Did you download a leaked beta or rc that was not downloaded directly from MS servers? There were many torrents with trojan included into the downloads. Viruses and trojans don't just magically appear, at least not with Vista and Windows 7. Chances are, you chose to install something that had a virus/trojan included. In that case, what OS can protect you? Likewise, false positive have been known to happen.
Remember those people who downloaded iWork with trojan hidden? Yeah, OS X didn't make a peep!
Indeed. There's no way for an OS to protect against Trojans without becoming overly intrusive. It's why they're called Trojans - they look attractive on the outside (so user makes the choice to install), but they've got nasties hidden inside.
The only way an OS can protect from that is with code signing and application vetting a la the iPhone - the OS won't run unsigned code, and the only way to get code signed is to have it go via the OS vendor first to be verified. Even that process isn't flawless as malicious code could be missed but it'd be unlikely.
I am extremely fond of W7 RC. Sadly, there are some issues with my iMac and BootCamp. Both Windows and Ubuntu cannot deal with my bluetooth keyboard and mouse. Switching them out for USB would fix that. RC solved some issues that I couldn't fix in W7 Beta. Now I can get audio. Unfortunately, my USB turntable doesn't work correctly with W7 RC and the Realtek drivers. On the other hand, only on a Mac, could I run Mac OS, Windows, and Ubuntu natively. For the most part, W7 RC is stable and I am running a free virus program from PC Tools on both Mac OS and Windows. Unless one is willing to run 2 PCs with a monitor switch, then the Mac is the only way to fly. Windows is Windows, but version 7 will do just fine. In a nutshell, there are things my Mac can do that Windows can't and some things Windows can do that my Mac can't. I cannot imagine having just one OS!
I am extremely fond of W7 RC. Sadly, there are some issues with my iMac and BootCamp. Both Windows and Ubuntu cannot deal with my bluetooth keyboard and mouse. Switching them out for USB would fix that. RC solved some issues that I couldn't fix in W7 Beta. Now I can get audio. Unfortunately, my USB turntable doesn't work correctly with W7 RC and the Realtek drivers. On the other hand, only on a Mac, could I run Mac OS, Windows, and Ubuntu natively. For the most part, W7 RC is stable and I am running a free virus program from PC Tools on both Mac OS and Windows. Unless one is willing to run 2 PCs with a monitor switch, then the Mac is the only way to fly. Windows is Windows, but version 7 will do just fine. In a nutshell, there are things my Mac can do that Windows can't and some things Windows can do that my Mac can't. I cannot imagine having just one OS!
And my point is that everybody wants to believe that Windows 7 is going to be very good because, one way or another, we all have to use a windows PC at one time or another whether we like it or not. But the truth of the matter is that windows 7, like any other windows, is built on top of an obsolete platform using engineers that are used to thinking in obsolete ways. The more you guys use windows 7, the more flaws you are going to find. Right now it is rated "good" because we are all comparing it to the fiasco of Vista. When we start to compare it to it's true competitor, Snow Leopard, the game is completely and absolutely over.
My mother has been using a Dell PC for quite some time now. It came with Vista. Did not include SP1. She uses it for the web, e-mail, solitaire, etc. Once in a blue moon, something goes wrong, but Vista works nearly flawlessly in her case. I have bad eyesight and Mac OS does not solve the problem. I am using W7 RC to type this using Firefox 3.5 Beta. I can see the screen infinitely better. I have RC setup to increase the fonts to 125%. If I had to choose just one OS, it would have to be Windows because of my eyes. In my above post, all the issues could easily be resolved by selling my iMac and getting a Dell. This could happen. My eyesight is job one, and for me, Windows wins hands down!!! Windows has always worked better without a mouse. I am not blind and VoiceOver does not solve my problem. Alex is excellent, but there are free apps for Windows that work for speech to text. I am not slamming an OS the way you are, but if push came to shove, I can find fault with Mac OS. My eyesight issues are very unique, and Mac OS cannot solve them the way Windows can.
Come on groverat, you can do better than that! Nothing to say about Windows being built on an "obsolete platform" or being programmed by folk "thinking in obsolete ways"? Tauron's got his head in the sand, won't you dig it out for him?
My mother has been using a Dell PC for quite some time now. It came with Vista. Did not include SP1. She uses it for the web, e-mail, solitaire, etc. Once in a blue moon, something goes wrong, but Vista works nearly flawlessly in her case. I have bad eyesight and Mac OS does not solve the problem. I am using W7 RC to type this using Firefox 3.5 Beta. I can see the screen infinitely better. I have RC setup to increase the fonts to 125%. If I had to choose just one OS, it would have to be Windows because of my eyes. In my above post, all the issues could easily be resolved by selling my iMac and getting a Dell. This could happen. My eyesight is job one, and for me, Windows wins hands down!!! Windows has always worked better without a mouse. I am not blind and VoiceOver does not solve my problem. Alex is excellent, but there are free apps for Windows that work for speech to text. I am not slamming an OS the way you are, but if push came to shove, I can find fault with Mac OS. My eyesight issues are very unique, and Mac OS cannot solve them the way Windows can.
You don't know how to use mac OS. It has many accessibility features such as increasing font and fine tuning legibility for any need. On top of that mac displays are always higher quality and higher resolution and contrast.
Come on groverat, you can do better than that! Nothing to say about Windows being built on an "obsolete platform" or being programmed by folk "thinking in obsolete ways"? Tauron's got his head in the sand, won't you dig it out for him?
No he can't. He knows I am right or else he is deluded. Ah the typical namecalling. I am used to it by now. Whenever somebody disagrees but has no logical argument then labeling and namecalling ensues. Typical response of those who have lost the debate.
You don't know how to use mac OS. It has many accessibility features such as increasing font and fine tuning legibility for any need. On top of that mac displays are always higher quality and higher resolution and contrast.
Don't start with me. I have been to UC Berkeley and my vision issues can not be improved by any of the features in Universal Access. I have visual processing problems, mostly blurred vision. I know everything there is to know about making changes with Mac OS. For me, and maybe only me, it just gets more blurry. I need a display with lower, not higher resolution. I probably have more experience with visual aids than you will ever know. So again, don't start with me. You don't know for what you speak. I could complain all day long about Apple. All I would get is a bucket of kool-aid from you people who think you are the master race. I might be able to solve my problems by using HDMI and a TV @ 1366 x 728. Apple does not support such an effort intentionally. Someone else in this forum ran into the situation and called it a problem. I need a native resolution 25% lower than what is available in ANY LCD/LED display around. Some people make an 18.5" running 1366 x 768. That might work. There has been talk about resolution independence, but only talk. Mac OS does not shine for me. I love Mac OS, but hate my iMac screen. It is not the quality you claim. Refresh rate is rather slow by today's standards. And just for giggles, what makes you the expert?
Everyone here needs to step back and learn how to recognize a troll when you see one.
Take a look at Tauron's post history. Almost every post is in the Genius Bar section just telling people to drop everything MS related and saying how Macs are the greatest thing ever.
Really, if I was an admin I'd just permaban him for spreading misinformation to people who are legitimately asking for help and may not know any better.
You don't know how to use mac OS. It has many accessibility features such as increasing font and fine tuning legibility for any need. On top of that mac displays are always higher quality and higher resolution and contrast.
Wrong! You cannot increase the font size in the menu bar, for example. You can only zoom the whole display or run at a lower resolution if you want the menu bar fonts larger.
Mac displays are always higher quality and higher resolution? Wrong again!
The 15" MacBook Pro resolution is 1440 x 900; there are plenty of PCs on the market with 1680 x 1050 resolution 15" displays (HP and Dell both being manufacturers who offer that option) and there's been plenty of complaints about iMac screen quality (on the smaller size iMacs, Apple switched from IPS to TN panels a while ago; there have been issues with backlighting unevenness) and colour accuracy of cinema displays (there was a long-running issue of a pink tint that was impossible to get rid of even with display calibration)
No he can't. He knows I am right or else he is deluded. Ah the typical namecalling. I am used to it by now. Whenever somebody disagrees but has no logical argument then labeling and namecalling ensues. Typical response of those who have lost the debate.
Where did I call you a name?
Groverat is a Windows power user so he'd do a better job than me of debating Windows Vs. Mac OS with you.
I might be able to solve my problems by using HDMI and a TV @ 1366 x 728. Apple does not support such an effort intentionally. Someone else in this forum ran into the situation and called it a problem. I need a native resolution 25% lower than what is available in ANY LCD/LED display around. Some people make an 18.5" running 1366 x 768. That might work. There has been talk about resolution independence, but only talk. Mac OS does not shine for me. I love Mac OS, but hate my iMac screen. It is not the quality you claim. Refresh rate is rather slow by today's standards. And just for giggles, what makes you the expert?
Have you tried running an external monitor at 1366 x 768? What makes you think you can't do it? I can connect my MacBook Pro via HDMI to a 50" plasma at 1280 x 720 resolution. If Mac OS X doesn't present a 1366 x 768 option (which it should if the display properly reports its supported resolutions to the computer) there is a third-party program that present a wider array of resolutions than system preference's display pane.
Have you tried running an external monitor at 1366 x 768? What makes you think you can't do it? I can connect my MacBook Pro via HDMI to a 50" plasma at 1280 x 720 resolution. If Mac OS X doesn't present a 1366 x 768 option (which it should if the display properly reports its supported resolutions to the computer) there is a third-party program that present a wider array of resolutions than system preference's display pane.
Thank you for the link. I have not tried hooking up an external monitor and the only TVs I have are good ol' CRTs with RCA audio and video inputs. If I switch the resolution on my iMac screen to anything other than the native resolution, everything gets too blurry. While others may not notice it, my brain processes stuff in a different way. I can see a flicker in digital TV that many people can't. It would seem a little crazy to hook up an external monitor to my iMac and perhaps set it on the floor. I do plan to check out some of the monitors that are 18.5" and default to 1366 x 768. I would consider an HDMI connection to a TV, but it would have to be a 720 native resolution. The computer would have to be fooled by the HDMI connection that 720 is the only resolution available. I think that is what you are trying to tell me. If all of that actually works, I'd probably get rid of my iMac and get a mini. I do have a 20 inch CRT TV and would use it at 1024 x 768 if it would work without being blurry. Anyone have experience with a Mac and a CRT with composite video???
If I switch the resolution on my iMac screen to anything other than the native resolution, everything gets too blurry.
Indeed. That's just the way it is with LCD. The solution, as you mentioned earlier, is resolution independence. Hopefully that will be a major feature of 10.7 but obviously that's not going to help you right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WPLJ42
It would seem a little crazy to hook up an external monitor to my iMac and perhaps set it on the floor.
You could use the iMac's monitor as a secondary monitor running at a lower resolution than native. It would be slightly blurred but that wouldn't matter so much on a secondary display and it would give you some more work space.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WPLJ42
I do plan to check out some of the monitors that are 18.5" and default to 1366 x 768. I would consider an HDMI connection to a TV, but it would have to be a 720 native resolution.
Yes, the monitor would have to be 1280x720 or 1366x768 native resolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WPLJ42
The computer would have to be fooled by the HDMI connection that 720 is the only resolution available. I think that is what you are trying to tell me.
No, the computer doesn't need to be fooled. Modern monitors should have a chip in them that talks to the computer when it's first connected. Basically, the monitor provides a list of resolutions it supports to the computer, and those are the resolutions that are provided in the list in system preferences. Sometimes the handshake doesn't work properly and you don't get a full list of resolutions. In that situation you have to use something like SwitchResX.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WPLJ42
If all of that actually works, I'd probably get rid of my iMac and get a mini. I do have a 20 inch CRT TV and would use it at 1024 x 768 if it would work without being blurry. Anyone have experience with a Mac and a CRT with composite video???
I wouldn't bother with CRT if I were you. See if there's any way you can test out a 1366 x 768 LCD (don't bother with plasma as they suffer from burn-in) with a Mac without having to buy the monitor first. Sometimes TVs can be a bit blurry even when run at native res. Good luck!
Just had a slightly off-the-wall idea WPLJ42. Have you ever considered using a 1080p projector with wireless mouse and keyboard? Project a giant image and sit well back - if that works you get the benefit of running 1920 x 1080 resolution which gives you more screen real-estate to work with.
Just had a slightly off-the-wall idea WPLJ42. Have you ever considered using a 1080p projector with wireless mouse and keyboard? Project a giant image and sit well back - if that works you get the benefit of running 1920 x 1080 resolution which gives you more screen real-estate to work with.
Thanks Mr. H! Surprised you haven't got me for bad punctuation yet. I already have a wireless keyboard and mouse. Windows and Ubuntu don't recognize them and I may get USB. I have not considered a 1080 projector, but would like to win the Lotto just in case. Bigger isn't, at least in my case, always better. The bigger it is, the greater chance Mr. Blurry will come to get me. My namesake, WPLJ42 is a reference, in part, to my age and where I'm from. White Port, Lemon Juice by the Four Deuces. Solid Gold 1958 from Oakland, California. I am almost 52 years of age and the bad eyesight I was born with, is now older.
Thanks Mr. H! Surprised you haven't got me for bad punctuation yet.
I try to restrain myself and rely on my sig. most of the time!
Quote:
Originally Posted by WPLJ42
I have not considered a 1080 projector, but would like to win the Lotto just in case.
There are some very expensive projectors but there are some surprisingly affordable ones too. You can get the Sanyo PLV Z700 for under $1500. Not cheap in absolute terms, but not insanely expensive either.
Groverat is a Windows power user so he'd do a better job than me of debating Windows Vs. Mac OS with you.
Quote:
Come on groverat, you can do better than that! Nothing to say about Windows being built on an "obsolete platform" or being programmed by folk "thinking in obsolete ways"? Tauron's got his head in the sand, won't you dig it out for him?
QED. Goes to show who has their thought process straight and who doesn't.
Comments
Did you download a leaked beta or rc that was not downloaded directly from MS servers? There were many torrents with trojan included into the downloads. Viruses and trojans don't just magically appear, at least not with Vista and Windows 7. Chances are, you chose to install something that had a virus/trojan included. In that case, what OS can protect you? Likewise, false positive have been known to happen.
Remember those people who downloaded iWork with trojan hidden? Yeah, OS X didn't make a peep!
Indeed. There's no way for an OS to protect against Trojans without becoming overly intrusive. It's why they're called Trojans - they look attractive on the outside (so user makes the choice to install), but they've got nasties hidden inside.
The only way an OS can protect from that is with code signing and application vetting a la the iPhone - the OS won't run unsigned code, and the only way to get code signed is to have it go via the OS vendor first to be verified. Even that process isn't flawless as malicious code could be missed but it'd be unlikely.
In America you can choose between:
- Windows 7 Home Premium
- Windows 7 Professional
- Windows 7 Ultimate
In stores you will probably only see Home Premium.
And Starter Edition on netbooks. But Home Premium will probably represent 90% of the computers sold at retail to non-business buyers.
I am extremely fond of W7 RC. Sadly, there are some issues with my iMac and BootCamp. Both Windows and Ubuntu cannot deal with my bluetooth keyboard and mouse. Switching them out for USB would fix that. RC solved some issues that I couldn't fix in W7 Beta. Now I can get audio. Unfortunately, my USB turntable doesn't work correctly with W7 RC and the Realtek drivers. On the other hand, only on a Mac, could I run Mac OS, Windows, and Ubuntu natively. For the most part, W7 RC is stable and I am running a free virus program from PC Tools on both Mac OS and Windows. Unless one is willing to run 2 PCs with a monitor switch, then the Mac is the only way to fly. Windows is Windows, but version 7 will do just fine. In a nutshell, there are things my Mac can do that Windows can't and some things Windows can do that my Mac can't. I cannot imagine having just one OS!
And my point is that everybody wants to believe that Windows 7 is going to be very good because, one way or another, we all have to use a windows PC at one time or another whether we like it or not. But the truth of the matter is that windows 7, like any other windows, is built on top of an obsolete platform using engineers that are used to thinking in obsolete ways. The more you guys use windows 7, the more flaws you are going to find. Right now it is rated "good" because we are all comparing it to the fiasco of Vista. When we start to compare it to it's true competitor, Snow Leopard, the game is completely and absolutely over.
haters keep on hatin'
Vista is a great OS, especially with SP1.
haters keep on hatin'
Come on groverat, you can do better than that! Nothing to say about Windows being built on an "obsolete platform" or being programmed by folk "thinking in obsolete ways"? Tauron's got his head in the sand, won't you dig it out for him?
My mother has been using a Dell PC for quite some time now. It came with Vista. Did not include SP1. She uses it for the web, e-mail, solitaire, etc. Once in a blue moon, something goes wrong, but Vista works nearly flawlessly in her case. I have bad eyesight and Mac OS does not solve the problem. I am using W7 RC to type this using Firefox 3.5 Beta. I can see the screen infinitely better. I have RC setup to increase the fonts to 125%. If I had to choose just one OS, it would have to be Windows because of my eyes. In my above post, all the issues could easily be resolved by selling my iMac and getting a Dell. This could happen. My eyesight is job one, and for me, Windows wins hands down!!! Windows has always worked better without a mouse. I am not blind and VoiceOver does not solve my problem. Alex is excellent, but there are free apps for Windows that work for speech to text. I am not slamming an OS the way you are, but if push came to shove, I can find fault with Mac OS. My eyesight issues are very unique, and Mac OS cannot solve them the way Windows can.
You don't know how to use mac OS. It has many accessibility features such as increasing font and fine tuning legibility for any need. On top of that mac displays are always higher quality and higher resolution and contrast.
Come on groverat, you can do better than that! Nothing to say about Windows being built on an "obsolete platform" or being programmed by folk "thinking in obsolete ways"? Tauron's got his head in the sand, won't you dig it out for him?
No he can't. He knows I am right or else he is deluded. Ah the typical namecalling. I am used to it by now. Whenever somebody disagrees but has no logical argument then labeling and namecalling ensues. Typical response of those who have lost the debate.
You don't know how to use mac OS. It has many accessibility features such as increasing font and fine tuning legibility for any need. On top of that mac displays are always higher quality and higher resolution and contrast.
Don't start with me. I have been to UC Berkeley and my vision issues can not be improved by any of the features in Universal Access. I have visual processing problems, mostly blurred vision. I know everything there is to know about making changes with Mac OS. For me, and maybe only me, it just gets more blurry. I need a display with lower, not higher resolution. I probably have more experience with visual aids than you will ever know. So again, don't start with me. You don't know for what you speak. I could complain all day long about Apple. All I would get is a bucket of kool-aid from you people who think you are the master race. I might be able to solve my problems by using HDMI and a TV @ 1366 x 728. Apple does not support such an effort intentionally. Someone else in this forum ran into the situation and called it a problem. I need a native resolution 25% lower than what is available in ANY LCD/LED display around. Some people make an 18.5" running 1366 x 768. That might work. There has been talk about resolution independence, but only talk. Mac OS does not shine for me. I love Mac OS, but hate my iMac screen. It is not the quality you claim. Refresh rate is rather slow by today's standards. And just for giggles, what makes you the expert?
There's no "no" option. Biased poll me thinks.
Everyone here needs to step back and learn how to recognize a troll when you see one.
Take a look at Tauron's post history. Almost every post is in the Genius Bar section just telling people to drop everything MS related and saying how Macs are the greatest thing ever.
Really, if I was an admin I'd just permaban him for spreading misinformation to people who are legitimately asking for help and may not know any better.
You don't know how to use mac OS. It has many accessibility features such as increasing font and fine tuning legibility for any need. On top of that mac displays are always higher quality and higher resolution and contrast.
Wrong! You cannot increase the font size in the menu bar, for example. You can only zoom the whole display or run at a lower resolution if you want the menu bar fonts larger.
Mac displays are always higher quality and higher resolution? Wrong again!
The 15" MacBook Pro resolution is 1440 x 900; there are plenty of PCs on the market with 1680 x 1050 resolution 15" displays (HP and Dell both being manufacturers who offer that option) and there's been plenty of complaints about iMac screen quality (on the smaller size iMacs, Apple switched from IPS to TN panels a while ago; there have been issues with backlighting unevenness) and colour accuracy of cinema displays (there was a long-running issue of a pink tint that was impossible to get rid of even with display calibration)
No he can't. He knows I am right or else he is deluded. Ah the typical namecalling. I am used to it by now. Whenever somebody disagrees but has no logical argument then labeling and namecalling ensues. Typical response of those who have lost the debate.
Where did I call you a name?
Groverat is a Windows power user so he'd do a better job than me of debating Windows Vs. Mac OS with you.
I might be able to solve my problems by using HDMI and a TV @ 1366 x 728. Apple does not support such an effort intentionally. Someone else in this forum ran into the situation and called it a problem. I need a native resolution 25% lower than what is available in ANY LCD/LED display around. Some people make an 18.5" running 1366 x 768. That might work. There has been talk about resolution independence, but only talk. Mac OS does not shine for me. I love Mac OS, but hate my iMac screen. It is not the quality you claim. Refresh rate is rather slow by today's standards. And just for giggles, what makes you the expert?
Have you tried running an external monitor at 1366 x 768? What makes you think you can't do it? I can connect my MacBook Pro via HDMI to a 50" plasma at 1280 x 720 resolution. If Mac OS X doesn't present a 1366 x 768 option (which it should if the display properly reports its supported resolutions to the computer) there is a third-party program that present a wider array of resolutions than system preference's display pane.
Have you tried running an external monitor at 1366 x 768? What makes you think you can't do it? I can connect my MacBook Pro via HDMI to a 50" plasma at 1280 x 720 resolution. If Mac OS X doesn't present a 1366 x 768 option (which it should if the display properly reports its supported resolutions to the computer) there is a third-party program that present a wider array of resolutions than system preference's display pane.
Thank you for the link. I have not tried hooking up an external monitor and the only TVs I have are good ol' CRTs with RCA audio and video inputs. If I switch the resolution on my iMac screen to anything other than the native resolution, everything gets too blurry. While others may not notice it, my brain processes stuff in a different way. I can see a flicker in digital TV that many people can't. It would seem a little crazy to hook up an external monitor to my iMac and perhaps set it on the floor. I do plan to check out some of the monitors that are 18.5" and default to 1366 x 768. I would consider an HDMI connection to a TV, but it would have to be a 720 native resolution. The computer would have to be fooled by the HDMI connection that 720 is the only resolution available. I think that is what you are trying to tell me. If all of that actually works, I'd probably get rid of my iMac and get a mini. I do have a 20 inch CRT TV and would use it at 1024 x 768 if it would work without being blurry. Anyone have experience with a Mac and a CRT with composite video???
If I switch the resolution on my iMac screen to anything other than the native resolution, everything gets too blurry.
Indeed. That's just the way it is with LCD. The solution, as you mentioned earlier, is resolution independence. Hopefully that will be a major feature of 10.7 but obviously that's not going to help you right now.
It would seem a little crazy to hook up an external monitor to my iMac and perhaps set it on the floor.
You could use the iMac's monitor as a secondary monitor running at a lower resolution than native. It would be slightly blurred but that wouldn't matter so much on a secondary display and it would give you some more work space.
I do plan to check out some of the monitors that are 18.5" and default to 1366 x 768. I would consider an HDMI connection to a TV, but it would have to be a 720 native resolution.
Yes, the monitor would have to be 1280x720 or 1366x768 native resolution.
The computer would have to be fooled by the HDMI connection that 720 is the only resolution available. I think that is what you are trying to tell me.
No, the computer doesn't need to be fooled. Modern monitors should have a chip in them that talks to the computer when it's first connected. Basically, the monitor provides a list of resolutions it supports to the computer, and those are the resolutions that are provided in the list in system preferences. Sometimes the handshake doesn't work properly and you don't get a full list of resolutions. In that situation you have to use something like SwitchResX.
If all of that actually works, I'd probably get rid of my iMac and get a mini. I do have a 20 inch CRT TV and would use it at 1024 x 768 if it would work without being blurry. Anyone have experience with a Mac and a CRT with composite video???
I wouldn't bother with CRT if I were you. See if there's any way you can test out a 1366 x 768 LCD (don't bother with plasma as they suffer from burn-in) with a Mac without having to buy the monitor first. Sometimes TVs can be a bit blurry even when run at native res. Good luck!
Just had a slightly off-the-wall idea WPLJ42. Have you ever considered using a 1080p projector with wireless mouse and keyboard? Project a giant image and sit well back - if that works you get the benefit of running 1920 x 1080 resolution which gives you more screen real-estate to work with.
Thanks Mr. H! Surprised you haven't got me for bad punctuation yet. I already have a wireless keyboard and mouse. Windows and Ubuntu don't recognize them and I may get USB. I have not considered a 1080 projector, but would like to win the Lotto just in case. Bigger isn't, at least in my case, always better. The bigger it is, the greater chance Mr. Blurry will come to get me. My namesake, WPLJ42 is a reference, in part, to my age and where I'm from. White Port, Lemon Juice by the Four Deuces. Solid Gold 1958 from Oakland, California. I am almost 52 years of age and the bad eyesight I was born with, is now older.
Thanks Mr. H! Surprised you haven't got me for bad punctuation yet.
I have not considered a 1080 projector, but would like to win the Lotto just in case.
Where did I call you a name?
Groverat is a Windows power user so he'd do a better job than me of debating Windows Vs. Mac OS with you.
Come on groverat, you can do better than that! Nothing to say about Windows being built on an "obsolete platform" or being programmed by folk "thinking in obsolete ways"? Tauron's got his head in the sand, won't you dig it out for him?
QED. Goes to show who has their thought process straight and who doesn't.