From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:44:38 +0200, Snubis wrote:

On Mon 30 Jun 2003 03:05:54p, Mike <mike.2871DELETE_ME@btinternet.com>
wrote in news:BB2648A2.6510%mike.2871DELETE_ME@btinternet.com:

On 30/6/03 3:40 am, in article
8qNLa.210115$4y6.3390561@twister.tampabay.rr.com, "Omphalos"
<omphalos@xmsg.com> wrote:

I don't like Macs because you can't do anything on them and .....
thier artsy fartsy overdone restaurant menus ....more drivel

I guess you're jealous as other children in you class have Mac
Powerbooks and you only have a flimsy Intel laptop. Such is life,
maybe you'll learn, but I doubt it.

As for Macintosh users, well some people like paying more for less.

ahaha ahahaha ahahahahha ahahahahahahahah

Oh, you were serious.
--
Rick

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <4ld7t-cr2.ln1@host.newsservicer.org>,
Sinister Midget <xunil@k-c.rr-com> wrote:

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 03:00:46 GMT, flippo@mac.com blathered and smoked:

Second, you haven't shown a thing that shows Linux to be safer than
MacOS X.

Neither did you provide anything to show OS X or prior to be safer than >anything.

The lack of native viruses for OS X should be sufficient.

Last time I checked, there wasn't a single known virus for Mac OS X.
That's not true for Linux.

Check a little harder next time.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/computer-virus/macintosh-faq/

Scroll on down to number 7.

.. and all you'll find is stuff about viruses for the *old* MacOS.
*Not* OS X. IOW those viruses do not run on OS X.

http://www.hawaii.edu/macalerts/

From the link you provided above:

"NOTE: The virus is not a Macintosh virus, it is a MACRO virus - it
can spread on a Macintosh computer, and on a PC, it replicates itself
like a regular macro virus. It doesn't mass-mail on Macintosh, it like
does on PC."

IOW we maccies can recieve the virus, we can even (apparently) pass it
on if we don't mess with the file, but it won't actually do anything
by itself when it's on a mac. Why? Because the MacOS (new *and* old)
is more secure than Windows of any kind.

Mind you, these macroviruses are a good reason to stay away from
everything that comes from Microsoft.

http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/index_macexe.html

The viruses I recognized on that list were all from the original
MacOS. None would work on OS X. And notice how most of those viruses
were a, b, c, etc versions of the same half dozen viruses.

http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/index_macworm.html

And that page is about the many versions of *one* worm - which like
the viruses in your previous link does not run on OS X.

http://www.macworld.com/2001/01/bc/18melissa/

This article is from 2001. Since it does not say anything about OS X
I'm inclined to think it only affects the old MacOS. Either way, it's
not so much a Mac virus as a Microsoft macrovirus. Again - stay away
from Microsoft's stuff. One may view Microsoft applications as
platforms for running viruses.

http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/index_flash.html

What does this have to do with the Mac?

http://antivirus.about.com/library/weekly/aa061101a.htm

For the old Mac OS. Not OS X.

http://www.sherpasoft.org.uk/MacVirus.archive/reference/autostart.html

The Hong Kong Worm was for the old Mac OS.

More than just virus information enclosed in the following, but it has that in
it, too:

http://www.ciac.org/ciac/bulletinsByType/vndr_apple_bulletins.html

Look at the dates for the virus bulletins; they're all from the
eighties and nineties - which means not for OS X.

I'll be here when you come up with your comparable list of virus and
other malware for linux.

Your list turned out to be a list of nothing at all. Not one single
worm or virus for OS X. As for a comparable list, I'll provide you
with *one* link:

http://worldtechtribune.com/worldtechtribune/asparticles/buzz/bz0917200
2.asp

One virus (slapper) is more than the zero you came up with for OS X.

While I still didn't "prove" that linux is more secure than MAC (sorry,
I'm still stupid), neither have you proven the opposite yet.

I did just now. One Linux virus vs zero for OS X.

At the very least I've shown satisfactorily that your claim that none
exist for MAC (man, am I a dumbshit or what?) is either absolutely and >completely false, or it is an uninformed statement.

The uninformed one is yourself. You would have done yourself a favour
by reading those links you provided. Afaik there are no viruses/worms
for OS X. At worst we might have problems with some Microsoft macros,
but that can be avoided by not using their products.

Now, at least, the uninformed part should be remedied if that was the >problem.

Want some salt with that crow?

(ridiculously long newgroup list trimmed)

--

C Lund, Oslo
http://www.notam02.no/~clund/
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

<html><input type crash></html>
begin fix

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 09:59:53 +0200, christopher.lund@NOSPAMchello.no blathered and smoked:

In article <4ld7t-cr2.ln1@host.newsservicer.org>,
Sinister Midget <xunil@k-c.rr-com> wrote:

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 03:00:46 GMT, flippo@mac.com blathered and smoked:

Second, you haven't shown a thing that shows Linux to be safer than
MacOS X.

Neither did you provide anything to show OS X or prior to be safer than >>anything.

The lack of native viruses for OS X should be sufficient.

I might agree with it if I didn't find it laughable.

Your original claim (quotes provided upon request) were that none
existed for Mac/MAC/mac/MaC/mAc. Even immediately above, we see you
claiming "lack of native viruses". We shall see in due order that the
claim is not correct.

Last time I checked, there wasn't a single known virus for Mac OS X.
That's not true for Linux.

Ah. I don't need to provide it. There it is.

We continue.....

Check a little harder next time.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/computer-virus/macintosh-faq/

Scroll on down to number 7.

.. and all you'll find is stuff about viruses for the *old* MacOS.
*Not* OS X. IOW those viruses do not run on OS X.

I realized my mistake, and did so far too late to correct it.

Don't you know I'm stupid? I use MAC instead of Mac, after all! I also
use OSX, OSx, OS 10 and a few others as the feeling hits me. So I'm
just a dyed-in-the-wool maroon!

Now, let me correct that little misstep:

http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2001/08/06/hacker/

"The Simpsons virus can affect Mac OS X -- so can SevenDust, CODE 0911
and MBDF, but only in the Classic environment."

Are we all better now?

Remember, your claim was there was none that was native. Looks to me
like there's at least one, plus 3 more that can run under it, making
them card-players even if they wouldn't classify as "native" in the
purest sense.

<SNIP OF PROOF I SCREWED-UP *YAWN*>

Your list turned out to be a list of nothing at all. Not one single
worm or virus for OS X. As for a comparable list, I'll provide you
with *one* link:

http://worldtechtribune.com/worldtechtribune/asparticles/buzz/bz0917200
2.asp

One virus (slapper) is more than the zero you came up with for OS X.

See above.

We're now 1 to 1, unless you use Classic. Then we're 4 to 1. Do you
ever use Classic mode while playing around in (you're probably
anal-retentive about this one, too) OSX/OsX/osX/OS X/OS 10/OS 20-X?

While I still didn't "prove" that linux is more secure than MAC (sorry,
I'm still stupid), neither have you proven the opposite yet.

I did just now. One Linux virus vs zero for OS X.

See way above. Then see slightly above (either tied, or you edge me out
4:1, take yer pick).

Anyway, you still haven't shown Mac/mac/MAC/mAc to be _more_ secure.
You've simply given evidence that Linux isn't perfect. Good for you!
Did somebody make the claim that it was perfect?

I did, however, show that your claim of "no native" virus is an invalid
claim.

At the very least I've shown satisfactorily that your claim that none
exist for MAC (man, am I a dumbshit or what?) is either absolutely and >>completely false, or it is an uninformed statement.

This part is now true, though I was wrong about it the first time. Now
that I've shown something that meets the limitations you put on the
original uninformed claim, limitations which I missed in my haste, I
have now shown properly that your claim of no virus on MAC/mac/Mac or
whatever name makes you feel all wet is still incorrect.

The uninformed one is yourself. You would have done yourself a favour
by reading those links you provided. Afaik there are no viruses/worms
for OS X. At worst we might have problems with some Microsoft macros,
but that can be avoided by not using their products.

My mistake was in not noticing how you narrowed things. I've fixed
that. Now, back to you, because I've shown either 1 or 4, depending on
whether you use legacy things or not.

Now, at least, the uninformed part should be remedied if that was the >>problem.

Want some salt with that crow?

No thanks. You can keep it all for yourself. You'll need it.

(ridiculously long newgroup list trimmed)

Wasn't added by me. It was added by the Windoze/MAC troll that got this
all started.

--
Yesterday it worked.
Today it does not work.
Windows is like that.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Omphalos wrote:

On Tue 01 Jul 2003 07:56:24a, flip <flippo@mac.com> wrote in news:flippo-161981.06521401072003@news.central.cox.net:

YOU claimed that Linux was safer than OS X. Since there isn't a
single known OS X virus, I'm curious how you reached that
conclusion. In any event, you're the one who claimed that Linux was
safer, so feel free to provide evidence.

Why would someone bother writing a virus for a system that no one uses?

I hope that is what most think.
But, then again, why do you waste any of your life- any heartbeats at
all- coming here to write about something that, as you say, 'no one uses'?

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Dingleberry wrote:

Nah. While the Macintosh community continues to shower its choice of
computer with praise, the rest of the world can't help but shake their
heads.

The world moved on long ago.

But, you are still here? They went that way ---->
Run along, you might catch them. Don't forget to shake your head.

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <2qf8t-07q.ln1@host.newsservicer.org>,
Sinister Midget <xunil@k-c.rr-com> whimpered and whined:

<html><input type crash></html>

Why the html?

begin fix

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 09:59:53 +0200, christopher.lund@NOSPAMchello.no blathered
and smoked:

In article <4ld7t-cr2.ln1@host.newsservicer.org>,
Sinister Midget <xunil@k-c.rr-com> wrote:

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 03:00:46 GMT, flippo@mac.com blathered and smoked:

Second, you haven't shown a thing that shows Linux to be safer than
MacOS X.

Neither did you provide anything to show OS X or prior to be safer than >>>anything.

The lack of native viruses for OS X should be sufficient.

I might agree with it if I didn't find it laughable.

Your original claim

*My* original claim? Don't you even know who you're replying to?

(quotes provided upon request) were that none
existed for Mac/MAC/mac/MaC/mAc. Even immediately above, we see you
claiming "lack of native viruses". We shall see in due order that the
claim is not correct.

Having read your post I can tell you you're wrong.

Last time I checked, there wasn't a single known virus for Mac OS X.
That's not true for Linux.

Ah. I don't need to provide it. There it is.

Again, try to keep track of the posters. Mind you, there are so far no
native viruses for OS X (unless one was released *really* recently).

We continue.....

Check a little harder next time.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/computer-virus/macintosh-faq/

Scroll on down to number 7.

.. and all you'll find is stuff about viruses for the *old* MacOS.
*Not* OS X. IOW those viruses do not run on OS X.

I realized my mistake, and did so far too late to correct it.

Don't you know I'm stupid? I use MAC instead of Mac, after all! I also
use OSX, OSx, OS 10 and a few others as the feeling hits me. So I'm
just a dyed-in-the-wool maroon!

Now, let me correct that little misstep:

http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2001/08/06/hacker/

"The Simpsons virus can affect Mac OS X -- so can SevenDust, CODE 0911
and MBDF, but only in the Classic environment."

Are we all better now?

No you're not. The classic environment is not OS X. It's an emulator
running under OS X. Those viruses need an emulator for the old Mac OS
to run under OS X just like all the other Mac OS applications.

So still no OS X native viruses.

Remember, your claim was there was none that was native. Looks to me
like there's at least one, plus 3 more that can run under it, making
them card-players even if they wouldn't classify as "native" in the
purest sense.

You have four viruses that work in Classic mode. What do you mean by
"alt least one plus 3 moreŠ"?

What you're saying is similar to saying that windows viruses run
native on OS X if they work under Virtual PC.

No, you're still wrong.

Your list turned out to be a list of nothing at all. Not one single
worm or virus for OS X. As for a comparable list, I'll provide you
with *one* link:

http://worldtechtribune.com/worldtechtribune/asparticles/buzz/bz0917200
2.asp
One virus (slapper) is more than the zero you came up with for OS X.

See above.

Yeah, do that.

We're now 1 to 1,

No, we're still at 1 Linux virus vs 0 OS X viruses.

unless you use Classic.

Unless you include emulators, you mean. Maybe you want to include
Windows/PC emulators while you're at it? Not to mention the Microsoft
Macros?

Then we're 4 to 1.

Only if you include emulators. IOW we're no longer talking about
native viruses.

Do you
ever use Classic mode while playing around in (you're probably
anal-retentive about this one, too) OSX/OsX/osX/OS X/OS 10/OS 20-X?

Occasionally. But a virus that needs an emulator to run is not native.

While I still didn't "prove" that linux is more secure than MAC (sorry, >>>I'm still stupid), neither have you proven the opposite yet.

I did just now. One Linux virus vs zero for OS X.

See way above. Then see slightly above (either tied, or you edge me out
4:1, take yer pick).

Yeah, I've seen above. We're still at one Linux virus vs zero for OS X.

Anyway, you still haven't shown Mac/mac/MAC/mAc to be _more_ secure.
You've simply given evidence that Linux isn't perfect. Good for you!
Did somebody make the claim that it was perfect?

Hmm.. strawman?

I did, however, show that your claim of "no native" virus is an invalid >claim.

No, you did not.

The uninformed one is yourself. You would have done yourself a favour
by reading those links you provided. Afaik there are no viruses/worms
for OS X. At worst we might have problems with some Microsoft macros,
but that can be avoided by not using their products.

My mistake was in not noticing how you narrowed things. I've fixed
that. Now, back to you, because I've shown either 1 or 4, depending on >whether you use legacy things or not.

No, We're down to one vs zero.

Now, at least, the uninformed part should be remedied if that was the >>>problem.

Want some salt with that crow?

No thanks. You can keep it all for yourself. You'll need it.

Why?

--

C Lund, Oslo
http://www.notam02.no/~clund/
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <12j8t-5js.ln1@host.newsservicer.org>,
Sinister Midget <xunil@k-c.rr-com> wrote:

I did make that statement. I made that statement based on the FACT that
there are anti-virus products sold for Mac to help Mac not get
infected, including under OS X.

The people who made anti-virus software for the old Mac OS want to
keep on selling anti-virus stuff to us maccies. They do this now by
spreading FUD about viruses, and many maccies buy their stuff because
the concept of a virus-free is rather alien.

Besides, it's only a matter of time before the first virus hits OS X.

--

C Lund, Oslo
http://www.notam02.no/~clund/
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

<html><input type crash></html>
begin fix

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 10:34:05 +0200, christopher.lund@NOSPAMchello.no blathered and smoked:

In article <2qf8t-07q.ln1@host.newsservicer.org>,
Sinister Midget <xunil@k-c.rr-com> whimpered and whined:

<html><input type crash></html>

Why the html?

The first one crashes Outhouse Excess. It does on Winders. I have no idea if Mac has the same effect I suppose I could try it out, but the wife has
it hidden since she uses Eudora. I don't really care to bother finding
out.

begin fix

This one does two things. It hides everything following it from
Outhouse excess. It shows up as an attachment, but with only a title
and no content. It also makes the first bug work. Too much text
following the first thing makes it show up as you see it instead of
crashing the client. By using the second bug, the client gets confused
into thinking nothing follows the first bug and makes it crash
properly.

The second one will show everything that comes after an line with the
word "end" all alone on it. The first could be made to work without
benefit of the second by placing it in the signature block. I use that
for random signatures and do it the way I'm doing it now.

--
Use Microsoft Windows(tm). It's not like you needed those rights or
that money anyway.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

A great post Chris. Well thought out and reasonable. Good on you mate.

LIJ

--
"Every man before he dies shall see the Devil." - English Proverb, 1560
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article
<christopher.lund-3CB27B.10371302072003@amstwist00.chello.com>,
C Lund <christopher.lund@NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:

In article <12j8t-5js.ln1@host.newsservicer.org>,
Sinister Midget <xunil@k-c.rr-com> wrote:

I did make that statement. I made that statement based on the FACT that >there are anti-virus products sold for Mac to help Mac not get
infected, including under OS X.

The people who made anti-virus software for the old Mac OS want to
keep on selling anti-virus stuff to us maccies. They do this now by spreading FUD about viruses, and many maccies buy their stuff because
the concept of a virus-free is rather alien.

Besides, it's only a matter of time before the first virus hits OS X.

Since virui are rare on the Unix platform in general what works on on
verient (AT&T, Berkley, ETC) doesn't work on the others MacOS X uses a application on top its Unix varient it will likely be a LONG time before
a virus comes to the Mac again.

Note worms and trogan horses are totally different things though Windows
again has more problems than the wider spread unix world.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <v5ubt-tdl.ln1@host.newsservicer.org>,
Sinister Midget <xunil@k-c.rr-com> wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:17:39 -0500, harvest-this@mail.utexas.edu
blathered and smoked:

As to all the other bits, it seems that Mac OS X will be a
_common_ target for vulnerabilities, and having a company like
Apple around to help patch up holes should be a good thing.

I don't disagree. I don't know their history with such things, but
I'm willing to bet they have a far better track record than
$OTHER_OS does with such concerns.

Apple already has a better track record with OS X than Microsoft, as
regards identifying and fixing vulnerabilities- and making the
correction very user friendly.

Now that they're moving in a unixy direction, they should have much
less chance of problems with successful viral material creating
chaos.

"Unixy direction?" :-) OS X is Unix, being based on BSD. Granted
that confuses people who think that Unix = Linux. The end result is
that you can compile just about any *nix application to run under Mac
OS X, mostly from the command line or in X, but with some coding it's
often wuite feasible to port the application right into Aqua. ISTR
that emacs will include the code to do this natively.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

My first real computer was a Mac 128K (the TI-99 doesn't count).
My parents loved it and I had a pirate source for just about
any program. Nevertheless, I always feel as if I'd been
handicapped by my Mac experience. The Mac never let you get
inside its inner workings, they always remained a mystery.
But all PCs came with DEBUG, any kid could manipulate the
PCs processor's contents bit by bit. About the only thing
useful I did with my Mac was write a BASIC program that made
it generate the blue box tones to make phree phone calls.
I had a blast with that little program I wrote!


--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <bgrubb-B65603.13185802072003@news.zianet.com>,
Bruce Grubb <bgrubb@zianet.com> wrote:

Besides, it's only a matter of time before the first virus hits OS X.

Since virui are rare on the Unix platform in general what works on on >verient (AT&T, Berkley, ETC) doesn't work on the others MacOS X uses a >application on top its Unix varient it will likely be a LONG time before
a virus comes to the Mac again.

I hope you're right. But it only takes *one* jackass to write a virus.
B(

--

C Lund, Oslo
http://www.notam02.no/~clund/
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

The Mac is the most frustrating pile of crap I have ever used. Every time
I have to do something even a *little* unusual, it just plain doesn't work right.

The frustration of the day: Zip drive. Simple thing, right? Yes, if you do everything the Mac way. But if you stray outside its narrow little path, simplicity is the last thing you get. Quite simply, the Mac is most incompatible computer ever created by man. Bottom line: It won't mount a
PC- formatted zip disk, unless you use a Mac-formatted disk first. I don't know why. Fortunately, we are phasing out our Macs (thank GOD!), but unfortunately, I don't have a Mac Zip disk anymore. So my Zip drive is effectively useless.

Bingo! Another Mac gotcha. Every day, it's something new.

Anyone out there thinking about Mac...stay away. STAY FAR AWAY.

Sorry for the rant, but I am so frustrated with this thing. I pray every night for a Mac-less world.

probably simple operator error....
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <250720031046155783%payshunz@home.com>, payshunz
<payshunz@home.com> wrote:

The Mac is the most frustrating pile of crap I have ever used. Every time
I have to do something even a *little* unusual, it just plain doesn't work right.

The frustration of the day: Zip drive. Simple thing, right? Yes, if you do everything the Mac way. But if you stray outside its narrow little path, simplicity is the last thing you get. Quite simply, the Mac is most incompatible computer ever created by man. Bottom line: It won't mount a PC- formatted zip disk, unless you use a Mac-formatted disk first. I don't know why. Fortunately, we are phasing out our Macs (thank GOD!), but unfortunately, I don't have a Mac Zip disk anymore. So my Zip drive is effectively useless.

Bingo! Another Mac gotcha. Every day, it's something new.

Anyone out there thinking about Mac...stay away. STAY FAR AWAY.

Sorry for the rant, but I am so frustrated with this thing. I pray every night for a Mac-less world.

probably simple operator error....

I wonder if he thinks PC¹s will mount a Mac disk before inserting a PC
Zip in first?

--
Christopher S. Moore
usenetspamtrap@mooregraphics.us
Email replies must begin with "Re: " in Subject line or be killed.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <aO2cnQ2PkYZz05uiXTWJhA@gbronline.com>,
Wesley Groleau <wesgroleau@despammed.com> wrote:

I'm surprised that you are sniping at Wesley's father instead of at the >>salesman who said PCs are cheaper and sold him a more expensive one.

Who made the choice to purchase?

Hey, he's 70 years old, never typed in his life,
and his wife still owns a manual typewriter.

How is he to know the guy is lying?

(Then again, by the time you get to be seventy, you
ought to automatically _assume_ a salesman is lying.)

Why did he believe the salesperson over you?

Sorry - I just don't believe salespeople, and I have a tough time having sympathy for those that do.

If you want the truth, you must do your own research.

An Apple Store employee told my mom today no faxing software came with
the 17" PBs. Sigh... She was also told the $300 512MB RAM chip from
the Apple store was faster and better than the $40 512MB RAM chip from MacMall. Sigh. Finally, she was told Apple wouldn't warranty the Mac
if she added RAM to it from another source. Sigh. (Apple does warranty
the system...unless adding the RAM destroys the machine. They just
don't warranty the *RAM* if bought from another source.) The blatent
lies that took place during this $3500-$4000 information session are
simply sickening.

One can't believe salespeople.

She's also elderly, and I do have sympathy for her. She was taken for a
ride today, but fortunately I was able to steer her towards the facts of
the matter.

So, yes, I do have sympathy for the elderly and people who'd take
advantage of them (if, in fact, that did actually happen... I really
doubt it did, but the elderly can be influenced more than, say, an
aggressive middle-aged person - there is a gray area there), but you're
right - by the time they're older, they should know their limits, how
the world around them works, and other basic things about life.

(Newsgroups trimmed - alt.space.monkeys!?!?!?!)
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <foo-77F216.00121605072003@nnrp06.earthlink.net>, foo <foo@bar.com> writes:

<snip>

If you want the truth, you must do your own research.

An Apple Store employee told my mom today no faxing software came with
the 17" PBs. Sigh... She was also told the $300 512MB RAM chip from
the Apple store was faster and better than the $40 512MB RAM chip from MacMall.

Quite apart from the price difference you quote, I'll add that here
in Switzerland a 512MB RAM chip comes in at something like 250
Swiss Francs from my local Mac retailer. For comparison purposes,
at the middle exchange rate, your price of $300 works out at 390
Swiss Francs.

Now _that_ is truly expensive.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 06:37:05 +0000, foo wrote:

The Apple Store is horribly overpriced.

so much for Pan-Euro-Socialism

me? i'm buying one of those md91 HP boxes that come out on
Monday!







--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <sjscgvgvjl3h8d4lmhibj5e7sh3q7rpj3h@4ax.com>, foo <foo@bar.com> writes:

On 5 Jul 03 08:24:00 +0200, p_sture@elias.decus.ch (Paul Sture) wrote:

In article <foo-77F216.00121605072003@nnrp06.earthlink.net>, foo <foo@bar.com> writes:

<snip>

If you want the truth, you must do your own research.

An Apple Store employee told my mom today no faxing software came with
the 17" PBs. Sigh... She was also told the $300 512MB RAM chip from
the Apple store was faster and better than the $40 512MB RAM chip from
MacMall.

Quite apart from the price difference you quote, I'll add that here
in Switzerland a 512MB RAM chip comes in at something like 250
Swiss Francs from my local Mac retailer. For comparison purposes,
at the middle exchange rate, your price of $300 works out at 390
Swiss Francs.

Now _that_ is truly expensive.

The Apple Store is horribly overpriced.

Ouch - from http://store.apple.com/Apple/WebObjects/swissdestore.woa/953/wo/bKvV922N2LcrFUaLoa/1.3.0.5.7.0.5.0.1.3.5.0.1.3.1.1.0?74,50

I see the Apple store is charging 390 Swiss Francs.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113