"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
"dennis@home" wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"dennis@home" wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
..

While you are at it, list all the PC manufacturers currently
installing 288 dpi or better displays

What's the point, people can't see 144 dpi, which is probably why they
only use a display emulation of 1440x900.

So that's none of them then.

As I said what's the point.

None for a halfwit like you.

It may be needed on a small screen but they can't even use it on their
iPad, they have to scale everything by a factor of two.

Another lie. They don't "have" to do such a thing at all. MacOS and iOS
check the capabilities of the App. If it can handle a Retina display it
may
do so. If it was written for a standard display the rendering is
interpolated appropriately.

So that's why the OS does it then, it can't handle the display they have put
in!


You've been caught out talking ******** again Dennis.

No way, not by you, that's impossible.

So you're agreeing that it's Apple pushing innovation, then - which is
what we said in the first place.

You said apple innovates more than anyone else, that is not what I said.

No you claimed that it's hard to get Apple to accept any "new hardware
innovation" (sic) which was bull****.

That is indeed bullsh!t and its not what I said but then you never did like
telling the truth.


Apple may push innovation, but so do others.

And now you agree it was bull****.

You are wrong, but that's normal, exactly as expected.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
"dennis@home" wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...


So Dhenbhoi which "new hardware innovations" were Apple slow to take up?
Be
precise, give dates. List all the hardware that Apple "copied" again
give
dates.

While you are at it, list all the PC manufacturers currently installing
288
dpi or better displays

What's the point, people can't see 144 dpi, which is probably why they
only use a display emulation of 1440x900.

I bet they will innovate a portable magnifying glass to see the
difference!

They don't need to. The human eye us perfectly capable of resolving and
seeing pixelation at 144 dpi.

2020 vision would only be about 180 dpi if I remember the formulae
correctly.
Nowhere near 288 dpi.


I note you run away from admitting that M$ have ****ed up again by hard
coding in another stupid limit.

What limit is that?


or Thunderbolt ports.

Well as apple don't do any chips they didn't do the thunderbolt ones
either.

Do PC manufacturers make all their own chips then Dennis?

Do you actually think apple designed thunderbolt?


Apple bought in Thunderbolt from Intel. They led the way, PC manufacturers
will follow once they can sort out their ****ed up graphics cards.

That's odd that's what I said, why do you feel the need to repeat it?


Others will fit them as soon as Intel designs them into the chipsets or
releases the design they have let apple have a six month lead on.

Oh boo hoo it's that big nasty Apple again.

But Dennis you claimed that they copy hardware and don't innovate. Yet
here
they are innovating.

Where?
I see no innovation from apple here.


You told a pork pie, again, didn't you Dennis?

It appears you have told many in just this post.

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:


"D.M.Chapman" dmc@puffin. wrote in message
...

As I said what's the point.
It may be needed on a small screen but they can't even use it on their
iPad,
they have to scale everything by a factor of two.

It looks nicer?

I have a 32" TV. I can watch telly in standard def, but it looks much
nicer
in HD.

Exactly my point.
The iPad screen is HD (2880x1800) but the content is SD (1440x900).

No, text and rendered gfx are much crisper as they are rendered at the
higher res.

Try something like the kindle app or ibooks on new and old. So much nicer
on the retina. Sure, it's fine on the older screen, but it's really nice
on the hires ones

Same on the macbook retina - the text is amazingly crisp (as are the
retina enabled apps that are rapidl appearing)

Darren

"dennis@home" wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
"dennis@home" wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...


So Dhenbhoi which "new hardware innovations" were Apple slow to take up? Be
precise, give dates. List all the hardware that Apple "copied" again give
dates.

While you are at it, list all the PC manufacturers currently installing 288
dpi or better displays

What's the point, people can't see 144 dpi, which is probably why they
only use a display emulation of 1440x900.

I bet they will innovate a portable magnifying glass to see the difference!

They don't need to. The human eye us perfectly capable of resolving and
seeing pixelation at 144 dpi.

2020 vision would only be about 180 dpi if I remember the formulae correctly.
Nowhere near 288 dpi.

Even accepting that you are correct (and you are not) you are now admitting
that your 144 dpi figure is ********.

A person with 20:20 vision viewing between 12 and 18" will be able to see
pixelation at 200 dpi. They will not be able to see pixelation on a display
of 270 dpi. The point is to have a display that (just) exceeds the
resolving power of the human eye, you dolt.

I note you run away from admitting that M$ have ****ed up again by hard
coding in another stupid limit.

What limit is that?

The one previously mentioned. You really do have the memory span of a gnat.
MS have hard coded a 144dpi limit into Windows.

or Thunderbolt ports.

Well as apple don't do any chips they didn't do the thunderbolt ones either.

Do PC manufacturers make all their own chips then Dennis?

Do you actually think apple designed thunderbolt?

Do PC manufacturers make their own chips Dennis?

Apple bought in Thunderbolt from Intel. They led the way, PC manufacturers
will follow once they can sort out their ****ed up graphics cards.

That's odd that's what I said,

No its not, you are telling a lie, again

why do you feel the need to repeat it?

I don't because it is not what you said.

What you said is below, so it's rather stupid of you to tell such a
transparent lie.

Others will fit them as soon as Intel designs them into the chipsets or
releases the design they have let apple have a six month lead on.

Oh boo hoo it's that big nasty Apple again.

But Dennis you claimed that they copy hardware and don't innovate. Yet here
they are innovating.

Where?
I see no innovation from apple here.

Of course you don't. Apple were the first to popularise thunderbolt
changing their entire laptop, monitor and SFF computer range to Thunderbolt
ahead of all other makers. But in Dennis world this is not innovation.
Perhaps you don't understand the difference between innovation and
invention?

Now, how about you list all of the innovations that you claim that Apple
ignored? You ran away from this point previously like a whipped cur. How
about backing up your bull**** with a fact for once?

You told a pork pie, again, didn't you Dennis?

It appears you have told many in just this post.

And yet another lie from Dennis.

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Steve Firth wrote

which "new hardware innovations" were Apple slow to take up?

USB, IDE, ATA, SATA, mice with more than one
button, keyboards with function keys, etc etc etc.

Macs had SCSI

But not before it had showed up on the PC.

which were faster than ATA or IDE.

But they did go that route eventually.

As for USB well few new of it before the iMac came out.
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/qu...the-usb-market

Yes, but Apple were slow to have it.

"When Apple released their iMac there was a rush to release peripherals
to support them. Before that nobody really cared about USB despite the
fact that it was present on the majority of PCs. People were fine with
serial
and parallel ports - there was simply insufficient reasons to switch to
USB"

So that's saying that Apple was indeed slow with that.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
"dennis@home" wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
"dennis@home" wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...


So Dhenbhoi which "new hardware innovations" were Apple slow to take
up? Be
precise, give dates. List all the hardware that Apple "copied" again
give
dates.

While you are at it, list all the PC manufacturers currently
installing 288
dpi or better displays

What's the point, people can't see 144 dpi, which is probably why they
only use a display emulation of 1440x900.

I bet they will innovate a portable magnifying glass to see the
difference!

They don't need to. The human eye us perfectly capable of resolving and
seeing pixelation at 144 dpi.

2020 vision would only be about 180 dpi if I remember the formulae
correctly.
Nowhere near 288 dpi.

Even accepting that you are correct (and you are not) you are now
admitting
that your 144 dpi figure is ********.

A person with 20:20 vision viewing between 12 and 18" will be able to see
pixelation at 200 dpi. They will not be able to see pixelation on a
display
of 270 dpi.

You are repeating the information I posted again.

The point is to have a display that (just) exceeds the
resolving power of the human eye, you dolt.


I note you run away from admitting that M$ have ****ed up again by hard
coding in another stupid limit.

What limit is that?

The one previously mentioned. You really do have the memory span of a
gnat.
MS have hard coded a 144dpi limit into Windows.

What limit?
I can set mine to 500 dpi just using the slider control, but so what, it
doesn't determine the pixel pitch.


or Thunderbolt ports.

Well as apple don't do any chips they didn't do the thunderbolt ones
either.

Do PC manufacturers make all their own chips then Dennis?

Do you actually think apple designed thunderbolt?

Do PC manufacturers make their own chips Dennis?

Why do you keep repeating silly questions?


Apple bought in Thunderbolt from Intel. They led the way, PC
manufacturers
will follow once they can sort out their ****ed up graphics cards.

That's odd that's what I said,

No its not, you are telling a lie, again

why do you feel the need to repeat it?

I don't because it is not what you said.

What you said is below, so it's rather stupid of you to tell such a
transparent lie.

So i didn't include your irrelevant bit about graphics cards.


Others will fit them as soon as Intel designs them into the chipsets or
releases the design they have let apple have a six month lead on.

Oh boo hoo it's that big nasty Apple again.

But Dennis you claimed that they copy hardware and don't innovate. Yet
here
they are innovating.

Where?
I see no innovation from apple here.

Of course you don't. Apple were the first to popularise thunderbolt
changing their entire laptop, monitor and SFF computer range to
Thunderbolt
ahead of all other makers. But in Dennis world this is not innovation.
Perhaps you don't understand the difference between innovation and
invention?

Now, how about you list all of the innovations that you claim that Apple
ignored? You ran away from this point previously like a whipped cur. How
about backing up your bull**** with a fact for once?

You told a pork pie, again, didn't you Dennis?

It appears you have told many in just this post.

And yet another lie from Dennis.

I think you are (being) stupid.
There is a big difference between buying/using someone else's innovation and
being innovative.
I think its safe to ignore your thoughts on this as they are so skewed as to
be useless.

"Rod Speed" wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Steve Firth wrote

which "new hardware innovations" were Apple slow to take up?

USB, IDE, ATA, SATA, mice with more than one
button, keyboards with function keys, etc etc etc.

Macs had SCSI

But not before it had showed up on the PC.

Untrue. Macs were supplied with SCSI on the mainboard from 1986 onwards.

I can't recall a single PC with onboard SCSI and SCSI cards were third
party devices and not available until *after* Apple's implementation.

So go on Wodney. State which PC had SCSI before 1986.

which were faster than ATA or IDE.

But they did go that route eventually.

So what?

As for USB well few new of it before the iMac came out.
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/qu...the-usb-market

Yes, but Apple were slow to have it.

And before Apple had USB, USB was any used port on the PC.

"When Apple released their iMac there was a rush to release peripherals
to support them. Before that nobody really cared about USB despite the
fact that it was present on the majority of PCs. People were fine with serial
and parallel ports - there was simply insufficient reasons to switch to USB"

So that's saying that Apple was indeed slow with that.

It's saying that Apple created the market. You may want to visit an
optician Wodney to get that vision problem of yours corrected. While your
at it, ask him if he knows anyone who can remove that chip from your
shoulder.

Steve Firth wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote:
"When Apple released their iMac there was a rush to release
peripherals
to support them. Before that nobody really cared about USB despite the
fact that it was present on the majority of PCs. People were fine with serial
and parallel ports - there was simply insufficient reasons to switch to USB"
So that's saying that Apple was indeed slow with that.

It's saying that Apple created the market. You may want to visit an
optician Wodney to get that vision problem of yours corrected. While your
at it, ask him if he knows anyone who can remove that chip from your
shoulder.

He's probably still suffering from the ignominy of his ancestor being
caught and shipped out...

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"dennis@home" wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
"dennis@home" wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
"dennis@home" wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...


So Dhenbhoi which "new hardware innovations" were Apple slow to take
up? Be
precise, give dates. List all the hardware that Apple "copied" again give
dates.

While you are at it, list all the PC manufacturers currently
installing 288
dpi or better displays

What's the point, people can't see 144 dpi, which is probably why they
only use a display emulation of 1440x900.

I bet they will innovate a portable magnifying glass to see the difference!

They don't need to. The human eye us perfectly capable of resolving and
seeing pixelation at 144 dpi.

2020 vision would only be about 180 dpi if I remember the formulae correctly.
Nowhere near 288 dpi.

Even accepting that you are correct (and you are not) you are now admitting
that your 144 dpi figure is ********.

A person with 20:20 vision viewing between 12 and 18" will be able to see
pixelation at 200 dpi. They will not be able to see pixelation on a display
of 270 dpi.

You are repeating the information I posted again.

That's another lie from you.

I stated 200 dpi, you claimed 180 dpi. You also claimed that "people can't
see 144 dpi". Which is also false.

The point is to have a display that (just) exceeds the
resolving power of the human eye, you dolt.

Dennis avoids the point, again.

I note you run away from admitting that M$ have ****ed up again by hard
coding in another stupid limit.

What limit is that?

The one previously mentioned. You really do have the memory span of a gnat.
MS have hard coded a 144dpi limit into Windows.

What limit?
I can set mine to 500 dpi just using the slider control,

No you can't, you are telling a lie.

but so what, it doesn't determine the pixel pitch.

So now you agree you are telling a lie.

or Thunderbolt ports.

Well as apple don't do any chips they didn't do the thunderbolt ones either.

Do PC manufacturers make all their own chips then Dennis?

Dennis you didn't answer the question.

Do you actually think apple designed thunderbolt?

Do PC manufacturers make their own chips Dennis?

Why do you keep repeating silly questions?

Why do you keep avoiding the question?

Do PC manufacturers make their own chips Dennis?


Apple bought in Thunderbolt from Intel. They led the way, PC manufacturers
will follow once they can sort out their ****ed up graphics cards.

That's odd that's what I said,

No its not, you are telling a lie, again

why do you feel the need to repeat it?

I don't because it is not what you said.

What you said is below, so it's rather stupid of you to tell such a
transparent lie.

So i didn't include your irrelevant bit about graphics cards.

Thank you for admitting that you are a liar.

Others will fit them as soon as Intel designs them into the chipsets or
releases the design they have let apple have a six month lead on.

Oh boo hoo it's that big nasty Apple again.

But Dennis you claimed that they copy hardware and don't innovate. Yet here
they are innovating.

Where?
I see no innovation from apple here.

Of course you don't. Apple were the first to popularise thunderbolt
changing their entire laptop, monitor and SFF computer range to Thunderbolt
ahead of all other makers. But in Dennis world this is not innovation.
Perhaps you don't understand the difference between innovation and
invention?

Now, how about you list all of the innovations that you claim that Apple
ignored? You ran away from this point previously like a whipped cur. How
about backing up your bull**** with a fact for once?

You told a pork pie, again, didn't you Dennis?

It appears you have told many in just this post.

And yet another lie from Dennis.

I think you are (being) stupid.
There is a big difference between buying/using someone else's innovation
and being innovative.
I think its safe to ignore your thoughts on this as they are so skewed as to be useless.

Run away Dennis you've been caught out lying, again.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...



You are repeating the information I posted again.

That's another lie from you.

So you quote almost exactly the same figures as me and then claim I am
lying.


I stated 200 dpi, you claimed 180 dpi. You also claimed that "people can't
see 144 dpi". Which is also false.

Most people can't.


The point is to have a display that (just) exceeds the
resolving power of the human eye, you dolt.

Dennis avoids the point, again.

What point?


I note you run away from admitting that M$ have ****ed up again by
hard
coding in another stupid limit.

What limit is that?

The one previously mentioned. You really do have the memory span of a
gnat.
MS have hard coded a 144dpi limit into Windows.

What limit?
I can set mine to 500 dpi just using the slider control,

No you can't, you are telling a lie.

I can and you just don't have a clue and make up stuff.


but so what, it doesn't determine the pixel pitch.

So now you agree you are telling a lie.

No I am pointing out that not only did you lie about this M$ fixed limit but
it doesn't even matter.


or Thunderbolt ports.

Well as apple don't do any chips they didn't do the thunderbolt ones
either.

Do PC manufacturers make all their own chips then Dennis?

Dennis you didn't answer the question.

There is no point all you say is *lie* whenever you are wrong.


Do you actually think apple designed thunderbolt?

Do PC manufacturers make their own chips Dennis?

Why do you keep repeating silly questions?

Why do you keep avoiding the question?

Do PC manufacturers make their own chips Dennis?

Lets see, who is the second largest MB manufacturer in the world, oh that's
that well known chip maker.
I bet they don't use their chips just so Firth can be right.



Apple bought in Thunderbolt from Intel. They led the way, PC
manufacturers
will follow once they can sort out their ****ed up graphics cards.

That's odd that's what I said,

No its not, you are telling a lie, again

why do you feel the need to repeat it?

I don't because it is not what you said.

What you said is below, so it's rather stupid of you to tell such a
transparent lie.

So i didn't include your irrelevant bit about graphics cards.

Thank you for admitting that you are a liar.

Thanks for showing that you are an idiot.


Others will fit them as soon as Intel designs them into the chipsets
or
releases the design they have let apple have a six month lead on.

Oh boo hoo it's that big nasty Apple again.

But Dennis you claimed that they copy hardware and don't innovate. Yet
here
they are innovating.

Where?
I see no innovation from apple here.

Of course you don't. Apple were the first to popularise thunderbolt
changing their entire laptop, monitor and SFF computer range to
Thunderbolt
ahead of all other makers. But in Dennis world this is not innovation.
Perhaps you don't understand the difference between innovation and
invention?

Now, how about you list all of the innovations that you claim that Apple
ignored? You ran away from this point previously like a whipped cur. How
about backing up your bull**** with a fact for once?

You told a pork pie, again, didn't you Dennis?

It appears you have told many in just this post.

And yet another lie from Dennis.

I think you are (being) stupid.
There is a big difference between buying/using someone else's innovation
and being innovative.
I think its safe to ignore your thoughts on this as they are so skewed as
to be useless.

Run away Dennis you've been caught out lying, again.

You are so used to lying you think everyone does when they don't agree with
you.

Steve Firth wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Steve Firth wrote

which "new hardware innovations" were Apple slow to take up?

USB, IDE, ATA, SATA, mice with more than one
button, keyboards with function keys, etc etc etc.

Macs had SCSI

But not before it had showed up on the PC.

Untrue.

Nope.

Macs were supplied with SCSI on the mainboard from 1986 onwards.

There was SCSI on PCs before the Mac was even invented.

I can't recall a single PC with onboard SCSI

Didnt say anything about onboard SCSI.

and SCSI cards were third party devices

Yes.

and not available until *after* Apple's implementation.

Wrong, as always.

which were faster than ATA or IDE.

But they did go that route eventually.

So what?

So those are examples of "new hardware
innovations" were Apple slow to take up?

As for USB well few new of it before the iMac came out.
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/qu...the-usb-market

Yes, but Apple were slow to have it.

And before Apple had USB, USB was any used port on the PC.

Try that again in english.

"When Apple released their iMac there was a rush to release peripherals
to support them. Before that nobody really cared about USB despite the
fact that it was present on the majority of PCs. People were fine with
serial
and parallel ports - there was simply insufficient reasons to switch to
USB"

So that's saying that Apple was indeed slow with that.

It's saying that Apple created the market.

Another lie. It did nothing of the sort.

reams of your puerile **** any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed
where it belongs

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
Steve Firth wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote:
"When Apple released their iMac there was a rush to release
peripherals
to support them. Before that nobody really cared about USB despite the
fact that it was present on the majority of PCs. People were fine with
serial
and parallel ports - there was simply insufficient reasons to switch to
USB"
So that's saying that Apple was indeed slow with that.

It's saying that Apple created the market. You may want to visit an
optician Wodney to get that vision problem of yours corrected. While your
at it, ask him if he knows anyone who can remove that chip from your
shoulder.

He's probably still suffering from the ignominy of his ancestor being
caught and shipped out...

Just another of your pathetic little fantasys.

ALL of mine left voluntarily and left the dregs like you behind.

"dennis@home" wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...



You are repeating the information I posted again.

That's another lie from you.

So you quote almost exactly the same figures as me and then claim I am lying.

No, I quote a different figure to the two you quoted and you claim that
they are the same. i.e. you lied, again.

I stated 200 dpi, you claimed 180 dpi. You also claimed that "people can't
see 144 dpi". Which is also false.

Most people can't.

Shifting your story again Dennis? Anyone with 20:20 vision can and you
claimed this was not possible. Fudging it now with "most people" is another
sign of your inability to tell the truth.


The point is to have a display that (just) exceeds the
resolving power of the human eye, you dolt.

Dennis avoids the point, again.

What point?

Are you having reading problems as well as thinking problems?


I note you run away from admitting that M$ have ****ed up again by hard
coding in another stupid limit.

What limit is that?

The one previously mentioned. You really do have the memory span of a gnat.
MS have hard coded a 144dpi limit into Windows.

What limit?
I can set mine to 500 dpi just using the slider control,

No you can't, you are telling a lie.

I can and you just don't have a clue and make up stuff.

There is no 500dpi display resolution setting in Windows. Either you are
terminally stupid or a liar.

but so what, it doesn't determine the pixel pitch.

So now you agree you are telling a lie.

No I am pointing out that not only did you lie about this M$ fixed limit
but it doesn't even matter.

I'm not telling a lie about the limit in Windows even MS admit it is a
limit.


or Thunderbolt ports.

Well as apple don't do any chips they didn't do the thunderbolt
ones either.

Do PC manufacturers make all their own chips then Dennis?

Dennis you didn't answer the question.

There is no point all you say is *lie* whenever you are wrong.

Dennis you didn't answer the question, again.

Do you actually think apple designed thunderbolt?

Do PC manufacturers make their own chips Dennis?

Why do you keep repeating silly questions?

Why do you keep avoiding the question?

Do PC manufacturers make their own chips Dennis?

Lets see, who is the second largest MB manufacturer in the world, oh
that's that well known chip maker.
I bet they don't use their chips just so Firth can be right.

Intel is a component maker Dennis. Try again. Whic PC maker makes its own
chips Dennis?

Apple bought in Thunderbolt from Intel. They led the way, PC manufacturers
will follow once they can sort out their ****ed up graphics cards.

That's odd that's what I said,

No its not, you are telling a lie, again

why do you feel the need to repeat it?

I don't because it is not what you said.

What you said is below, so it's rather stupid of you to tell such a
transparent lie.

So i didn't include your irrelevant bit about graphics cards.

Thank you for admitting that you are a liar.

Thanks for showing that you are an idiot.

I'd say the idiot is the one telling transparent lies and who is unable to
back them up - you.
[snip]

Run away Dennis you've been caught out lying, again.

You are so used to lying you think everyone does when they don't agree with you.

I can tell that you are lying Dennis because you're too stupid to admit
that you were wrong.

"Rod Speed" wrote:
Steve Firth wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
[snip]

Macs had SCSI

But not before it had showed up on the PC.

Untrue.

Nope.

It's untrue, you are telling a lie.
U
Macs were supplied with SCSI on the mainboard from 1986 onwards.

There was SCSI on PCs before the Mac was even invented.

No there could not have been. SCSI was ratified as a standard in 1986.
There were no SCSI systems before 1986. The Mac went on sale in 1984 and
was "invented" considerably before that.


I can't recall a single PC with onboard SCSI

Didnt say anything about onboard SCSI.

No one said you did. However it highlight the fact that no PC manufacturer
provided SCSI. It was a third party add on.

and SCSI cards were third party devices

Yes.

So you agree that you were talking ********, again.

and not available until *after* Apple's implementation.

Wrong, as always.

You are indeed.

which were faster than ATA or IDE.

But they did go that route eventually.

So what?

So those are examples of "new hardware
innovations" were Apple slow to take up?

You now seem unsure. ATA/IDE were not "innovations" they were cheap and
dirty interfaces with extremely poor performance.

As for USB well few new of it before the iMac came out.
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/qu...the-usb-market

Yes, but Apple were slow to have it.

And before Apple had USB, USB was any used port on the PC.

Try that again in english.

And before Apple had USB, USB was an unused port on the PC.

"When Apple released their iMac there was a rush to release peripherals
to support them. Before that nobody really cared about USB despite the
fact that it was present on the majority of PCs. People were fine with serial
and parallel ports - there was simply insufficient reasons to switch to USB"

So that's saying that Apple was indeed slow with that.

It's saying that Apple created the market.

Another lie. It did nothing of the sort.

It did exactly that. USB was going nowhere until Apple created a market for
it.

reams of your puerile **** any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs

Oh Wodney, how easily you give in.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...

There is no 500dpi display resolution setting in Windows. Either you are
terminally stupid or a liar.

There is and you are just too stupid to know where or even what it really
means.


8

Intel is a component maker Dennis. Try again. Whic PC maker makes its own
chips Dennis?

You really are stupid, I have used OEM machines *made* by Intel.
The same machines being sold by HP and others.

You just don't have a clue.


8

I'd say the idiot is the one telling transparent lies and who is unable to
back them up - you.
[snip]

Well you have totally failed to backup any of your claims, not just in this
thread but ever.

8

I can tell that you are lying Dennis because you're too stupid to admit
that you were wrong.

You are the liar here.

On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 8:33:07 PM UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
"Steve Firth" > wrote in message
...
> "dennis@home" > wrote:
>> "Tim Streater" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article >,
>>> "dennis@home" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Steve Firth" > wrote in message >>
>>>> ..
>
>>>>> While you are at it, list all the PC manufacturers currently
>>>>> installing >> > 288 dpi or better displays
>>>>
>>>> What's the point, people can't see 144 dpi, which is probably why they
>>>> >> only use a display emulation of 1440x900.
>>>
>>> So that's none of them then.
>>
>> As I said what's the point.
>
> None for a halfwit like you.
>
>> It may be needed on a small screen but they can't even use it on their
>> iPad, they have to scale everything by a factor of two.
>
> Another lie. They don't "have" to do such a thing at all. MacOS and iOS
> check the capabilities of the App. If it can handle a Retina display it
> may
> do so. If it was written for a standard display the rendering is
> interpolated appropriately.

So that's why the OS does it then, it can't handle the display they have put
in!

It can handle the display that's part of what the OS does.
Oh and Apple designed the ipad (A4) chip no one else did it.
W7 can't handle such diplays is that what you mean.

On Jul 17, 10:00*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:


Well as apple don't do any chips

The truth of that statement depends how pedantic you want to be.
Hardly anyone fabs complex chips these days. Apple do, however, design
their own, including processors, and have bought a number of chip
design companies in recent years.

MBQ

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...

8 badly mangled stuff.


It can handle the display that's part of what the OS does.

Yes by doubling everything up as its all too small to be useful if they
don't.
So the display is obviously too fine or they wouldn't need to do it.
Or maybe the OS just can't scale stuff very well?

Oh and Apple designed the ipad (A4) chip no one else did it.

So they say, but they claimed all sorts of thing, or at least they let their
zealots claim stuff and don't correct stuff that they think is advantageous
to them.

W7 can't handle such diplays is that what you mean.

What do you mean can't handle such displays?
It obviously can, just look at the HD monitors it does handle (eg. Eizo
FDH3601 4096 x 2160 pixels) and then look at multiple monitors stacked in
4x4 or bigger arrays.
Windows can obviously handle several k x several k resolutions.

It can also scale text to make stuff look bigger on high resolution
displays.
You open display, resolution, change DPI, and drag the slider around, it
stops at around 500 dpi but you can always edit the registry if you want
something more.

If you want to explain what you mean by it can't handle the displays you are
referring to please do so.

Man at B&Q wrote:
On Jul 17, 10:00 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:

Well as apple don't do any chips

The truth of that statement depends how pedantic you want to be.
Hardly anyone fabs complex chips these days. Apple do, however, design
their own, including processors, and have bought a number of chip
design companies in recent years.

Probably why they went to Intel for their main processor..
MBQ


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Jul 17, 10:00 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:

Well as apple don't do any chips

The truth of that statement depends how pedantic you want to be.
Hardly anyone fabs complex chips these days. Apple do, however, design
their own, including processors, and have bought a number of chip
design companies in recent years.

Probably why they went to Intel for their main processor..

Firths quiet, shame really as I wanted to remind him that the details about
the iPad are wrong, its only 1536x2014 pixels and ~240 dpi, is that more
lies by him?

On 18/07/2012 22:01, Steve Firth wrote:
So go on Wodney. State which PC had SCSI before 1986.

http://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/1821/ICL-Personal-Computer-Model-36-8122-20/

Now, see that big socket on the back? That's a SASI bus. Or in a later
model, as soon as it existed, a SCSI bus, because Shugart Associates
System Interface became SCSI.

Andy

Steve Firth wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Steve Firth wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Steve Firth wrote

which "new hardware innovations" were Apple slow to take up?

USB, IDE, ATA, SATA, mice with more than one
button, keyboards with function keys, etc etc etc.

Macs had SCSI

But not before it had showed up on the PC.

Untrue.

Nope.

It's untrue,

Nope.

you are telling a lie.

Nope.

Macs were supplied with SCSI on the mainboard from 1986 onwards.

There was SCSI on PCs before the Mac was even invented.

No there could not have been.

Fraid so.

SCSI was ratified as a standard in 1986.

Irrelevant to when it was seen in the PC.

There were no SCSI systems before 1986.

You are wrong, as always.

The Mac went on sale in 1984 and
was "invented" considerably before that.

But it didnt have SCSI at that time.

I can't recall a single PC with onboard SCSI

Didnt say anything about onboard SCSI.

No one said you did. However it highlight the fact that no
PC manufacturer provided SCSI. It was a third party add on.

Still SCSI on the PC.

and SCSI cards were third party devices

Yes.

So you agree that you were talking ********, again.

Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying,
as you always do when you have got done like a
****ing dinner, as you always are by everyone.

and not available until *after* Apple's implementation.

Wrong, as always.

You are indeed.

More of your puerile ****.

which were faster than ATA or IDE.

But they did go that route eventually.

So what?

So those are examples of "new hardware
innovations" were Apple slow to take up?

You now seem unsure.

Then you need to get your seems machinery seen to, BAD.

ATA/IDE were not "innovations"

Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.

they were cheap and dirty interfaces with extremely poor performance.

How odd that Apple used them, well after they were used on the PC.

As for USB well few new of it before the iMac came out.
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/qu...the-usb-market

Yes, but Apple were slow to have it.

And before Apple had USB, USB was any used port on the PC.

Try that again in english.

And before Apple had USB, USB was an unused port on the PC.

That is a lie. It was not unused on the PC before Apple had USB.

"When Apple released their iMac there was a rush to release
peripherals
to support them. Before that nobody really cared about USB despite the
fact that it was present on the majority of PCs. People were fine with
serial
and parallel ports - there was simply insufficient reasons to switch
to USB"

So that's saying that Apple was indeed slow with that.

It's saying that Apple created the market.

Another lie. It did nothing of the sort.

It did exactly that. USB was going nowhere until Apple created a market
for it.

Another bare faced lie.

Pity about all the other hardware innovations I listed that
even you have admitted that Apple was slow to take up.

reams of your puerile **** any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed
where it belongs

"Rod Speed" wrote:
Steve Firth wrote

[overdue snip]

There was SCSI on PCs before the Mac was even invented.

No there could not have been.

Fraid so.

I know that you're afraid - because you have been caught bull****ting -
again.

SCSI was ratified as a standard in 1986.

Irrelevant to when it was seen in the PC.

Do explain how PCs managed to have SCSI before SCSI existed.

There were no SCSI systems before 1986.

You are wrong, as always.

List the SCSI implementations that existed before 1986 then.

[snip the ravings of an Australian Alcoholic]

On Jul 19, 2:06*pm, Steve Firth wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote:
Steve Firth wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote

[snip]

Macs had SCSI

But not before it had showed up on the PC.

Untrue.

Nope.

It's untrue, you are telling a lie.
U

Macs were supplied with SCSI on the mainboard from 1986 onwards.

There was SCSI on PCs before the Mac was even invented.

No there could not have been.

THere could well have been.

SCSI was ratified as a standard in 1986.
There were no SCSI systems before 1986.

SCSI chips, e.g. the NCR5385 launched in 1983, existed well before
1986 and may well have been built into PC systems.

MBQ

"Man at B&Q" wrote:
On Jul 19, 2:06 pm, Steve Firth wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote:
Steve Firth wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote

[snip]

Macs had SCSI

But not before it had showed up on the PC.

Untrue.

Nope.

It's untrue, you are telling a lie.
U

Macs were supplied with SCSI on the mainboard from 1986 onwards.

There was SCSI on PCs before the Mac was even invented.

No there could not have been.

THere could well have been.

No there could not have been.

SCSI was ratified as a standard in 1986.
There were no SCSI systems before 1986.

SCSI chips, e.g. the NCR5385 launched in 1983, existed well before
1986 and may well have been built into PC systems.

Then I'm sure that you or Wodney can identify which IBM PCs featured SCSI
before 1986. Or rather I'm sure you can't since there were none. The first
PC in the IBM catalogue which featured SCSI was the PS/2 in 1994.

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 21:19:59 +0000, Steve Firth wrote:

"Man at B&Q" wrote:
On Jul 19, 2:06 pm, Steve Firth wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote:
Steve Firth wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote

[snip]

Macs had SCSI

But not before it had showed up on the PC.

Untrue.

Nope.

It's untrue, you are telling a lie.
U

Macs were supplied with SCSI on the mainboard from 1986 onwards.

There was SCSI on PCs before the Mac was even invented.

No there could not have been.

THere could well have been.

No there could not have been.

SCSI was ratified as a standard in 1986. There were no SCSI systems
before 1986.

SCSI chips, e.g. the NCR5385 launched in 1983, existed well before 1986
and may well have been built into PC systems.

Then I'm sure that you or Wodney can identify which IBM PCs featured
SCSI before 1986. Or rather I'm sure you can't since there were none.
The first PC in the IBM catalogue which featured SCSI was the PS/2 in
1994.

Which is wrong, because I bought one in August 1992. I still have it
somewhere.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

Bob Eager wrote:

Which is wrong, because I bought one in August 1992. I still have it
somewhere.



Of course, its steve firth posting


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
"Man at B&Q" wrote:
On Jul 19, 2:06 pm, Steve Firth wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote:
Steve Firth wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote

[snip]

Macs had SCSI

But not before it had showed up on the PC.

Untrue.

Nope.

It's untrue, you are telling a lie.
U

Macs were supplied with SCSI on the mainboard from 1986 onwards.

There was SCSI on PCs before the Mac was even invented.

No there could not have been.

THere could well have been.

No there could not have been.

SCSI was ratified as a standard in 1986.
There were no SCSI systems before 1986.

SCSI chips, e.g. the NCR5385 launched in 1983, existed well before
1986 and may well have been built into PC systems.

Then I'm sure that you or Wodney can identify which IBM PCs featured SCSI
before 1986. Or rather I'm sure you can't since there were none. The first
PC in the IBM catalogue which featured SCSI was the PS/2 in 1994.

Irrelevant to what SCSI cards there were for the PC before the Mac showed
up.

"Rod Speed" wrote:

Irrelevant to what SCSI cards there were for the PC before the Mac showed up.

Enlighten by naming the ISA SCSI card that you allege existed in 1983.

Or stand condemned as the idiot you are.

Steve Firth wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Irrelevant to what SCSI cards there were for the PC before the Mac showed
up.

Enlighten

Not even possible with fools like you.

by naming the ISA SCSI card that you allege existed in 1983.

You've had your stupid pig ignorant nose rubbed in when the
first SCSI chips showed up, WELL before the Mac showed up.

Keep desperately digging the hole you are in ****wit child.

You'll be out in china any day now.

On 21/07/2012 08:55, Steve Firth wrote:
Irrelevant to what SCSI cards there were for the PC before the Mac showed up.

Enlighten by naming the ISA SCSI card that you allege existed in 1983.

Or stand condemned as the idiot you are.

(noted usual purile ****e from wodney, as always....)

Adaptec made SCSI controller MFM bridge cards in 1983. Hard drives for
the BBC Micro were built about those. I have a few.

http://www.adaptec.com/en-us/support...acb/acb-4000a/

SCSI started out as SASI (Shugart)

Surely SCSI/SASI had use in other computer systems before Apple. Unix?
CPM? Dunno.

--
Adrian C

Adrian C wrote:
On 21/07/2012 08:55, Steve Firth wrote:
Irrelevant to what SCSI cards there were for the PC before the Mac showed up.

Enlighten by naming the ISA SCSI card that you allege existed in 1983.

Or stand condemned as the idiot you are.

(noted usual purile ****e from wodney, as always....)

Adaptec made SCSI controller MFM bridge cards in 1983. Hard drives for
the BBC Micro were built about those. I have a few.

http://www.adaptec.com/en-us/support...acb/acb-4000a/

SCSI started out as SASI (Shugart)

Surely SCSI/SASI had use in other computer systems before Apple. Unix? CPM? Dunno.

Yes I know SASI was in use - but the controllers were larger and more
expensive than the drives and this was in full height drive days.

I'm just mildly amused in this that Wodney is making specific claims then
running away when asked to give the detail he claims to know.

"Rod Speed" wrote:
Steve Firth wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Irrelevant to what SCSI cards there were for the PC before the Mac showed up.

Enlighten

Not even possible with fools like you.

It's possible unless you're a bull**** merchant.

by naming the ISA SCSI card that you allege existed in 1983.

You've had your stupid pig ignorant nose rubbed in when the
first SCSI chips showed up, WELL before the Mac showed up.

That does not mean they were used in PCs, does it Wodeney.?

Keep desperately digging the hole you are in ****wit child.

So you can't answer the question and all you have is hand waving and
bull****. Same old, same old.

Now, last chance, name the PC manufacturer supplying PCs with SCSI in 1983
or earlier, it wasn't IBM and given the shortage of clone makers around
that time you're going to have to pull a large rabbit from a small hat.

Just to remind you, it was you that claimed that PCs had SCSI before the
Mac was "invented". So that's before 1984 (being charitable and allowing
"invented" to mean "on sale" and not taking the day the Mac first worked
which was in 1980 when Jef Raskin's design first ran.)

Alternatively state which ISA card was on sale in 1983.

It's that easy Wodney. You claim to know the answer, so provide it.

Or you could flim-flam, wave your hands around, rant about "purile(sic)"
and look like a total loser. Your choice.

You'll be out in china any day now.

How is that Chop Suey, Wodders?

On 21/07/2012 12:47, Steve Firth wrote:
Yes I know SASI was in use - but the controllers were larger and more
expensive than the drives and this was in full height drive days.

I'm just mildly amused in this that Wodney is making specific claims then
running away when asked to give the detail he claims to know.

He's just running true to (long term) form...

http://tinyurl.com/883xp7v

He's been at it for at least a decade.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 20/07/2012 22:19, Steve Firth wrote:
Then I'm sure that you or Wodney can identify which IBM PCs featured SCSI
before 1986. Or rather I'm sure you can't since there were none. The first
PC in the IBM catalogue which featured SCSI was the PS/2 in 1994.

I like the way "IBM" suddenly appears before "PC" two minutes after I
post a link to someone else's PC with a SCSI bus...

Andy

"Adrian C" wrote in message
...

Surely SCSI/SASI had use in other computer systems before Apple. Unix?
CPM? Dunno.

well I remember we had SCSI controller cards (multibus IIRC) in the early
80s.
The disks were incredibly expensive and huge, about 11" w x 18" deep and 4"
high from memory.

It was before the full height 8" drives were about.

before that I was using a larger (14"?) MFM drive but it wasn't suitable as
it could make the whole rack walk across the floor.

Steve Firth wrote
Adrian C wrote
Steve Firth wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Irrelevant to what SCSI cards there were for the PC before the Mac
showed up.

Enlighten by naming the ISA SCSI card that you allege existed in 1983.

Or stand condemned as the idiot you are.

Adaptec made SCSI controller MFM bridge cards in 1983.

So thats blown you completely out of the ****ing water, as always.

Hard drives for the BBC Micro were built about those. I have a few.
http://www.adaptec.com/en-us/support...acb/acb-4000a/

SCSI started out as SASI (Shugart)

Surely SCSI/SASI had use in other computer systems before Apple. Unix?
CPM? Dunno.

Yes I know SASI was in use - but the controllers were larger and more
expensive than the drives and this was in full height drive days.

Irrelevant, they were around before the Mac showed up, you pathetic excuse
for a bull**** artist.

"Rod Speed" wrote:
Steve Firth wrote
Adrian C wrote
Steve Firth wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Irrelevant to what SCSI cards there were for the PC before the Mac showed up.

Enlighten by naming the ISA SCSI card that you allege existed in 1983.

Or stand condemned as the idiot you are.

Adaptec made SCSI controller MFM bridge cards in 1983.

So thats blown you completely out of the ****ing water, as always.

Well no it hasn't Dumbo.

Hard drives for the BBC Micro were built about those. I have a few.
http://www.adaptec.com/en-us/support...acb/acb-4000a/

Since when was a BBC micro an IBM PC Wodney?

Are you ever going to state which "PC" you reckon was shipping before the
Mac was "invented"?

SCSI started out as SASI (Shugart)

Surely SCSI/SASI had use in other computer systems before Apple. Unix? CPM? Dunno.

Yes I know SASI was in use - but the controllers were larger and more
expensive than the drives and this was in full height drive days.

Irrelevant, they were around before the Mac showed up, you pathetic
excuse for a bull**** artist.

SASI is not SCSI Wodney. You really are dumber than a rock aren't you?

Steve Firth wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Steve Firth wrote
Adrian C wrote
Steve Firth wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Irrelevant to what SCSI cards there were for the PC before the Mac
showed up.

Enlighten by naming the ISA SCSI card that you allege existed in 1983.

Or stand condemned as the idiot you are.

Adaptec made SCSI controller MFM bridge cards in 1983.

So thats blown you completely out of the ****ing water, as always.

Well no it hasn't

You've been caught lying, yet again.

Hard drives for the BBC Micro were built about those. I have a few.
http://www.adaptec.com/en-us/support...acb/acb-4000a/

Since when was a BBC micro an IBM PC

You were the only one slipping the letters IBM in and stupidly hoping no one
would notice you doing that, you pathetic excuse for a lying bull****
artist.

none of the rest of your furious digging down that hole thats fooling
absolutely no one at all worth bothering with, all flushed where it belongs

On 21/07/2012 11:15, Adrian C wrote:
On 21/07/2012 08:55, Steve Firth wrote:
Irrelevant to what SCSI cards there were for the PC before the Mac
showed up.

Enlighten by naming the ISA SCSI card that you allege existed in 1983.

Or stand condemned as the idiot you are.

(noted usual purile ****e from wodney, as always....)

Adaptec made SCSI controller MFM bridge cards in 1983. Hard drives for
the BBC Micro were built about those. I have a few.

http://www.adaptec.com/en-us/support...acb/acb-4000a/

SCSI started out as SASI (Shugart)

Surely SCSI/SASI had use in other computer systems before Apple. Unix?
CPM? Dunno.

Some Amiga examples from late '85 IIRC. Common on workstations of the
time as well.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/