA has to exist, but that you can login with a domain
account or a local account, there is no way businesses will accept all users
being forced to login with an MSA.

Then there's the question of how long does the MSA have to exist for? i.e. if
you must have one to install, can it be deleted after activation and never used
again? Windows 10 Pro has got harder to install without creating/using an MSA,
but not impossible, connect it to a dedicated wifi SSID or ethernet cable, which
has no routing to the internet.

> Can you clarify that assessment with the MSA account you discuss above?
> Are they two different things?

I suspect nobody can clarify it until it is implemented, but if they want to
implement it, the licence agreement doesn't appear to have any phrases to back
it up.

On 2022 Feb 22, Your Name wrote
(in article <sv1vt4$8dq$1@gioia.aioe.org>):

> On 2022-02-22 04:53:53 +0000, RJH said:
> > On 21 Feb 2022 at 1:34:28 PM, rabidR04CH<rabid@ro4.ch> wrote:
> > >
> > > If you're suggesting that an institution like a bank should expect a
> > > Canadian IP to be connecting to the bank account of a Canadian, I would
> > > disagree. If you're suggesting that the same institution shouldn't find
> > > it suspicious that the Canadian doing so is connecting from an IP that
> > > is known to be a part of a VPN's pools, I would also disagree.
> >
> > People who log into the iCloud should always do it from their own home.
> > That way Apple can know it's them and not some criminal logging in.
>
> Most people do not have a static IP address,

errr... officially I don’t have a static IP from my ISP. In reality I’ve
had the same IP for years, going back to when I got a replacement
‘modem’/router thing from them. And I’d had the same IP, just a
different one, for years prior to that... which changed because, again, I got
a new ‘modem’. (It’s souped-up DSL, so it’s not really a modem, but
the telco insists on calling it one.) My IP is a standard DHCP IP, but as the
‘modem’ is live 24/7, the DHCP lease keeps getting renewed.
> so there's no actual way
> to tell if they're "at home" or not.

they can check using your wireless. in fact, if you turn 802.11 wireless off,
a warning that there’ll be a problem with location services used to pop up.
depending on your device and OS it might still. the wireless sees other
people’s wireless near you, and sends data to Apple... if you have certain
items turned on. (I don’t.) Apple can tell that you’re probably at home
if it sees the usual suspects.

There’s also GPS settings. If you have an iDevice on the network, it
probably has GPS. If GPS is turned on, it knows where you are... and will
tell other devices on the net, which will tell Apple, if you have certain
settings turned on.
> My connection reports as being
> whichever Vodafone server they decide to connect me to, which can be
> anywhere in the country, and changes from time to time.

Am 22.02.22 um 14:13 schrieb Wolffan:
> On 2022 Feb 22, Your Name wrote
> (in article <sv1vt4$8dq$1@gioia.aioe.org>):
>
>> On 2022-02-22 04:53:53 +0000, RJH said:
>>> On 21 Feb 2022 at 1:34:28 PM, rabidR04CH<rabid@ro4.ch> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If you're suggesting that an institution like a bank should expect a
>>>> Canadian IP to be connecting to the bank account of a Canadian, I would
>>>> disagree. If you're suggesting that the same institution shouldn't find
>>>> it suspicious that the Canadian doing so is connecting from an IP that
>>>> is known to be a part of a VPN's pools, I would also disagree.
>>>
>>> People who log into the iCloud should always do it from their own home.
>>> That way Apple can know it's them and not some criminal logging in.
>>
>> Most people do not have a static IP address,
>
> errr... officially I don’t have a static IP from my ISP. In reality I’ve
> had the same IP for years, going back to when I got a replacement
> ‘modem’/router thing from them. And I’d had the same IP, just a
> different one, for years prior to that... which changed because, again, I got
> a new ‘modem’. (It’s souped-up DSL, so it’s not really a modem, but
> the telco insists on calling it one.) My IP is a standard DHCP IP, but as the
> ‘modem’ is live 24/7, the DHCP lease keeps getting renewed.
>> so there's no actual way
>> to tell if they're "at home" or not.
>
> they can check using your wireless. in fact, if you turn 802.11 wireless off,
> a warning that there’ll be a problem with location services used to pop up.
> depending on your device and OS it might still. the wireless sees other
> people’s wireless near you, and sends data to Apple... if you have certain
> items turned on. (I don’t.) Apple can tell that you’re probably at home
> if it sees the usual suspects.

*ROTFLSTC*

> There’s also GPS settings. If you have an iDevice on the network, it
> probably has GPS. If GPS is turned on, it knows where you are... and will
> tell other devices on the net, which will tell Apple, if you have certain
> settings turned on.

How stupid are people to activate GPS when they do not need it?

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

On 2022-02-21 23:53, RJH wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2022 at 1:34:28 PM, rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> wrote:
>
>> If you're suggesting that an institution like a bank should expect a
>> Canadian IP to be connecting to the bank account of a Canadian, I would
>> disagree. If you're suggesting that the same institution shouldn't find
>> it suspicious that the Canadian doing so is connecting from an IP that
>> is known to be a part of a VPN's pools, I would also disagree.
>
> People who log into the iCloud should always do it from their own home.
> That way Apple can know it's them and not some criminal logging in.

Very unrealistic. If anything, it defeats the purpose of forcing iCloud
on all Apple users and of selling portable machines in general.

--
rabidR04CH
MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3
"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than
men.'" - Acts 5:29
For fans of message boards, I invite you:
https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH

On 2022-02-22 00:27, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> rabidR04CH wrote:
>
>> Well, that sort of goes without saying. On the other hand, you don't
>> buy an M1 Mac to use Windows anyway. However, I imagine that Boot Camp
>> is still around and allows you to install Linux, as pointless as that
>> would be.
>
> I believe only in facts.
>
> Your assumption, I believe is wrong (since Boot Camp doesn't _exist_ for
> the
> newer TSMC-Silicon Macs), but that assumption doesn't matter to my main
> point.
>
> My main point is the iKooks like nospam don't even know their own systems.
> As a result, their claims turn out not only to be baseless, but patently
> wrong.

Actually, nospam does know his system quite well. He doesn't know
Apple's history _as_ well but definitely understands MacOS. Intel-based
Macs most likely run Windows without issue just as he claims so I stand
corrected on that whereas the M1 ones probably don't. I don't, however,
think it's a licensing issue as much as the fact that the ARM edition of
Windows 10/11 is not meant to be used on anything other than Surface
machines. It could, technically, amount to a licensing issue though.

> Either that, or the iKooks brazenly fabricated imaginary functionality.
> Again.
>
> I don't know why the iKooks incessantly brazenly fabricate functionality
> that doesn't exist.

This is not a case of that for sure. Boot Camp does exist and it does
work, I just didn't know how well. If anything, it's quite impressive
what it manages to do considering how poorly Windows itself supports
alternative operating systems.

> I just know that they do.
> All the time.
>
> Why?
> I don't know why.
>
> I suspect either iKooks are too ignorant to know Boot Camp doesn't exist.
> Or, perhaps they know this but they think _we_ are too stupid to realize
> they lied to us.
>
> Either way - those two are the only possible assessments.
> a. They're ignorant, and/or
> b. They lied.
> You tell me why nospam made the completely baseless claims that he made.
>
> Because all I know is he defends Apple to the death, no matter what,
> even to
> the point of brazenly fabricating imaginary functionality that even Apple
> doesn't claim exists.

He definitely does defend the Mac to the death, even when it makes no
sense to do so. You have to be a serious zealot to think that a 128KB or
512KB Mac with a palette of exactly two colours, no serious sound
capabilities, no ability to multitask, a complete absence of expansion
and a tiny monitor which can't be replaced is somehow going to compete
with a computer that features a palette of 4096 colours with 32
simultaneous, 4-channel sound, expandability, the ability to be used on
a TV or a monitor of a user's choosing and pre-emptive multitasking. You
lose *ALL credibility when you make such statements.

--
rabidR04CH
MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3
"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than
men.'" - Acts 5:29
For fans of message boards, I invite you:
https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH

On 2022-02-22 00:44, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> rabidR04CH wrote:
>
>>> How does Boot Camp work on the latest M1 TSMC-Silicon Apple CPUs,
>>> nospam?
>>
>> Good question. Virtualization would be the obvious requirement this
>> time around.
>
> Hi rabidroach,
>
> It was a rhetorical question for nospam because I knew he was either
> completely ignorant or that he was lying to you the whole time.
>
> I am highly educated so these strange iKooks interest me because I never
> met
> anyone in the flesh like them in all my decades at Silicon Valley startups.
>
> What I've learned is that they get their self worth from Apple marketing
> cues, which means that any fact that they don't like, they _hate_, because
> it detracts from their self worth.
>
> They even gloat that Apple has earned huge amounts of money off of them,
> where the obvious fact glares out you can't make that kind of profit off of
> an intelligent user base, now can you.
>
> They deny that Apple has the lowest R&D expenditures in all of high tech,
> even as Apple doesn't deny that fact (it goes way back to Steve Jobs'
> days).
>
> They deny that the iPhone is crippled in that they fabricate endless mising
> functionality that, in the end, I believe they lie to protect their self
> image.

It should be noted that retrieving data from an iPhone is rather
difficult in comparison to an Android device. With an Android, you
merely have to connect to it with a cable whereas the iPhone basically
blocks you from even downloading your own music in the event of a
failure of some sort. That's a serious advantage for Android devices.
I'm sure he'll rebut by claiming "security" is at the heart of Apple's
decision but that would be a lie as DRM is the real one. In fact,
iPhones can't even be synced to from software other than iTunes anymore
since Apple needs to constantly verify that you are legally entitled to
the music you already downloaded.

> Since I've never met anyone in the flesh like them (they couldn't pass even
> a basic college class being wrong most of the time for example), I study
> them.
>
> 1. All of them, to a man, lack formal education (of this there is no doubt)
> 2. All of them, to a man, get their self worth from Apple advertising
> 3. All of them, to a man, will defend everything Apple does - to the death
>
> All that is fine because a lot of people are ignorant who fall for
> marketing
> tricks such as "Apple Silicon" (it's TSMC-Silicon) where at least Intel
> makes the chip and the silicon for "Intel Inside" even as you _never_ hear
> Windows people gloating about "Intel Inside" advertising slogans.
>
> And yet, these iKooks gloat over "TSMC-Inside" slogans from Apple?
> What on earth is so _different_ about these iKooks?
>
> I think it's simply they're ignorant.
> Which is why I asked nospam the rhetorical question about Boot Camp.
>
> I knew what he either doesn't know, or he knew, and lied.
> Either way, he was assuming _you_ were too stupid to catch it.
>
> I am not.
> Hence, they _hate_ me.
>
> And that's OK.

I don't personally mind being hated by people. In fact, I used to thrive
on it because facts mean a lot more to me than anyone's feelings.

However, I will definitely defend nospam's knowledge of the Mac. His
zealotry is annoying but he is rather educational.

--
rabidR04CH
MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3
"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than
men.'" - Acts 5:29
For fans of message boards, I invite you:
https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH

On 2022-02-22 00:56, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> rabidR04CH wrote:
>
>> Well, how ridiculously wrong he was about the original Macintosh and
>> the Apple IIgs suggests that he's a propagandist rather than any kind
>> of technical user. However, I don't mind giving him the benefit of the
>> doubt in some respects.
>
> Rest assured I casually allowed nospam's outlandish claims about "Boot
> Camp"
> to go unchallenged for the first few of his posts, but he repeated his
> false/fabricated claims so many times I felt I had to call him out for it.
>
> The part you need to probably realize is there are only two possibilities:
> 1. He knew what I know, or, 2. He didn't.
>
> If he didn't know, then he's completely ignorant about what he claims.
> Yet, if he did know, it's even worse.
> *If he knew, he was lying to you.*
>
> You can pick which is worse, but it's what _defines_ the iKooks overall.
> a. They have no education whatsoever, and, b. They lie to protect their
> self image (which comes from Apple ads)
>
> When someone is so wrong, I take it as them being stupid.
> However... when someone lies to _me_ I take it as an insult.
> *They think we are too stupid to catch their lies*.
>
> And yet, we are highly educated and we've been in Silicon Valley startups
> for decades, where you can't survive a day being as wrong as the iKooks
> are.
>
> My point is that there are only two possibilities given how many times
> nospam made his broad claims which I knew to be wrong each time he did.
>
> 1. Either nospam was ignorant of what he claims, or, 2. nospam thought
> _you_ were too ignorant to catch his lies.
>
> Pick one.

I believe it's closer to 2. He probably knows that I am mostly only
aware of Windows and Linux and therefore felt free to make some claims
without fear of being challenged. I might not be using a Mac at the
moment (this might change if my desire to play games dies) but I am
quite acquainted with the operating system in general and their history.

--
rabidR04CH
MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3
"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than
men.'" - Acts 5:29
For fans of message boards, I invite you:
https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH

On 2022-02-22 02:30, nospam wrote:
> In article <oIXQJ.14201$Icha.703@fx11.iad>, rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, that sort of goes without saying. On the other hand, you don't buy
>> an M1 Mac to use Windows anyway.
>
> microsoft does not license windows on arm for apple silicon macs (aka
> arm), and without official support, boot camp has no purpose.
>
> should microsoft change that decision, then boot camp is likely to come
> back, with full support from microsoft.
>
> there are rumours it might, but until then, there's nothing apple can
> do, as it's entirely out of their control.

To a degree, I imagine that Microsoft knows that if people can run
Windows on their Macs in such a convenient way, there would be no real
reason to get a Windows-based computer anymore. It is likely a strategic
move on their part.

>> However, I imagine that Boot Camp is
>> still around and allows you to install Linux, as pointless as that would be.
>
> you imagine incorrectly.
>
> boot camp is just for windows. it carves out a partition, formats it
> ntfs, installs windows, downloads additional drivers and marks it as
> bootable.
>
> linux can be installed directly. however, since mac os is based on
> unix, there is little reason to do so, as just about all linux software
> will run natively in mac os, nearly all of which has been ported. on
> some macs, secure boot needs to be disabled, which is not a big deal.
>
> for those who do want to use linux, spinning up a linux vm is much
> easier, far more practical and also fully supported.

Good to know.

--
rabidR04CH
MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3
"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than
men.'" - Acts 5:29
For fans of message boards, I invite you:
https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH

Am 22.02.22 um 15:19 schrieb rabidR04CH:
> --
> rabidR04CH
> MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3
> "But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than
> men.'" - Acts 5:29
> For fans of message boards, I invite you:
> https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH

Opposing all RFCs and bigot to the extreme.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

On 2022-02-22 02:30, nospam wrote:
> In article <rJXQJ.14202$Icha.7940@fx11.iad>, rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch>
> wrote:
>
>> Well, how ridiculously wrong he was about the original Macintosh and the
>> Apple IIgs suggests that he's a propagandist rather than any kind of
>> technical user.
>
> oh, it's very definitely not wrong.
>
> your animosity towards apple won't let you accept that your beliefs
> might be incorrect, and not just with this either.

It's _definitely_ wrong and provably so.

People with influence who do their research before speaking state the
same thing as I do whereas you alone make the claims that you do.
Additionally, every one of your claims is designed to make Apple look
brilliant and virtuous whereas the experts treat Apple objectivity,
congratulating them for good moves and highlighting the errors.

I simply don't believe much of what you say because it is clearly
propaganda and is in direct opposition to much more credible people.

--
rabidR04CH
MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3
"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than
men.'" - Acts 5:29
For fans of message boards, I invite you:
https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH

On 2022-02-22 02:30, nospam wrote:
> In article <9OQQJ.42752$Mpg8.1475@fx34.iad>, rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch>
> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Much of it has to do with the
>>>>>> fact that Apple assumes that you are buying their hardware to use their
>>>>>> operating system. You can use another system, but they tend to make you
>>>>>> jump through hoops to do so.
>>>>>
>>>>> false. apple even provides a utility to install windows, called boot
>>>>> camp. they also fully support linux. they don't care what os someone
>>>>> uses.
>>>>
>>>> You're still jumping through hoops since you're installing Windows
>>>> within the MacOS operating system rather than going straight to the
>>>> BIOS, setting it up to load a USB key containing the ISO and installing
>>>> it that way.
>>>
>>> i'm not jumping and your knowledge of macs is severely lacking.
>>
>> Because I haven't been convinced to drink the Kool-Aid and buy one. I'm
>> tasked with fixing them when they inevitably fail for others and that
>> experience is much of the reason why I don't want to buy one for
>> myself... the price for what you get adds to that.
>
> there is no kool-aid.

Not anymore: you drank it all.

>>> first of all, macs have efi, not bios.
>>
>> I say BIOS out of habit, since that's what it's been since the beginning.
>
> many people do, but it's incorrect.

It is, but everyone who doesn't have a stick up their ass like you do
would have understood and not made a fuss.

< snip >

--
rabidR04CH
MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3
"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than
men.'" - Acts 5:29
For fans of message boards, I invite you:
https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH

On 2022-02-22 03:02, Andy Burns wrote:
> Andy Burnelli wrote:
>
>> rabidR04CH wrote:
>>
>>> Microsoft _can_ blacklist a product key. If the product key itself is
>>> blocked, you can still install Windows, obviously, but not activate it.
>>
>> Well, that's what I was afraid of.
>
> Nothing in the licence agreement requires you to login with an MSA, or
> mentions an MSA in relation to activation.
>
> <https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Useterms/Retail/Windows/11/Useterms_Retail_Windows_11_English.htm>

Good to know. They do, however, make it rather difficult to even install
the operating system without one.

--
rabidR04CH
MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3
"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than
men.'" - Acts 5:29
For fans of message boards, I invite you:
https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH

On 2022-02-21 11:32 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>> microsoft refuses to license windows on arm for apple silicon macs, and
>> without that, apple *can't* offer boot camp support.
>
> Heh heh heh... Nobody intelligent falls for your tricks.
>
> You think I don't know every one of your sleazy tricks, nospam?
> a. Either you were completely ignorant in your claims, or, b. You
> brazenly fabricated functionality which you knew doesn't exist.
>   (Pick one)
>
> Don't call me a genius for figuring out you were ignorant or that you lied
> to the Windows ng people because I can predict you years in advance nospam.
>
> You're no harder to predict than a kindergarten kid who _thinks_ his
> parents
> believe his lies when he has chocolate all over his face and the freezer is
> missing the chocolate ice cream.
>
> You will defend Apple at all costs, and to the death, even to the point of
> brazenly fabricating purely imaginary functionality that even Apple doesn't
> claim exists.
>
> It's what you do.
>

Yup, Apple says 'Shit' and nospam says 'How much'

Rene

On 2022-02-22 10:23, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 22.02.22 um 15:19 schrieb rabidR04CH:
>> --
>> rabidR04CH
>> MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3
>> "But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than
>> men.'" - Acts 5:29
>> For fans of message boards, I invite you:
>> https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH
>
> Opposing all RFCs and bigot to the extreme.

You're free to do so but it is now clear with Justin Trudeau and Joe
Biden's action that the left, your side, is the authoritarian one which
seeks to bring in fascism.

--
rabidR04CH
MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3
"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than
men.'" - Acts 5:29
For fans of message boards, I invite you:
https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH

On 2022-02-22 10:37, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
> On 2022-02-21 11:32 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> nospam wrote:
>>
>>> microsoft refuses to license windows on arm for apple silicon macs, and
>>> without that, apple *can't* offer boot camp support.
>>
>> Heh heh heh... Nobody intelligent falls for your tricks.
>>
>> You think I don't know every one of your sleazy tricks, nospam?
>> a. Either you were completely ignorant in your claims, or, b. You
>> brazenly fabricated functionality which you knew doesn't exist.
>>    (Pick one)
>>
>> Don't call me a genius for figuring out you were ignorant or that you
>> lied
>> to the Windows ng people because I can predict you years in advance
>> nospam.
>>
>> You're no harder to predict than a kindergarten kid who _thinks_ his
>> parents
>> believe his lies when he has chocolate all over his face and the
>> freezer is
>> missing the chocolate ice cream.
>>
>> You will defend Apple at all costs, and to the death, even to the
>> point of
>> brazenly fabricating purely imaginary functionality that even Apple
>> doesn't
>> claim exists.
>>
>> It's what you do.
>>
>
> Yup, Apple says 'Shit' and nospam says 'How much'

Honestly, that doesn't even seem to be an exaggeration based on his posts.

--
rabidR04CH
MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3
"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than
men.'" - Acts 5:29
For fans of message boards, I invite you:
https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH

In article <sv2o06$vp2$1@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
wrote:

>
> How stupid are people to activate GPS when they do not need it?

if an app requests location with a precision that needs gps, then the
gps is activated to obtain it (assuming the user granted permission for
location services). if less precision is needed, other methods will be
used.

In article <F07RJ.84949$Gojc.83658@fx99.iad>, rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch>
wrote:

> Actually, nospam does know his system quite well. He doesn't know
> Apple's history _as_ well but definitely understands MacOS.

i know apple history quite well, having been immersed in it for years.
mac is a large portion of it, but it also other products, including
iphone, newton, apple ii, lisa and less well known products.

> Intel-based
> Macs most likely run Windows without issue just as he claims so I stand
> corrected on that whereas the M1 ones probably don't. I don't, however,
> think it's a licensing issue as much as the fact that the ARM edition of
> Windows 10/11 is not meant to be used on anything other than Surface
> machines. It could, technically, amount to a licensing issue though.

it's a licensing issue.

microsoft has an exclusive with qualcomm, which prevents them from
licensing it to others until that expires.

<https://www.xda-developers.com/qualcomm-exclusivity-deal-microsoft-wind
ows-on-arm/>

it's possible to get around that but it's considered an 'unsupported
configuration'.

there's a good chance microsoft will choose to license it for apple
silicon macs when they can, but that is not guaranteed. they're
certainly not saying anything one way or the other.

>
> He definitely does defend the Mac to the death, even when it makes no
> sense to do so. You have to be a serious zealot to think that a 128KB or
> 512KB Mac with a palette of exactly two colours, no serious sound
> capabilities, no ability to multitask, a complete absence of expansion
> and a tiny monitor which can't be replaced

things were different in 1984 when the 128k mac was released. memory
was not cheap and they were already having difficulties meeting their
price point with 128k, let alone 512k.

the sound capabilities were quite good for the time, multitasking was
possible on a 512k, there were numerous third party expansion options
and the entire package was intended to be portable. some of the ads
showed people on bicycles with a mac in its carrying case, strapped to
the bike.

apple later added everything you listed as missing, including 6 nubus
slots on the mac ii, which could also run apple's version of unix,
known as a/ux, all in the late 1980s.

<http://toastytech.com/guis/auxguimix.png>
<https://wiki.preterhuman.net/images/3/35/Picture-5.jpg>

> is somehow going to compete
> with a computer that features a palette of 4096 colours with 32
> simultaneous, 4-channel sound, expandability, the ability to be used on
> a TV or a monitor of a user's choosing and pre-emptive multitasking. You
> lose *ALL credibility when you make such statements.

as you say, you lose all credibility when you make such statements.

not only did the mac compete, but it won, at least against the amiga
and atari. it managed to survive against windows, despite major
obstacles.

there was a *lot* of software and hardware for the mac, and almost
nothing for amiga and atari.

you're very fixated on raw specs and not what can actually be done with
a computer. kinda like the saying, it's not what you have but how you
use it.

In article <K67RJ.72876$iK66.13377@fx46.iad>, rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch>
wrote:

>
> It should be noted that retrieving data from an iPhone is rather
> difficult in comparison to an Android device.

it's only difficult for those without the passcode, which is a feature.

for legitimate owners, who *do* have their passcode, it's very easy to
transfer content to and from an ios device, in any of a variety of
ways.

> With an Android, you
> merely have to connect to it with a cable whereas the iPhone basically
> blocks you from even downloading your own music in the event of a
> failure of some sort.

that is false.

> That's a serious advantage for Android devices.
> I'm sure he'll rebut by claiming "security" is at the heart of Apple's
> decision but that would be a lie as DRM is the real one.

there is *no* drm for music that's purchased from the itunes music
store, another music store (e.g., amazon) or from the user's own
library.

only music from a streaming service, such as apple music or spotify,
has drm, because that's what streaming services do. otherwise, people
would sign up for a month and download everything they possibly could
and then cancel. you're paying for *access*.

for drm-free versions, buy it from whatever music store you want,
whether it's online or one of the remaining physical stores. or even
pirate it. apple doesn't care.

> In fact,
> iPhones can't even be synced to from software other than iTunes anymore
> since Apple needs to constantly verify that you are legally entitled to
> the music you already downloaded.

that too is false.

apple doesn't care if the music is pirated and they have no way to even
determine that anyway.

In article <Hc7RJ.8935$3Pje.5688@fx09.iad>, rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch>
wrote:

> >>
> >> Well, that sort of goes without saying. On the other hand, you don't buy
> >> an M1 Mac to use Windows anyway.
> >
> > microsoft does not license windows on arm for apple silicon macs (aka
> > arm), and without official support, boot camp has no purpose.
> >
> > should microsoft change that decision, then boot camp is likely to come
> > back, with full support from microsoft.
> >
> > there are rumours it might, but until then, there's nothing apple can
> > do, as it's entirely out of their control.
>
> To a degree, I imagine that Microsoft knows that if people can run
> Windows on their Macs in such a convenient way, there would be no real
> reason to get a Windows-based computer anymore. It is likely a strategic
> move on their part.

again, you imagine incorrectly.

microsoft is more than happy to sell a windows license to anyone who
wants to buy one, for use on whatever computer they want, whether it's
a dell, lenovo, mac, a virtual machine, a home built system or whatever
else.

the issue is that microsoft has an exclusive with qualcomm:

<https://www.xda-developers.com/qualcomm-exclusivity-deal-microsoft-wind
ows-on-arm/>

what they do after that expires is anyone's guess.