That is the point, as people have been talking about Apple being sued by
McIntosh, the amplifier company, and other stuff that is completely off topic,
at least IMHO. Not so sure who started that part of it, or even why for that
matter. Yes, going back that far is a bit of a stretch in time,
At 08:57 AM -0400 09/24/2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Apple was successfully sued by Apple records for the logo that Apple
>uses with the bite out of the Apple. The agreement was that they
>could use it as long as they didn't make music. Then they come out
>with the Apple IIGS which did a gre
Apple was successfully sued by Apple records for the logo that Apple uses
with the bite out of the Apple. The agreement was that they could use it as
long
as they didn't make music. Then they come out with the Apple IIGS which did
a great job of making music and that is what got them sued by
At 12:16 AM -0600 09/23/2008, Kyle Parish wrote:
>I know also that Macintosh used to be a separate company because I
>remember when the merger happened. I believe it was around 1980-82
>that Apple bought out Macintosh, and correct me if I'm wrong but
>didn't Apple write Software, and Macintosh ma
or maybe he's thinking of the Next company that Steve Jobs founded
after he left Apple, before returning to Apple and then buying Next
(which apparently paved the way for Mac OSX)
2008/9/23 Clark Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Kyle Parish wrote:
>> I know also that Macintosh used to be a separat
Kyle Parish wrote:
> I know also that Macintosh used to be a separate company because I
> remember when the merger happened. I believe it was around 1980-82
> that Apple bought out Macintosh, and correct me if I'm wrong but
> didn't Apple write Software, and Macintosh made hardware. It is still
On Sep 22, 2008, at 11:16 PM, Kyle Parish wrote:
>
> I know also that Macintosh used to be a separate company because I
> remember when the merger happened.
> I believe it was around 1980-82
> that Apple bought out Macintosh, and correct me if I'm wrong but
> didn't Apple write Software, and Ma
This is not correct - Apple never "merged" with Macintosh - Apple II
is the computer that made Apple tons of money - and very famous - it
was the original one, kind of similar to what was developed in the
garage of Woz or Jobs, I forget which. The Macintosh group within
Apple was burning through
I know also that Macintosh used to be a separate company because I
remember when the merger happened. I believe it was around 1980-82
that Apple bought out Macintosh, and correct me if I'm wrong but
didn't Apple write Software, and Macintosh made hardware. It is still
the same today, that Apple
Kyle Parish wrote:
> Not to correct anyone or offend any Mac users, Myself being one. I
> would say that Mac has disassociated it's self in the past, with the
> PC world by making their hard-ware proprietary to their computers.
> like the keyboard and mouse for example, which is how other computer
I've always wondered if anyone actually paid attention to what I said. Yes,
Apple is a hardware company and yes, Apple is a software company at the same
time because they don't outsource the writing of the OS to an outside third
party, which is what all the other Windows based computer makers
> It goes back to the time we used to call all other
> computers IBM compatible.
>
Actually, it goes back to 1981 when IBM called their early desktop a
PC, as in "IBM PC," and used what should have been, and obviously
became, a generic term as a brand name. I don't know if they ever
tried to tra
> Apple is a hardware company that hppens to make the OS that is specific
> to their hardware so it fits like a custom tailored suit. Microsoft, on
> the other hand, makes the software that runs on everyone's hardware so
> it's like buying an off the rack suit. Because that is where they make
> th
make a Sun machine
> running Solaris, or a box running Linux or any other OS?
>
> Garth-Original Message- From: Bruce Johnson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: imaclist@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri,
> 19 Sep 2008 12:49:55 -0700 Subject: Re: iMac purchase justifications On
> Sep 19
How can I look at one of the old iMac's, say if someone wanted to buy
one of them?
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Ramon Tate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi, all,
> As a long-time reader of this list, I know there are a number of you
> out there who tend multiple computer installations, inclu
On Sep 21, 2008, at 7:41 , Al Poulin wrote:
>
> On Sep 21, 2008, at 3:56 AM, imaclist group wrote:
>>
>> == 3 of 5 ==
>> Date: Fri, Sep 19 2008 1:28 pm
>> From: Cy
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 19, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Brian Troisi wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 19, 2008, at 2:13 PM, Kyle wrote:
>>>
Th
On Sep 21, 2008, at 3:56 AM, imaclist group wrote:
>
> == 3 of 5 ==
> Date: Fri, Sep 19 2008 1:28 pm
> From: Cy
>
>
>
> On Sep 19, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Brian Troisi wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 19, 2008, at 2:13 PM, Kyle wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The Price for Leopard is what, $199.00
>> Actually the price is $1
On Sep 20, 2008, at 11:34 AM, Bruce Johnson wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 19, 2008, at 5:35 AM, John Callahan wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>> Does "arch" refer to archetecture? If so it's spelled archetecture.
>
> Actually, it's spelled 'architecture'...
> Thank you, my error. I was just trying to be arch.
>
>
On Sep 19, 2008, at 5:35 AM, John Callahan wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
> Does "arch" refer to archetecture? If so it's spelled archetecture.
Actually, it's spelled 'architecture'...
--
Bruce Johnson
U of Az College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group
Institutions don't have opinions, merely custom
19 Sep 2008 12:49:55 -0700 Subject: Re: iMac purchase justifications On
Sep 19, 2008, at 11:45 AM, Brian Troisi wrote: > On Sep 19, 2008, at
2:13 PM, Kyle wrote: > >> >> The Price for Leopard is what, $199.00 >
Actually the price is $129. The family pack is unnecessary as there
On Sep 19, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Brian Troisi wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 19, 2008, at 2:13 PM, Kyle wrote:
>
>>
>> The Price for Leopard is what, $199.00
> Actually the price is $129. The family pack is unnecessary as there is
> no licensing. One single install disc can install on up to Unlimited
> macs
..
On Sep 19, 2008, at 12:08 AM, ./aal wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Kathleen Lawrence
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>
>
> 1)
> PC = personal computer
> if a mac is not a PC then it must be impersonal ?
>
> PC refers to hardware, not software. Now that "PC's" and Mac's use th
You can download vista on as many PC's as you want also. All you have
to do is lie every time you call to register them. That is why i
don't do it. I have only downloaded it on the machine it came with.
If you have the family pack and have trouble with it then you will get
support if you have a
On Sep 19, 2008, at 3:52 PM, Brian Troisi wrote:
>
> Seriously? I never knew that! Wow! I knew it was true for iWork
> because It uses a serial number to activate it like Micro$oft
> products. I thought Apple simply trusts you to buy the family pack..
>
And somehow THIS SITUATION wasn't a 'Fami
Seriously? I never knew that! Wow! I knew it was true for iWork
because It uses a serial number to activate it like Micro$oft
products. I thought Apple simply trusts you to buy the family pack..
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are su
On Sep 19, 2008, at 11:45 AM, Brian Troisi wrote:
> On Sep 19, 2008, at 2:13 PM, Kyle wrote:
>
>>
>> The Price for Leopard is what, $199.00
> Actually the price is $129. The family pack is unnecessary as there is
> no licensing. One single install disc can install on up to Unlimited
> macs!
No
If you print this email and it's replies, and show them to the people
who have the purse-strings, it may help your case.
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Bruce Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 18, 2008, at 2:16 PM, Ramon Tate wrote:
>
>> My stance, being the one who set most of thi
On Sep 19, 2008, at 2:13 PM, Kyle wrote:
>
> The Price for Leopard is what, $199.00
Actually the price is $129. The family pack is unnecessary as there is
no licensing. One single install disc can install on up to Unlimited
macs!
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You r
o:
Subject: Re: iMac purchase justifications
>
> External security in connection to the INTERNET is THE Biggie
>
> I'm certain that you can find other 'Church Offices' in your area,
> that are 'Wintel/Microsoft' operations. It shouldn't take much in th
Many thanks to all who replied so swiftly and cogently to my request
for justifications for staying with an all-Mac office. Most of the
points made were already known, just not defensible by solid evidence
from credible sources. I'll continue to watch for others that bolster
the points already mad
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Kathleen Lawrence
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi There,
> First and foremost: VirusesPC=185,000 and counting Macs=0that in
> itself should be enough!
> Ease of use, simple to keep up to date, secure, elegant, and cost effective.
> With built-in Bootc
Hi There,
First and foremost: VirusesPC=185,000 and counting Macs=0
that in itself should be enough!
Ease of use, simple to keep up to date, secure, elegant, and cost
effective. With built-in Bootcamp, the PC devotees can run Windows if
they must.
So, Mac gives you 2 computers, and
On Sep 18, 6:48 pm, Bruce Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sep 18, 2008, at 4:45 PM, Charles Davis wrote:
>
> All too often, though what's broke is someobody's brother-in-law who's
> going to sell you the Windows systems...and training...and routine de-
> grungifying.
>
> Windows is a g
External security in connection to the INTERNET is THE Biggie
I'm certain that you can find other 'Church Offices' in your area,
that are 'Wintel/Microsoft' operations. It shouldn't take much in the
way of conversation to expose 'Horror Stories'.
Then there is always the 'If it ain't bro
On Sep 18, 2008, at 4:45 PM, Charles Davis wrote:
> External security in connection to the INTERNET is THE Biggie
>
> I'm certain that you can find other 'Church Offices' in your area,
> that are 'Wintel/Microsoft' operations. It shouldn't take much in the
> way of conversation to expose 'Ho
check out http://techsoup.com/ inexpensive purchases for non profits
Janice F. Jorgensen
- Original Message -
From: "Bruce Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: iMac purchase justifications
>
>
> On Sep 18
On Sep 18, 2008, at 2:16 PM, Ramon Tate wrote:
> My stance, being the one who set most of this up about 4-5 years ago,
> is that we (a) don't have anyone to watch over an office LAN all the
> time as needed for a Windows-based environment,
A Winodws peer-peer lan doesn't require all that much w
Get the three iMacs refurbished, straight from apple on line, best
price, free shipping, best idea. I got a refurbished 24" this spring,
and it is a beauty. I work for a small not for profit and maintain a
mixed LAN.
John
On Sep 18, 2008, at 4:16 PM, Ramon Tate wrote:
>
> Hi, all,
> As a lo
Hi, all,
As a long-time reader of this list, I know there are a number of you
out there who tend multiple computer installations, including mixed Mac
and MS-based PC ones. I would like some justifications/talking points
to bolster my view that for a small (3-4 computer) church office,
staying
39 matches
Mail list logo
