[X Newbies] Phone Number Mystery

[TheMacintoshLady]

Joe Ellis tapped out this message on 3/4/2003 3:16 PM 

>Dear TheMacintoshLady (NOT):
>Please unsubcribe from this list and stop bothering us with your complaints
>about how "Non-Macintosh" Mac OS X is!

Dear Joe, 

Tut, tut. You are starting to sound like a Windoze user.
We were discussing how to adjust it so that it will not be overtaken by 
other invisible processes which I fully understand are part of the UNIX 
frameworks and infrastructure of the system.  A perfectly legitimate 
statement. In the past this was caused by indexing. Maybe this is, maybe 
it isn't. If you don't have anything to contribute, delete the posts or 
perhaps YOU yourself should unsubscribe.

> All the posts I've read from you on
>this list is some kind of a bitch about HOW OS X is NOT LIKE OS 9!

That is your own perception.

> Well
>YOU'RE RIGHT 9 is NOT X.

Ok so if it is true what is the complaint? You would be surprised at how 
many other folks are messing up because they assume it IS. 

> Either accept it and learn it or go back to 9 and
>leave us alone.

Then what is the point of having a computer if I accept how it is 
functioning? Are we supposed to sweep our questions under the table and 
"live with it" like PC users do? Or perhaps I should say live without it? 
PC users do not use their machines to the extent Mac users do, they 
accept the fact that this or that doesn't work. However, I like to think 
we are different.

> I have a G4 QS that runs OS X like a top, it currently has
>somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 processes running on it and it hasn't
>even hiccuped in the last 2 weeks! There is NO WAY indexing could slow you
>machine down to the point of uselessness unless it was starved for RAM and
>or Disk space.

Good, I'm happy for you.
This machine is a  brand new addition to my fleet, and I am only doing 
one thing at a time on it while setting it up, so the above mentioned 
things shouldn't be a problem.

>And if you knew all about UNIX you would KNOW some processes
>have to run all the time to keep the OS working properly. This particular
>list is suppossed to help OS X NEWBIES that want to learn and I, for one, am
>tired of your crabbing and carping about the differences between this OS and
>the Mac's older ones. I'm trying to figure the new one out and I absolutely
>do not care if I ever use OS 9 again, the gains I've seen in reliability and
>useability far outweigh anything I may of lost.

Well, as we say, YMMV. I'd like to see "reliability and usability" too, 
because quite frankly if we (I) don't get the other folks going on this 
so that they can continue to using it easily as before, we all lose. Some 
of us do the sweating for the others, see what I mean? You have just you 
and perhaps you don't rely on machines for your bread and butter. So I 
can understand why you don't care if I can't do this or that. That's not 
the Mac way either, but, hey, no one says you have to care about whether 
anyone else's experiences are satisfactory. Perhaps I am demanding more 
of the machine than you normally do. Funny when 8 came out, I found it 
quite easy but I didn't fault the ones who had frustrating troubles, I 
just stepped in and calmly helped them out.

Having said that, my fax worked last week, sent a long distance to the 
same areacode and prefix, and I've tried every configuration using the 
prefix and using the 1 included, and I get a normal ring, then a LOW kind 
of purring ring then it says NO CARRIER. I have made sure the STATION 
message and "answer on..." is OK, as it won't send if you do not give 
them your info. Perhaps it needs a last name which I did not include 
since it's a casual note, I will let you know in any case what the glitch 
was when I figure it out.  The address book is very fussy, it would not 
even work if the FAX is being used and the number was not entered in THAT 
particular area in the address book.