On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 17:49:58 -0800, sf wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 17:07:08 -0800, "Bob Terwilliger"
> > wrote:
>
>> Steve wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 13:51:15 -0800, sf wrote:
>>>>>> Using OSX would be like me using Win3.1. It can't even run Firefox,
>>>>>> it's *that* old.
>>>>>
>>>>> Clueless Alerts just went off all over the world.
>>>>
>>>> I just assumed he meant OS X 10 or something. Some of you are more
>>>> picky about computer terminology than cooking ingredients.
>>>
>>> It's a she, and the X stands for 10. And OS X ver 10.6 was
>>> released about the same time as Windows 7. It it the second most
>>> popular OS in the world currently in use today and it's market
>>> share it on the rise.
>>
>> Wait... you mean it *can* run Firefox? How about that.
>>
>
> You and your pal Stevie the Wonder Boy are talking through your tiny
> little hats. OSX from 1999 can not run FF, not even with two extra
> squirrels. If you'd care to get a little more updated and call it
> what it is today: Snow Leopard, then you'd be correct.

Who said anything about 1999? The products line is still named
"OS X". And it is still in it's 10th version. There is no
"OS XI."

You said, "Using OSX would be like me using Win3.1. It can't even
run Firefox", which is complete brain fart. And now rather than
just admitting it you're trying to backpedal like a weasel making a
fool of yourself (again).

ObFood: Pork butt roast with baked potatoes and brussels sprouts.
"Just Caramel" Milky Way for dessert.

-sw