Originally posted by Tarale

---

It's not in Apple's best interests to make Mac OS X available for all machines.

---

Originally posted by Clockworkz

---

X, there are "omg rules" here that aren't at XGF. Be civil =\
I like Frappacinos (sp?) when it comes to caffine.

---

Originally posted by Tarale

---

Originally posted by windwaker

---

Originally posted by Tarale

---

It's not in Apple's best interests to make Mac OS X available for all machines.

---

Don't you think that's kind of naive? Why would they write osx86 then? For the fun of it?

---

Because they needed to switch their hardware platform to the faster x86 platform after PowerPC stalled.

---

Originally posted by Tarale

---

Originally posted by windwaker

---

Originally posted by Tarale

---

Originally posted by windwaker

---

Originally posted by Tarale

---

It's not in Apple's best interests to make Mac OS X available for all machines.

---

Don't you think that's kind of naive? Why would they write osx86 then? For the fun of it?

---

Because they needed to switch their hardware platform to the faster x86 platform after PowerPC stalled.

---

If they really intended to stay a hardware company and continue with this fascist proprietary regime, they'd switch to 64-bit processing. I think they want to reach out to the x86 Windows running processors.

---

The Mac Pro is 64-bit. They have two dual-core Xeon 5100 Series ("Woodcrest" Core architecture with EM64T instruction set) processors at 2, 2.66 or 3 GHz.

Honestly I don't think Apple make their money on their software. They make their money on their hardware. Their business focus is their hardware. They are a hardware company. They would be foolish to make OS X available to all x86 processors when its one of the primary things selling their Hardware.

---

Originally posted by ||bass

---

Originally posted by windwaker

---

I like how you don't deny the sexist part, but suggest I take a logic course.

---

As for the alleged sexism, I don't see much of a point trying to deny something I already said was a misinterpretation. I shouldn't have to explain myself twice just because you can't seem to be able to read. You are right about one thing though. I shouldn't have suggested a logic course considering it won't help you much until AFTER you manage to learn basic reading skills.

---

Originally posted by ||bass

---

The problem with OSX though is that if you do anything relatively low-level, you will royally fuck up your computer if you don't know what you're doing.

---

Originally posted by Alastor the Stylish

---

Also, I got a bunch of red vines and gummy worms and threw them at the rest of the audience periodically

---

Originally posted by ||bass

---

Unwillingness to learn is the same thing as stupidity.

---

Originally posted by ZOMG RANDOMaalsdkfj

---

I read his posts, then ignored them for being completely ridiculous. I only ignore him because we used to be e-friends, then he suddenly turned on me when a lot of other people did.

---

Originally posted by Yoshi Dude

---

Originally posted by the_man

---

I cant seem to delete my outbox pms.I go to the message click on delete and it takes me to a page with the header and footer only and does nothing.

---

Users have never been able to do that.

---

Originally posted by MathOnNapkins

---

A sudoku in general is solvable, I was referring to the immense amount of time needed to solve them using a computer for very large sudoku puzzles. It's a computer programming efficiency problem. I would think that rubix cubes would involve looking for clues as well I just have little interest in them as a concept. On the topic of sudoku, do you know any easy way to backpeddle if you've filled the board and the result is incorrect? In that case many of the resulting numbers in the grid are based on possibly faulty assumptions and it could take a long time to unravel that chain :/.

---