SillyDog701

[djv1]

Belive what you wish, I hears it I know it happened!!

UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0)

[goGecko]

In technical discussion sections, you should be responsible for what you recommend. Re-install operating systems (e.g. Windows) or even re-formatting harddisk (harddrive) is always the last resort.

If you don't know a better suggestion or solution, please keep quiet. Straight telling people to re-install operating system or re-format harddisk is an irresponsible behaviour, and such act is not allowed.

Suggesting re-installing operating sytems or re-formatting harddisk should only be conducted when all possible solutions have tried and you are very sure re-installing is the only way to try.

Does this rule also apply to Mozilla supporters who tell Netscape users that they need to upgrade? Many times (particuarly on secnews, I can't recall a specific example here) I hear Netscape 7 users mention a minor problem and is immediately told that they need to get rid of Netscape and switch to the latest Mozilla. I think that this rule should get a slight ammendment to temper that sort of rash advice. Here is my suggested addition:

Suggesting that a user switch browser (from Netscape to Mozilla) should only be conducted when the poster is certain that the issue has been fixed in the newer Mozilla release. If possible the poster should provide bug numbers from bugzilla.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20031008 Netscape/7.1 (ax)

[Josh]

sounds good to me!

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/85.8.2 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/85.8

[Vlax]

haha stop nit-picking on antony, i think we all know what he means

UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)

[Fulvio]

Why is this thread going on?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.11) Gecko/20050728

[son1caaron]

it's true though they suck, they are slow and don't work worth a rip because they are loaded with so much crap!

They are not suck, they runs UNIX and of course native Mac application very well; they are not slow, the world's third fastest supercomputer is powered by Macs.

I am not sure where you got this info about supercomputers but the list of the top 100 supercomputers in the world there is not one powered by Mac. They usually have a custom made Linux kernel running on them. Any desktop or server OS is not powerful enough to run a supercomputer. This is because they run in clusters.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061204 Firefox/2.0.0.1

[Antony]

it's true though they suck, they are slow and don't work worth a rip because they are loaded with so much crap!

They are not suck, they runs UNIX and of course native Mac application very well; they are not slow, the world's third fastest supercomputer is powered by Macs.

I am not sure where you got this info about supercomputers but the list of the top 100 supercomputers in the world there is not one powered by Mac. They usually have a custom made Linux kernel running on them. Any desktop or server OS is not powerful enough to run a supercomputer. This is because they run in clusters.

Virginia Tech's System X, originally comprised of 1100 Apple Power Mac G5s ranked third-fastest supercomputer in the world in 16th November 2003.
In 2004, Virginia Tech upgraded its computers to Xserve G5 servers and ranked #7 in the 2004 TOP500 list.

They use Mac OS X (v.10.3.9 with fine-tune configuration), then Mac OS X Server, as operating system.

Reference:
Cost-Conscious Supercomputing: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Virginia Tech System X takes on the Grand Challenge

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061204 Firefox/2.0.0.1