I never called trojans viruses. I did link to links referring to Windows vulnerabilities, and the McAfee link that I sent referred specifically to a Windows virus.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Microsoft Posts 'PC vs. Mac' Section to Windows 7 Website
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I never called trojans viruses. I did link to links referring to Windows vulnerabilities, and the McAfee link that I sent referred specifically to a Windows virus.
Is someone really debating computer typography with someone who uses Comic Sans
eek as his default browser font? 
Debatable on which is better. Things I have read on it is MS cleartype produces much better rending of letters on the screen than Apple in multiple reviews it came out that way.
That is a worm. Not a virus by definition. There has not been a true computer virus in a long time. I want to say of all the "viruses" out under the general term which included trojans worms ect. The sub type is what you look at and I want to say the last thing I read a few years ago of everything out there less than 2% were virus. Like 80-90% trojans and the rest were worms.
McAfee lists worms under 'viruses' in their database, at least in the one I linked to. Worms are actually worse than traditional viruses, because you don't have to actually execute the program in order for it to cause damage to your computer.
Is someone really debating computer typography with someone who uses Comic Sans
Eek, I didn't see that.
Is someone really debating computer typography with someone who uses Comic Sans
Is anyone really so blind as to not realize that criticizing someone's choice of font is about as low as you can go with ad hominem attacks? You lose 25 points for this comment.
And, as I've said before, I like Comic Sans MS because digits are clearly different from letters. I'd don't make mistakes with thinking that something is an "O" (oh) when it's really a "0" (zero), or a "1" vs an "l".
Eek, I didn't see that.
There wasn't any Comic Sans MS there - the image is a screen grab of a PNG on the linked site.
You swallowed LagunaSol's ad hominem attack without realizing it. Shame.
There wasn't any Comic Sans MS there - the image is a screen grab of a PNG on the linked site.
You swallowed LagunaSol's ad hominem attack without realizing it. Shame.
I thought he was referring to a screenshot or something you'd posted earlier, not the website link, which I know contains no Comic Sans.
Whether or not Blunderboy thought there was Comic Sans MS in the screen capture isn't really relevant.
What's relevant is that he bought into LagunaSol's ad hominem about how someone's choice of browser font is a significant factor.
Hell, I've had discussions of same-sex marriage with Mormon missionaries that had more logic, understanding and intelligence than many of LagunaSol's posts.
You were talking about typography. I think fonts have to do with that.
A typographer would want all fonts to display well. She wouldn't discriminate against some fonts over others.
And she certainly wouldn't launch an argument that some people are outright inferior because of the fonts that they choose.
(Any parallels with the Proposition 8 proponents' failed arguments in federal court are purely coincidental.)
Is someone really debating computer typography with someone who uses Comic Sans
LOL.
Oh, do be mindful, that pointing out one's choice of font, no matter how ridiculous, in lieu of a heated discussion of typography and font quality, may result in endless whining and defensive ranting, escalating to an ultimate diversion of accusations of ad hominem attacks.
The self-righteousness is astounding.
You were talking about typography. I think fonts have to do with that.
Fonts most certainly do.
I'd say "+1", but that's technically a minor violation of the forum rules
At least 50 % of your posts Fall into this category - and you know it. Since your goal is, "to bash the arrogant fanbois". Your signature is borderline, too.
The only reason why you haven't been banned yet, is probably because you have contributed financially to this site.
Your points are indeed valid.
When reading on a monitor for long periods of time, a slightly softer, more realistically shaped font is much less tiresome.
YMMV, of course.
I've (we've?) learned (the hard way) not to respond directly to such hysteria. Some members - who will remain unnamed - appear determined to intensify a debate to the point you actually say something that could unreasonably be construed as insulting (which, apparently, could be just about anything), at which point they run to the mods and get you thrown into timeout. I remember seeing this strategy played often, and quite effectively, in grade school.
In the event the rulebook can't be twisted into play, they may drag odd, completely off-topic rhetoric like, say, gay marriage and Mormonism into the debate, while subsequently insulting the bulk of a specific member's post history as unintelligent, in the hopes of igniting an emotional response. I remain, however, unoffended and unharassed - safely above the fray. No moderator intervention necessary. My ever-expanding Ignore list also helps me maintain my self-control, though sadly this forum software does not block the commentary of ignored members if someone else quotes them, thus throwing my Zen (what's the Mormon equivalent for that?) slightly off-balance. That would be a handy upgrade if MacRumors ever decides to step out of the 90s with their forum software.
Not that I'm implying that any specific members have or have not been added to my Ignore list. And that's all I have to say about that.
Of course it remains ever-curious that the faithful Microsoft defenders would constantly mill about a Mac users forum to wage Redmond's propaganda war, driving a thread like this to the far horizon, but that is the grand mystery yet to be solved.
That said, yes, fonts do seem to have much bearing on a discussion about computer typography, and subsequently the credibility of those arguing about that particular topic. But hey, that's just me, staying on topic.
Oh, and yeah, as a user of both platforms, font rendering in Windows typically looks like poop to me, technically-speaking. In my non-expert opinion, of course.
And with that, gentlemen, I bid you adieu.
*places top hat on head with a flourish and gracefully exits the room*
That said, yes, fonts do seem to have much bearing on a discussion about computer typography, and subsequently the credibility of those arguing about that particular topic. But hey, that's just me, staying on topic.
So, to stay on topic, why would a member's choice of a particular font render her opinions more or less valid to the wider audience?
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
Hamlet Act iii, scii
I've (we've?) learned (the hard way) not to respond directly to such hysteria. Some members - who will remain unnamed - appear determined to intensify a debate to the point you actually say something that could unreasonably be construed as insulting (which, apparently, could be just about anything), at which point they run to the mods and get you thrown into timeout. I remember seeing this strategy played often, and quite effectively, in grade school.
In the event the rulebook can't be twisted into play, they may drag odd, completely off-topic rhetoric like, say, gay marriage and Mormonism into the debate, while subsequently insulting the bulk of a specific member's post history as unintelligent, in the hopes of igniting an emotional response. I remain, however, unoffended and unharassed - safely above the fray. No moderator intervention necessary. My ever-expanding Ignore list also helps me maintain my self-control, though sadly this forum software does not block the commentary of ignored members if someone else quotes them, thus throwing my Zen (what's the Mormon equivalent for that?) slightly off-balance. That would be a handy upgrade if MacRumors ever decides to step out of the 90s with their forum software.
Not that I'm implying that any specific members have or have not been added to my Ignore list. And that's all I have to say about that.
Of course it remains ever-curious that the faithful Microsoft defenders would constantly mill about a Mac users forum to wage Redmond's propaganda war, driving a thread like this to the far horizon, but that is the grand mystery yet to be solved.
That said, yes, fonts do seem to have much bearing on a discussion about computer typography, and subsequently the credibility of those arguing about that particular topic. But hey, that's just me, staying on topic.
Oh, and yeah, as a user of both platforms, font rendering in Windows typically looks like poop to me, technically-speaking. In my non-expert opinion, of course.
And with that, gentlemen, I bid you adieu.
*places top hat on head with a flourish and gracefully exits the room*
***Applause***
A summary which brilliantly encapsulates the current state-of-affairs.
In regard to Windows font rendering, it remains ghastly, both off, and especially, on the page.
WYSIWYG on a Mac is much more desirable, and refined, on several levels.
Perhaps MS should simply do away with the majority of their font selections altogether, since, O and 0, or 1 and l are seemingly so difficult to differentiate from one another.
If only MS cared, at all.....
Hint: Laguna's original comment was a joke. There's no need to be so defensive.
Thanks to the person who brought up the font rendering. Certainly is interesting. I had always wondered why non-bold fonts always looked so thin on Windows...
If it actually was a joke - I'm not sure, since this isn't the first time that "OMG - Comic Sans MS" has come up. (Note that there was nothing in the recent thread to bring up Comic Sans, LagunaSol resurrected that red herring in a lame attempt to discredit my comments on the sub-pixel rendering issue.) I'm happy that you saw it as a silly comment, but it didn't look like Blunderboy took it as a joke.
Yes, as I said a few posts back "Anyway, thanks to you and MorphingDragon for bringing this up". It's always nice to have something more substantial than "Windows sucks" behind an argument.
Yes, thank you Morphing Dragon for both bringing this to our attention, and for your steadfast patience in your multitude of responses.
Also, thanks to blunderboy for your additional clarification in validating his point: