Apple's products used to be items to be lusted over because of their looks alone.
So, what's wrong with the looks of their products? I have a PPC Mac Mini, and I still think that the design is excellent. I have seen PowerMacs in stores, and I think that they look absolutely gorgerous. Why should the change them? For the sake of changing them? Apple has kept the design of the machine more or less identical, but what they have done is to address the functional shortcomings. What was the #1 complaint about the PowerMac? The fact that you could only add two internal HD's. They fixed that. What was the #1 complaint about the Mac Mini? Well, it depends, but it's one of these: Lack of USB-ports, lack of Core Image or lack of gigabit ethernet. They fixed all those issues.
Again: They have fixed the functional issues, while keeping the design the same. Why should they change the design, since the design is already great? They do no look old, they still look a lot better than other machines that are available out there.
I for one think that it's better for Apple to spend their time in fixing real issues people have with their designs (like the lack of internal HD-space in PowerMac), instead of changing things for the sake of changing them.
well, he is a smart man. he could do something else than write about something that drives him up the walls. he could write about os'es in general, instead of just one os. he does not have to write about windows, let alone use it.
would you like to spend your time about how it feels to be constantly punched in the face?
OK, OK, so it's still in beta. But it seems to me that he is having problems with Windows that are not solely restricted to Vista. Why does he then put up with it? Why not simply say "Enough!", and try Linux or Mac instead? Surely the alternatives couldn't be any worse? Is it simply because he earns money by writing about Windows, so he HAS to put up with it, so he could pay the bills?
I believe that Inspiron is more or less consumer-laptop. If you want to compare a Dell-laptop, you should be using Precision or Latitude-laptops. Here's such a comparison:
Dell Latitude D820 with following upgrades:
2Ghz Core Duo 1GB RAM 256MB Intel Quadro NVS 80GB HD DVD+/-RW Bluetooth
Total price: $1823
MacBook Pro with 1GB of RAM costs $2099. So it's about $270 more expensive. For that money you get all-aluminium construction (as opposed to plastic), backlit-keyboard, OS X, A LOT nicer overall design (everyone lusts after MacBooks Pro's/PowerBooks, no-one lusts after a Dell), slot-loading optical drive. MBP also has optical audio in and out and FireWire, I don't know about the Dell.
I honestly don't think that the Apple is THAT expensive.
Keep talking retard. I find your whining to be quite amusing:). You seem to be living in a reality distortion field of your own.
CPU is there if you want:
oh yes, another Freescale-CPU.... Every time Freescale seems to come up with some marvellous CPU, only to be outperformed by x86. Happened every time. And are those dual-core CPU's even available yet? Intel is moving fast to quad-core CPU's already.
G5 (ppc970) is lower end model of Power5 processor arch. If we are speaking about workstations having huge power, there if you can afford:
And if you can afford, you could get a x86-workstation with 16 cores. Who cares what hi-end POWER-CPU's are like, since Apple wouldn't use them in the first place? What matters are the CPU's Apple would use.
on't make fun of yourself comparing it to your precious "Dell Workstations".
I'm comparing the Dell to the PowerMac you fucking moron, not some IBM workstation. Dell is the company Apple is constantly comparing their products to.
First learn what CATIA V5 is.
A software-suite. What this has to with workstations is beyond me. Or do you think that only machines that run CATIA are workstations, and rest are not? And besides, CATIA runs on x86 and Windows, so it would run on that Dell just fine. Funny thing is, it doesn't seem to run on OS X. Again: What were you saying again?
So? Opterons had 800Mhz bus with integrated mem-controllers. And since when did we start to talk about the past? Or is it nicer for you to live in the past, back when G5 was good, instead of being aerely "OK-ish"? If you want to talk about the past: In 2002 P4 had 533Mhz bus, whereas G4 was still stuck at 166Mhz. Or are you now going to say "but that does not count!"?
Macbook "pro"'s have heat problems. Wonder why?
Design-errors on Apple's part, since other laptop-manufacturers seem to have no issues with Core Duo's. I wonder what kind of heat-problems they would be having if they tried to cram that "superior" G5 in there....
You used "Dell" and "Workstation" at same paragraph, I decided to ignore you.
Be my guest. Fact is that quad-core machine with up to 64 gigs of RAM is a workstation. And Dell DOES sell workstations. Just like Apple sells hi-end workstations, and low-end consumers-machines. But hey: I guess it's just easier for you to ignore me, than face the fact that you REALLY have no idea what you are talking about. Enjoy your ignorance.
Keep playing with your hacked OS X OK Intel fanboy?
I have OS X running on genuine Mac Mini with 1.25GHz G4. I also have a PC-tower with Athlon64 (running Linux), which I don't use that much. I have no Intel-hardware.
You seem to be having some serious problems admitting the fact that PPC (G4 and G5) was getting it's ass whipped by x86. G5 was "competetive", but that's it, and it was completely unsuitable for laptops. G4's did fit nicely in a laptop but they were simply performance-limited (they just didn't scale high enough), and they were using that 166Mhz retard-bus, whereas x86-CPU's were on buses that were about four times as fast, if not faster. Admitting your ignorance is the first step on your road towards enlightenment. But I'm not holding my breath as far as you are concerned.
Bus Speed: 1.25 GHz. You will get a clue if you compare FSB levels.
Woodcrest has 1.33GHz FSB. And it has very advanced memory prefech-system, reducing the load of mem-access on the FSB. And it has twice as much L2-cache than G5 does, further reducing the load of the FSB. So what were you saying again? "But G5 is RISC!"
and it reaches 16GB Max RAM in my model.
Dell has announced workstations that use Woodcrest. And those workstations can have 64GB of RAM. So what were you saying again? Last time I checked, 64GB is A LOT more than 16GB is. "But but.... G5 is RISC!". Heh, dream on RISC-boy.
When Intel does something like that, keep dreaming it will fit to a laptop box.
Whereas with PPC you could have it in a laptop? Again: Where is that G5 PowerBook? Want to compare "FSB levels" of those laptop-CPU's? I believe that with Intel you can have 667Mhz FSB, whereas those kick-ass PPC's were stuck at blazingly-fast 166Mhz FSB.... Oh yes, those PPC's sure do kick ass!
I think that by now, it's pretty safe to say that you are a fucking moron who has zero clue what he's talking about. I bet that you are about to throw your CV at me any minute now. But you CV does not change the fact that you are a retard.
Apple does not announce professional workstation line because there is NOTHING from x86 (Intel) to have Quad G5 specs right now.
Nope, they have BETTER specs. Woodcrest reaches higher Mhz, it has twice times as much L2-cache, it uses faster RAM, they run cooler (where is that G5 PowerBook?).... When Apple releases Quad MacPro, it will completely and totally whip the G5 Quad.
You call a 64 bit, RISC processor having vector processing unit several year old design... When will Intel reach Altivec specs? SSE3?
Altivec was better at some things (IIRC, 128bit floating point) whereas, SSE is better in others (like 64bit FP). Core Duo 2 and Woodcrest reach and handidly beat Altivec. The vector-units are seriously beefed up, allowing them to do 128bit floating-point in single clock-cycle instead of two (I believe that was the last major benefit Altivec had over SSE).
I find it funny that we still have people telling us about the "superiority" of PPC, when in REALITY PPC was getting it's arse kicked by Intel and AMD in real-life apps. It's like that line in "Hackers". "Oh yeah, RISC is good....". Keep deluding yourself, RISC-boy.
Apple kinda gave up the computer business, they offer stylish Intel whiteboxes with some stylish OS to keep the "computer company" image. You really want the truth? Quad G5 is the LAST true Macintosh coming from Apple.
So, because they switched CPU's, Apple is no longer a computer company? Are you saying that Mac Mini was a "True Macintosh", but the Intel-Mini was not, even though it ran the exact same OS and apps and it even looked the same? Sae thing with iMac? Is THAT what defines that what is a computer and what is not? The CPU? Suppose that I replace this 1.25GHz G4 Mac Mini with one of those Core Duo Mac Mini's. What would I be using then? According to you, it wouldn't be a computer.
So, you are suggesting that Apple will be using a CPU meant for enthusiasts and gamers in their hi-end WORKSTATION? Especially when we consider the fact that Dell has alrady announced workstations that have dual-Woodcrests in 'em? Isn't that a bit.... stupid?
Apple might release a MacPro Mini (for example), that is a minitower that uses Conroe. Or maybe they put Conroe in the iMac (atlhough Merom would be the logical choice) But the real MacPro will have Woodcrests in 'em.
It seems to me that Apple might as well hold off on releasing the Pro line until CS3
Why? Seriously, why? How would it help those CS3-users if Apple did not release new Pro desktops with Intel chips? The only benefit for them is that they wouldn't have to look at those brand-new desktops with envy and think "Damn, I wish I could buy that....". But is that a good enough reason to NOT roll out new products? I don't think so. And it's not like Steve Jobs is going to sneak in to the Adobe-houses (no pun intended) and replace those G5-PowerMacs with Macintels. They could keep on using their G5's for years to come. And there are LOTS of pro's who want new Intel-machines, and the do not need CS3. Why should they be screwed because there are some Photoshop-users who insist that Apple should not upgrade their products untill almighty Photoshop is universal?
It's starting to get annoying when every discussion about Apple has that age-old question in it: "What about Photoshop?". Well, what about it? Fuck Photoshop. Instead of whining to Apple, Photoshop-users should be whining to Adobe.
Microsoft continues to gain share in the web server market, chipping away at Apache's commanding lead
Oh yes, MS gained 4.25% by paying registars to move unused parked domains to IIS. So the current market-share for IIS is 29.71%, whereas Apache has 61.25%. If that means that IIS is "beating" Apache, then Firefox is eating IE alive, since it's gaining market-share from IE fast. Strange thing that you weren't telling us THAT little fact.
Windows narrowly bumped Unix in 2005 to claim the top spot in server sales for the first time
And how exactly does that prove that Windows is growing faster than Linux is?
Apparently you stopped reading when my critical remark made your head explode. I clearly described how open source has a role in animation workflows.
Open source in various different forms is widely used in CGI. That is a fact. And if no-one takes open source seriously, why did Disny insist on running Photoshop on open source OS? Clearly they do take open source seriously, even though the actual app might be closed.
And you quite clearly said that "nobody takes open source seriously". Well, since we already have a film (Elephants Dream) that is made with open source tools, I think that it's safe to say that your claim is BS.
Dude, what the hell is "outsourcing community"? I mean, we have Mac-communities, that have people who use Macs. We have Linux-communities, where people use Linux. We have things like gay and lesbian-communities, where people are of certain sexual orientation. Then what is "outsourcing community"? A group of people who... outsource?
This is a big reason why nobody takes open source seriously
I call BS on that. LOTS of companies (and individuals) take open source very, very seriously. Industrial Light & Magic uses open source tools, WETA Digital uses open source tools. Hell, Disney spoonsred the WINE-project to get Photoshop to run on Linux through WINE, so they obviously take open source very seriously, why else would they want to run Photoshop on Linux, instead of Windows or Mac?. And then we have those zillion non-CGI related companies that use open source for various tasks. About 70% of the top 500 supercomputers run on Linux! And here you are saying that NOBODY takes open source seriously? Hell, it's quite obvious that even Microsoft takes open source seriously!
Seriously: Are you a retard or something? Do you have ANY idea what you are talking about?
"Apple released the DiskII in 1978, three years before IBM started making PCs. "
But their computer didn't ship with one. Therefore you can't claim that "Apple was first to ship PC with a floppy-drive", since it didn't ship with a floppy, it was an add-on product. If we talk of add-on products, then I feel compelled to remind you that IBM was making floppy-drives back in the sixties.
"The Apple ][ had color graphics in 1977."
I don't see a color-screen in the picture you linked to.
IBM PC shipped with a floppy before Apple shipped theirs. First PC to use 3.5" floppies was HP-150.
"Release a PC with a color display"
Wasn't Mac II the first Mac to ship with a color display? Mac II was introduced in 1987, long after computer with color had been available (Amiga 1000 for example.).
"It's one of those loaded terms that you can't throw around, unless of course your black"
Yes, it's a loaded term, but it's also a real phrase. It's not my fault that the phrase has racist roots to it, fact remains that it's a real, honest-to-god phrase that is used to descibe the lifestyle.
"The point is, would specifying a stable kernel ABI *stop* it from changing "FOR THE BETTER" ? Everyone else manages to do it, why can't Linux ?"
Because stable ABI for binary-drivers is not in the best interest of Linux? Linux-developers want the drivers to become part of the kernel, where they can be properly troubleshot. If they provide a stable ABI, companies will just use binary-drivers, and no-one (except the manufacturer) has any means of troubleshooting the problems the drver might be causing. The biggest reason for instabilities and crashes in Windows is the drivers. If linux had a stable ABI, we would have that problem in Linux as well.
Read what Greg Kroah-Hartman has to say about it: Link. this also touches on the subject.
I fail to see how my comment is "flamebait". The phrase I mentioned is real and it describes the lifestyle (using money to buy useless luxuries instead of real assets) perfectly.
"Web Bangers are posting potentially incriminating photos and taunts on their websites."
You don't frighten us, Crips pig-dogs! Go and boil your bottom, sons of a silly person. I don't wanna talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries! Now, go away, or I shall taunt you a second time-a!
Slashdot Mirror
So, what's wrong with the looks of their products? I have a PPC Mac Mini, and I still think that the design is excellent. I have seen PowerMacs in stores, and I think that they look absolutely gorgerous. Why should the change them? For the sake of changing them? Apple has kept the design of the machine more or less identical, but what they have done is to address the functional shortcomings. What was the #1 complaint about the PowerMac? The fact that you could only add two internal HD's. They fixed that. What was the #1 complaint about the Mac Mini? Well, it depends, but it's one of these: Lack of USB-ports, lack of Core Image or lack of gigabit ethernet. They fixed all those issues.
Again: They have fixed the functional issues, while keeping the design the same. Why should they change the design, since the design is already great? They do no look old, they still look a lot better than other machines that are available out there.
I for one think that it's better for Apple to spend their time in fixing real issues people have with their designs (like the lack of internal HD-space in PowerMac), instead of changing things for the sake of changing them.
IIRC, because there are no Xeon-chipsets that support it.
well, he is a smart man. he could do something else than write about something that drives him up the walls. he could write about os'es in general, instead of just one os. he does not have to write about windows, let alone use it.
would you like to spend your time about how it feels to be constantly punched in the face?
OK, OK, so it's still in beta. But it seems to me that he is having problems with Windows that are not solely restricted to Vista. Why does he then put up with it? Why not simply say "Enough!", and try Linux or Mac instead? Surely the alternatives couldn't be any worse? Is it simply because he earns money by writing about Windows, so he HAS to put up with it, so he could pay the bills?
I believe that Inspiron is more or less consumer-laptop. If you want to compare a Dell-laptop, you should be using Precision or Latitude-laptops. Here's such a comparison:
Dell Latitude D820 with following upgrades:
2Ghz Core Duo
1GB RAM
256MB Intel Quadro NVS
80GB HD
DVD+/-RW
Bluetooth
Total price: $1823
MacBook Pro with 1GB of RAM costs $2099. So it's about $270 more expensive. For that money you get all-aluminium construction (as opposed to plastic), backlit-keyboard, OS X, A LOT nicer overall design (everyone lusts after MacBooks Pro's/PowerBooks, no-one lusts after a Dell), slot-loading optical drive. MBP also has optical audio in and out and FireWire, I don't know about the Dell.
I honestly don't think that the Apple is THAT expensive.
oh yes, another Freescale-CPU.... Every time Freescale seems to come up with some marvellous CPU, only to be outperformed by x86. Happened every time. And are those dual-core CPU's even available yet? Intel is moving fast to quad-core CPU's already.
And if you can afford, you could get a x86-workstation with 16 cores. Who cares what hi-end POWER-CPU's are like, since Apple wouldn't use them in the first place? What matters are the CPU's Apple would use.
I'm comparing the Dell to the PowerMac you fucking moron, not some IBM workstation. Dell is the company Apple is constantly comparing their products to.
A software-suite. What this has to with workstations is beyond me. Or do you think that only machines that run CATIA are workstations, and rest are not? And besides, CATIA runs on x86 and Windows, so it would run on that Dell just fine. Funny thing is, it doesn't seem to run on OS X. Again: What were you saying again?
So? Opterons had 800Mhz bus with integrated mem-controllers. And since when did we start to talk about the past? Or is it nicer for you to live in the past, back when G5 was good, instead of being aerely "OK-ish"? If you want to talk about the past: In 2002 P4 had 533Mhz bus, whereas G4 was still stuck at 166Mhz. Or are you now going to say "but that does not count!"?
Design-errors on Apple's part, since other laptop-manufacturers seem to have no issues with Core Duo's. I wonder what kind of heat-problems they would be having if they tried to cram that "superior" G5 in there....
Be my guest. Fact is that quad-core machine with up to 64 gigs of RAM is a workstation. And Dell DOES sell workstations. Just like Apple sells hi-end workstations, and low-end consumers-machines. But hey: I guess it's just easier for you to ignore me, than face the fact that you REALLY have no idea what you are talking about. Enjoy your ignorance.
I have OS X running on genuine Mac Mini with 1.25GHz G4. I also have a PC-tower with Athlon64 (running Linux), which I don't use that much. I have no Intel-hardware.
You seem to be having some serious problems admitting the fact that PPC (G4 and G5) was getting it's ass whipped by x86. G5 was "competetive", but that's it, and it was completely unsuitable for laptops. G4's did fit nicely in a laptop but they were simply performance-limited (they just didn't scale high enough), and they were using that 166Mhz retard-bus, whereas x86-CPU's were on buses that were about four times as fast, if not faster. Admitting your ignorance is the first step on your road towards enlightenment. But I'm not holding my breath as far as you are concerned.
Woodcrest has 1.33GHz FSB. And it has very advanced memory prefech-system, reducing the load of mem-access on the FSB. And it has twice as much L2-cache than G5 does, further reducing the load of the FSB. So what were you saying again? "But G5 is RISC!"
Dell has announced workstations that use Woodcrest. And those workstations can have 64GB of RAM. So what were you saying again? Last time I checked, 64GB is A LOT more than 16GB is. "But but.... G5 is RISC!". Heh, dream on RISC-boy.
Whereas with PPC you could have it in a laptop? Again: Where is that G5 PowerBook? Want to compare "FSB levels" of those laptop-CPU's? I believe that with Intel you can have 667Mhz FSB, whereas those kick-ass PPC's were stuck at blazingly-fast 166Mhz FSB.... Oh yes, those PPC's sure do kick ass!
I think that by now, it's pretty safe to say that you are a fucking moron who has zero clue what he's talking about. I bet that you are about to throw your CV at me any minute now. But you CV does not change the fact that you are a retard.
Nope, they have BETTER specs. Woodcrest reaches higher Mhz, it has twice times as much L2-cache, it uses faster RAM, they run cooler (where is that G5 PowerBook?).... When Apple releases Quad MacPro, it will completely and totally whip the G5 Quad.
Altivec was better at some things (IIRC, 128bit floating point) whereas, SSE is better in others (like 64bit FP). Core Duo 2 and Woodcrest reach and handidly beat Altivec. The vector-units are seriously beefed up, allowing them to do 128bit floating-point in single clock-cycle instead of two (I believe that was the last major benefit Altivec had over SSE).
I find it funny that we still have people telling us about the "superiority" of PPC, when in REALITY PPC was getting it's arse kicked by Intel and AMD in real-life apps. It's like that line in "Hackers". "Oh yeah, RISC is good....". Keep deluding yourself, RISC-boy.
So, because they switched CPU's, Apple is no longer a computer company? Are you saying that Mac Mini was a "True Macintosh", but the Intel-Mini was not, even though it ran the exact same OS and apps and it even looked the same? Sae thing with iMac? Is THAT what defines that what is a computer and what is not? The CPU? Suppose that I replace this 1.25GHz G4 Mac Mini with one of those Core Duo Mac Mini's. What would I be using then? According to you, it wouldn't be a computer.
So, you are suggesting that Apple will be using a CPU meant for enthusiasts and gamers in their hi-end WORKSTATION? Especially when we consider the fact that Dell has alrady announced workstations that have dual-Woodcrests in 'em? Isn't that a bit.... stupid?
Apple might release a MacPro Mini (for example), that is a minitower that uses Conroe. Or maybe they put Conroe in the iMac (atlhough Merom would be the logical choice) But the real MacPro will have Woodcrests in 'em.
Why? Seriously, why? How would it help those CS3-users if Apple did not release new Pro desktops with Intel chips? The only benefit for them is that they wouldn't have to look at those brand-new desktops with envy and think "Damn, I wish I could buy that....". But is that a good enough reason to NOT roll out new products? I don't think so. And it's not like Steve Jobs is going to sneak in to the Adobe-houses (no pun intended) and replace those G5-PowerMacs with Macintels. They could keep on using their G5's for years to come. And there are LOTS of pro's who want new Intel-machines, and the do not need CS3. Why should they be screwed because there are some Photoshop-users who insist that Apple should not upgrade their products untill almighty Photoshop is universal?
It's starting to get annoying when every discussion about Apple has that age-old question in it: "What about Photoshop?". Well, what about it? Fuck Photoshop. Instead of whining to Apple, Photoshop-users should be whining to Adobe.
Oh yes, MS gained 4.25% by paying registars to move unused parked domains to IIS. So the current market-share for IIS is 29.71%, whereas Apache has 61.25%. If that means that IIS is "beating" Apache, then Firefox is eating IE alive, since it's gaining market-share from IE fast. Strange thing that you weren't telling us THAT little fact.
And how exactly does that prove that Windows is growing faster than Linux is?
And Symbian massacred Windows Mobile.
According to who? I would say that Half-Life series earns that title.
IIRC, Playstation2 is still the best-selling console out there, handidly beating Xbox360
It is "gaining" as in they paid few domain registarts to move few million parked domains (domains that don't really do anything) over to IIS.
Outpacing UNIX, yes, but not Linux. Linux is growing faster than WIndows is.
Open source in various different forms is widely used in CGI. That is a fact. And if no-one takes open source seriously, why did Disny insist on running Photoshop on open source OS? Clearly they do take open source seriously, even though the actual app might be closed.
And you quite clearly said that "nobody takes open source seriously". Well, since we already have a film (Elephants Dream) that is made with open source tools, I think that it's safe to say that your claim is BS.
Dude, what the hell is "outsourcing community"? I mean, we have Mac-communities, that have people who use Macs. We have Linux-communities, where people use Linux. We have things like gay and lesbian-communities, where people are of certain sexual orientation. Then what is "outsourcing community"? A group of people who... outsource?
Maybe they should outsource their community?
I call BS on that. LOTS of companies (and individuals) take open source very, very seriously. Industrial Light & Magic uses open source tools, WETA Digital uses open source tools. Hell, Disney spoonsred the WINE-project to get Photoshop to run on Linux through WINE, so they obviously take open source very seriously, why else would they want to run Photoshop on Linux, instead of Windows or Mac?. And then we have those zillion non-CGI related companies that use open source for various tasks. About 70% of the top 500 supercomputers run on Linux! And here you are saying that NOBODY takes open source seriously? Hell, it's quite obvious that even Microsoft takes open source seriously!
Seriously: Are you a retard or something? Do you have ANY idea what you are talking about?
"Apple released the DiskII in 1978, three years before IBM started making PCs. "
But their computer didn't ship with one. Therefore you can't claim that "Apple was first to ship PC with a floppy-drive", since it didn't ship with a floppy, it was an add-on product. If we talk of add-on products, then I feel compelled to remind you that IBM was making floppy-drives back in the sixties.
"The Apple ][ had color graphics in 1977."
I don't see a color-screen in the picture you linked to.
"Release a PC with a floppy drive"
IBM PC shipped with a floppy before Apple shipped theirs. First PC to use 3.5" floppies was HP-150.
"Release a PC with a color display"
Wasn't Mac II the first Mac to ship with a color display? Mac II was introduced in 1987, long after computer with color had been available (Amiga 1000 for example.).
"It's one of those loaded terms that you can't throw around, unless of course your black"
Yes, it's a loaded term, but it's also a real phrase. It's not my fault that the phrase has racist roots to it, fact remains that it's a real, honest-to-god phrase that is used to descibe the lifestyle.
"The point is, would specifying a stable kernel ABI *stop* it from changing "FOR THE BETTER" ? Everyone else manages to do it, why can't Linux ?"
Because stable ABI for binary-drivers is not in the best interest of Linux? Linux-developers want the drivers to become part of the kernel, where they can be properly troubleshot. If they provide a stable ABI, companies will just use binary-drivers, and no-one (except the manufacturer) has any means of troubleshooting the problems the drver might be causing. The biggest reason for instabilities and crashes in Windows is the drivers. If linux had a stable ABI, we would have that problem in Linux as well.
Read what Greg Kroah-Hartman has to say about it: Link. this also touches on the subject.
I fail to see how my comment is "flamebait". The phrase I mentioned is real and it describes the lifestyle (using money to buy useless luxuries instead of real assets) perfectly.
I believe the word is "Nigger Rich"
"Web Bangers are posting potentially incriminating photos and taunts on their websites."
You don't frighten us, Crips pig-dogs! Go and boil your bottom, sons of a silly person. I don't wanna talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries! Now, go away, or I shall taunt you a second time-a!
George W Bush? "Instead of "nuclear", it will be "nucular""
"But gma 950 will also be not optimal for windows vista"
Why should Apple care about Windows? They care about OS X.