Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the '10.6: The return of unlimited PRAM zapping' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
10.6: The return of unlimited PRAM zapping
Authored by: lugal on Oct 07, '09 03:20:55PM

Wow, decaffeinate a little. Your "tip" should be deleted, not because it isn't sufficiently technical, but because it just isn't true. Snow Leopard makes no change to the PRAM zapping behavior. Pointing this out isn't snobbery, it's an attempt to keep Mac OS X Hints a great resource of factually-correct information. You've contributed enough to this resource in the past that I'm sure you can agree with that goal.



[ Reply to This | # ]
10.6: The return of unlimited PRAM zapping
Authored by: lugal on Oct 07, '09 04:11:22PM

...and somehow I end up commenting on my own comment, instead of the original poster's comment, below. (I blame too little caffeine.)



[ Reply to This | # ]
10.6: The return of unlimited PRAM zapping
Authored by: robogobo on Oct 23, '09 03:53:41AM

I get your point, and this site is excellent for inside tips and sharing info that would be otherwise undocumented. But Rob can't possibly test every hint, and so it's not his responsibility to make sure everything is factual. That's why we have discussions. But some people here, the "snobs", are crass and disrespectful, and just want to prove their superiority by knocking what they think are bad hints. Many times I've seen a bad hint turned good by users who prefer discussion and examination over jabs and pissing contests. In this case I had to dig deeper myself only after I realized other people weren't seeing what I was. A bit more brain power and less snobbery would have made it a much more effective search, I think.

Just keep in mind there are different configurations out there, and systems are so complex, that even people who admin 100s of machines don't see every possible scenario.



[ Reply to This | # ]