Microsoft's Mac Business Unit

wow by andih8u · 2004-01-30 13:22 · Score: 5, Funny

They make software for macs and have a mac business unit. I hope someone can get some shots of macs being unloaded from a truck.

--

slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots

GM to VW as Mac to Linux by trolman · 2004-01-30 13:22 · Score: 5, Interesting

"Far from it. But as one observer put it, it's as if they were working for a division of General Motors making parts for Volkswagens." I predict that this will be repeated when Linux is mainstream on the desktop.

Re:GM to VW as Mac to Linux by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · 2004-01-30 13:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

Talking of Linux, I read
Microsoft, for example, was one of the first major software developers to support Apple's Mac OS X, moving quickly to release a version of Mac Office when OS X was still new
and wondered if Microsoft were thinking of another *nix system...

--
This is where the serious fun begins.
Re:GM to VW as Mac to Linux by kfg · 2004-01-30 13:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

The only problem is that that statement belies a complete ignorance of the economics and corporate ties of the auto industry.

GM, Ford, Volkswagon, Honda, Toyota, etc, all make parts for "competitors."

It's called doing business and making a profit. What does GM care if the motor they're making money on has someone elses label on the hood?

What does Microsoft care if office is running on a Mac as long as they get the same cut they would if it were running under Windows?

Either way they derive profit, market share and mind share.

KFG
Re:GM to VW as Mac to Linux by kfg · 2004-01-30 14:08 · Score: 2

Indeed, there is a good deal of legal and political power, as well as economic, from having vassel "competitors."

One aspect of that power is to economically cross political and legal boundries where you would otherwise be forbidden or constrained in some manner.

Another is to simply maintain the illusion of competition.

KFG
Re:GM to VW as Mac to Linux by fm6 · 2004-01-30 14:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think you've overlooked some details yourself. Software and car parts are completely different, technologically, socially, and economically. Anybody with the right facilities and access to the specs can make an alternator that's compatible with a GM alternator. It's a lot harder to engineer a word processor that's totally compatible with Microsoft Word. So GM doesn't own the market on GM-compatible alternators, whereas Microsoft totally owns the market Word compatible word processors.
Since most big companies won't even consider buying a computer that doesn't run Office, Microsoft greatly extends the potential customer base for Macs. Of course they lose a few sales for Windows XP in the process. But given the relative market share of Windows and Mac, they probably don't lose much sleep over this.
If it were just a matter of getting Office on as many desktops as possible, there would have been a Linux port long ago. But unlike MacOS, Linux is a threat to Windows' dominance.
Re:GM to VW as Mac to Linux by dev11 · 2004-01-30 14:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

Which year do you think Microsoft will open the Linux Business Unit?
That will happen if they ever figure out a way they can buy Linux. Short of Linus and a bunch of other copyright holders losing their minds, I don't see that happening.
Seriously, why would they even attempt to write software for Linux? Most Linux users (at least on /. anyway) are pretty hostile to Microsoft. It would be kind of like trying to sell cigarettes to the American Cancer Society.
Re:GM to VW as Mac to Linux by NixLuver · 2004-01-30 15:23 · Score: 2

A little bit of a misunderstanding here.
Automobile manufacturers do not make parts for 'competitors', i.e, GM doesn't make parts for Ford. Ford makes parts for all of their Marques, and Chevrolet makes parts for all of THEIR marques, etc.
The reason it matters if a Chevrolet engine is in another car with someone else's label is that Chevy spends literally hundreds of millions of dollars per year making sure that you know that Chevy is "The Heartbeat of America", and Ford spends an equivalently large sum of money making sure that you know that Fords are "Built Ford Tough". Brand identification is critical.
Now this doesn't change the fact that Ford, for instance, owns not just Ford, Lincoln, and Mercury, but also Mazda, Volvo, Jaguar, Land Rover, and Aston Martin. Or rather, those marques all share owners... but, in the long run, so does every manufacturer
In short, the reason that auto makers don't make parts for competitors is because there really aren't any competitors; they are nothing more than diversifications of common owner's stock portfolios competing for our headspace, not necessarily for marketshare.

--
Thinking outside my Head
Re:GM to VW as Mac to Linux by red+floyd · 2004-01-30 17:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

Anybody with ... access to the specs

Ah, there's the rub, isn't it? The specs for a GM compatible alternator are available. The spec for Word .DOC format isn't.

--
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
Re:GM to VW as Mac to Linux by Perl-Pusher · 2004-01-30 17:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

Had Microsoft released Office for Linux, nobody would be contemplating switching to Open / Star Office today. Linux users passed the word about a decent little program made by a company in germany. Sun bought it and now companies are accessing what they truly need in an office suite. My employer now uses more Star Office than MS Office. And we haven't bought anything newer than Office 2000.
If MS had created an Office for linux, nobody would have much noticed Star Office. MS has probably slowed Linux on the desktop a small amount by not releasing an Office for linux, but they have caused longer term damage to their main cash cow office. Add product activation and increased license restrictions to mix and soon MS Office is gonna be feeling the pinch. Why spend $400 when you have free? Or for that matter, $400 vs $79 for the clipart and a database included.
Re:GM to VW as Mac to Linux by fm6 · 2004-01-30 17:34 · Score: 2, Informative

Not true, actually. You can license it, and a lot of people have done a good job of reverse-engineering it. What's undocumented -- and impossible to reproduce -- is all the subtle ways that Word uses that format.

analogy by DarkHelmet · 2004-01-30 13:23 · Score: 4, Funny

The best analogy I can come up with is...

Microsoft's muscular Herculean right arm has no idea what its tiny, flubbering nub of a left hand is doing.

Now imagining this congealing beast of a company with the head of Steve Ballmer gives me an interesting image. Kind of like the Trapper Keeper blob from South Park.

--
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i

Re:analogy by Bob+C.+Cock · 2004-01-30 13:35 · Score: 2, Funny

Microsoft's muscular Herculean right arm has no idea what its tiny, flubbering nub of a left hand is doing.

Now imagining this congealing beast of a company with the head of Steve Ballmer gives me an interesting image. Kind of like the Trapper Keeper blob from South Park.

Actually I think he would look more like this guy.

Needs presentation skills by mccalli · 2004-01-30 13:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

I witnessed the MBU's section of Job's keynote speech this year. You can too, should you have both Quicktime and be a masochist.

How shall we put this? Their spokesperson could do with just a tad more charisma. Or to be rather more honest, several swimming pools' worth of extra charisma...

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Needs presentation skills by gobbo · 2004-01-30 13:30 · Score: 2, Informative

To be fair to them, they didn't have much to present. Wow, Excel is finally going to be reasonable at printing, and you can record audio and stick it in a text file. The muted response from the crowd was hilarious, though... most people were probably sitting there thinking "why isn't Apple sending an in-house development team to OO.org?"

At least installing MSOffice on the Mac is dead-simple, they got that right.

--
Damn those pesky terrorists
Re:Needs presentation skills by Unregistered · 2004-01-30 13:37 · Score: 4, Interesting

My guess is that the guys at Apple think office:mac is good enough for now and they would rather spend their money replacing shitty software (IE) and working on crazy new things for iLife (like GarageBand). I'm sure eventually appleworks will become a version of oo.org, but its not as big a priority as things that would make people actually switch to the mac. Also, they might be waiting for the OSS community to port oo.org to the aqua interface instead of spending valuable dev time on stuff that will eventually be done anyway.

For the record i use oo.org on a mac and it does a damn good job, imo.
Re:Needs presentation skills by Nutrimentia · 2004-01-30 15:25 · Score: 2

Not entirely true. Reason is fully supported on OS X and OS 9.

Apple just released Logic Pro and Logic Express, so it isn't necessarily a case of just giving up software. Some software is available on both platforms, some only on one.

--
Etc, etc, ad nauseam, and so on and so forth.
Re:Needs presentation skills by Jaysyn · 2004-01-30 17:08 · Score: 2

Just got Mom a Mac for Christmas. Came with Appleworks & a trial version of MS Office X (which is gone now). This isn't a troll, but I haven't actually use AppleWorks yet. Why do I need to install OO? What does it do that Appleworks doesn't.

Jaysyn

--
There is a war going on for your mind.
Re:Needs presentation skills by singleantler · 2004-01-31 08:08 · Score: 2

I haven't really found any reason to use OO rather than Appleworks yet, apart from OO will read Word docs, whereas Appleworks isn't that good at it.

If you've already got Appleworks, there's not a lot of reason to get OO unless you find you're hitting the limits of what Appleworks can do, then it's worth checking out OO as it doesn't cost anything. If you have to buy Appleworks, it's worth checking out OO as a free alternative, but Appleworks is much quicker starting / in use on my G3 system.

--
"What if they're using IE?" "I've dumbed Mozilla down to cope with it." - BOFH

Re:wow by wed128 · 2004-01-30 13:26 · Score: 4, Funny

Nah...that might reveal the location of one of microsoft's unloading platforms...any employee would be fired for an offense so great...

The best part of the article imho by atari2600 · 2004-01-30 13:27 · Score: 5, Interesting

But the people in the Mac BU take noticeable pride in Office for Mac as a product in its own right, not merely a translation of Windows Office to the Mac operating system. Office 2004 for Mac, for example, includes a number of features not available in the Windows version of Office, such as a "project center" in the Entourage e-mail program that lets users manage in one place a project that involves different types of files.

Re:The best part of the article imho by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-30 14:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

Would have been better if they'd said something like "And Internet Explorer 5 for the Mac, a project long abandoned by Microsoft, still surpasses Internet Explorer 6 for Windows on many web standards."

Microsoft does make good software. They just don't make it for Windows ;)

try bread and butter by SuperBanana · 2004-01-30 13:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

from the oil-and-water dept

More like "from the bread-and-butter-dept". Microsoft's Macintosh division is one of its most profitable, and a profit-making division at Microsoft is getting be something of a rarity what with the company loosing money through the nose in countless divisions. In fact, I believe there's only one division more profitable- the OS division.

That's one of the reasons for the symbolic deal a few years back where MS bought $150M in Apple stock(by the way, that's not even a fraction of Apple's CASH reserves, so sit down all you "MS bailed out Apple" morons) and committed on paper to releasing Office for the next however many years(and to do so on the Mac first, as has always been the case).

--
Please help metamoderate.

Re:try bread and butter by -tji · 2004-01-30 14:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

It may be profitable, because they have very low marketing expenses for Mac products (do they market them at all?).

But, I'm sure it's a rounding error in the revenue picture. In that realm, MS is dominated by the OS and Office money manking monopolies.

--

That's doubtful.. The OS and Office divisions are the cash cows for Microsoft. There is no way the Mac group is more profitable than the Office group.

--
More like "from the bread-and-butter-dept". Microsoft's Macintosh division is one of its most profitable, and a profit-making division at Microsoft is getting be something of a rarity what with the company loosing money through the nose in countless divisions. In fact, I believe there's only one division more profitable- the OS division.
Re:try bread and butter by RazzleFrog · 2004-01-30 14:22 · Score: 3, Informative

That sir, is a load of bullshit. From one of my older posts on the same subject:

According to their Annual Report's MD&A they make a profit in Client (Desktop OS), Server, and Information Worker (Office, Visio, etc.). They lost money on Business Solutions (Great Plains Acct Software, etc.), MSN, Mobile and Embedded, Home Entertainment (XBox, etc.), and Other (which had something to do with the sale of Expedia).

It doesn't break out Mac division but I am sure it is profitable but so negligible in total as to be almost a joke.

As for their divisiona losing money. The total loss of all divisions losing money for their Q1 was $335M vs the profit from their profitable divisions of over $5 BILLION.

I can understand your hatred for Microsoft but your spreading false information makes you no better.

For those of you looking for the info it is in Note 11 of the MD&A (which is after the financials for you non-accountants).
Re:try bread and butter by WhoDaresWins · 2004-01-30 14:50 · Score: 5, Informative

and a profit-making division at Microsoft is getting be something of a rarity what with the company loosing money through the nose in countless divisions. In fact, I believe there's only one division more profitable- the OS division.
What utter nonsense are you talking about? Don't go about inventing facts when you don't know what the real facts are. Out of Microsoft's 7 divisions, 4 make a profit. Three of those 4 divisions make a huge profits: Client (OS), Info Worker (Office), and Server & Tools. The Business Solutions and Mobile & Embedded Devices divisions are small and incubating businesses so they don't make much of a profit now. The really big division that makes a loss is Home & Entertainment and thats primarily due to XBox. So no you are totally wrong about Microsoft having only one division that makes a profit. Next time don't spout your own imagination as facts. You can check the Microsoft profit and loss figures for each division in the Form 10Q SEC filings that Microsoft makes. Here are the relevant numbers from that report -

(In millions) Operating Income/Loss Three Months Ended Sept.30 2003 Client 2,264 Server and Tools 370 Information Worker 1,591 Microsoft Business Solutions -79 MSN 58 Mobile and Embedded Devices -32 Home and Entertainment -273
Re:try bread and butter by TheGrayArea · 2004-01-30 15:59 · Score: 2, Informative

There was a time when many MS products were going to target multiple platforms. If you find an older version of Access you can see some "Not available on Mac" comments that were left in the help by accident while the mac version was still in progress (never shipped). Likewise Visual Basic was going to be ported to the Mac as well and was at least partially done (mostly VBA stuff).

--

This space for rent.

So its like... by rffmna · 2004-01-30 13:28 · Score: 4, Funny

Communisits practicing Capatilism? wait -- is it the other way around?

--
-------
FM Clan

Macs have a purpose by Amsterdam+Vallon · 2004-01-30 13:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't see why people are all surprised and start making jokes when they find out that Microsoft Corporation owns a few dozen Apple computers.

Surprise surprise -- Apples are largely the top-rated boxes for computer graphics and animation. And I'm sure some of that goes on at Microsoft, even if only in the human resources, marketing, and administrative departments.

Microsoft's a big company and makes decision based on how they help the company's bottom line. And Macs are great with certain tasks, so why not use them?

The fact that they have a business unit should be no surprise to those of us who actually have jobs and work for a software company! ;-)

--

Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.

Re:Macs have a purpose by soft_guy · 2004-01-30 14:16 · Score: 5, Informative

Try a few hundred (maybe even thousand) Macs. I used to a Mac developer at Microsoft. We had plenty of machines.

When I was there, they were getting rid of some of their first generation PowerPC Macintoshes. I think in one day they threw away like 500 PowerMac 6100,7100, and 8100s. These were all working units that were going to the landfill because they were out of date. Most companies would have donated them to schools, but Microsoft doesn't donate their used Macs to schools because they figure that's one fewer DOS or Windows license that they won't sell.

And it wasn't like those 500 machines weren't being replaced. They were replacing them with G3s and G4s at that time just as fast as they were throwing the old ones out.

--
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Re:Macs have a purpose by Endive4Ever · 2004-01-30 17:59 · Score: 2, Informative

Schools are throwing out 7300s and even beige G3's now. I got a skid of that sort of machine, though there were only two or three G3's, for $15 about a month ago. People still buy stuff that old on eBay if you price it right.

I don't think schools are accepting that kind of hardware any longer.

--
---

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2004-01-30 13:28 · Score: 5, Interesting

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Mac Business? by Deraj+DeZine · 2004-01-30 13:29 · Score: 2, Funny

Cool, so I can get a job with Microsoft just for macking? I do that in my free time, anyway!

--
True story.

Nooo!!! by Ozone+Depletion · 2004-01-30 13:29 · Score: 2, Funny

May Microsoft burn in hell for corrupting a Mac!!

they care... by contrasutra · 2004-01-30 13:30 · Score: 5, Interesting

The mac team cares about making high quality software. Anyone notice that the Mac versions of Microsoft software is usually better than the Windows counterparts?

So it tells you, MS can make good software, they just have to actually care.

They also fixed the CSS bugs on Mac IE. That just shows you...something. They have a fix for this, but they wont release it for windows. Add your consipiracy theory here.

Re:they care... by Hes+Nikke · 2004-01-30 13:58 · Score: 3, Interesting

Anyone notice that the Mac versions of Microsoft software is usually better than the Windows counterparts?

with the exception of Outlook (not express) 2001, and any version of Windows Media Player (yes thats what it's called on the mac!) Microsoft software is even some of the best software available for the mac! (i do find myself fighting word and excel a lot though)

interesting, Outlook and WMP aren't products of the MBU, so they are allowed to suck. ;)

--
Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
Re:they care... by evn · 2004-01-30 14:05 · Score: 4, Interesting

Today IE5 for Mac OS is a crumby browser compared to modern offerings such as Apple's Safari, Camino/Firebird, and OmniWeb but back near the turn of the millennium Internet Explorer 5 for Mac OS was praised far and wide as the best browser EVER for Macintosh systems, and arguably the best browser on any platform.

Here is a review at O'Reilly's Mac Developer Center (which has some geek-credit here) where they praise thinks including:

- Blending into the newly released OS X Aqua look
- The "page holder"
- Font controls
- CSS1/2 support
- PNG Support (which is still broken on windows)
- HTML4 support

Here's one over at macworld that decries it as the best thing since jesus as far as os x browsers are concerned. IE was very impressive, unfortunately Microsoft let it stagnate which hurt all mac users - choice is good.

Another article from 2000 that speaks to the quality of the MacIE.
I'm feeding a troll, but whatever.
Re:they care... by cmacb · 2004-01-30 14:46 · Score: 2, Informative

Well, they have stopped support for IE on the Mac so thats a moot point. IE was the best browser for the Mac for exactly the amount of time that it was the ONLY browser for the Mac. I switched to Mozilla when it was still flaky and slow, but the Safari browser blows both the others away.

Basically Microsoft doesn't like competition. If they can't buy them or put them out of business they just take there equipment and go home like a pouty child.

I have a feeling once there is a native office suite for the Mac, most likely Open Office, but others are in the works, Microsoft will, again, pack up it's toys and slink back to the Intel platform only. If Intel ever decided to throw a curve ball at Microsoft they (MS) would be in big big trouble.

I think this deadly embrace that Intel and Microsoft are in though is bad for both companies in the long run. MS would be far better off as platform neutral vendor of software of all kinds. Intel would be far better off just beating the crap out of other hardware companies in terms of price performance. They will price themselves out of the market for low cost PCs in a few years (well, now actually), especially non-US ones and it is at that point that Microsoft may wish to revive its ability to create software for something other than Intel boxes.
Re:they care... by imr · 2004-01-30 16:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

Add your consipiracy theory here.

already done and it's no conspiracy, it's about un-sane technical choices:
On mac, ie is not tied to the os.
Now, If you want to know why they tied the browser to the os, there you can have a few conspiracy comments, but it's no theory: it was documented in some trial you might remember.

Re:Office for Mac by mccalli · 2004-01-30 13:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

With Office for Mac development discontinued,...

False

...[i]t needs some sort of MS Office replacement, which at the moment it doesn't have.

True, at least in my opinion. Appleworks is stagnant, and hasn't even integrated some standard OS X features yet. Realtime spell-checking comes to mind, I'm fairly sure I was doing that using 1st Word Plus on an 8Mhz Atari ST 512k more than ten years ago...

Cheers,
Ian

Re:amazing (not really) by Rockin'+Az · 2004-01-30 13:34 · Score: 5, Funny

that guy definitely does not read /.

well, maybe he does now

The guy's a Mac user...he can get another girlfriend

--

I come from a LAN down under

Where the packets flow and routers chunder

Like this? by justMichael · 2004-01-30 13:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

Blogger dismissed from Microsoft

Re:Like this? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-30 13:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yes, that's the joke. Thank you for that.

Credit where credit is due, but ... by sg3000 · 2004-01-30 13:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

Office for the Mac starting with Office 98 was a very Mac-like suite of applications (Ignoring the crappy version before that). In fact, Microsoft seemed to work hard to make it as Mac-like as possible, which even some other developers were a little lax at.

Office v.X is really good. Excel is a great application, Word a little less so, PowerPoint tolerable. I'd like to see Entourage made a little more Mac OS X technology-friendly-- e.g., give me the option to use the Mac's Address Book within Entourage. But I think they're still doing a good job overall. The fact that Microsoft supported Quartz so quickly is a great sign. Then, after Microsoft dropped the price of Office v.X after sales were a little dismal showed they were responsive to the market. It goes to show you that when Microsoft has to compete, they can do well.

However, Microsoft doesn't always want to compete -- it's easier to dominate than it is to compete. So when Apple introduced the excellent Safari (and with the success of Camino), Microsoft crumbled like a cookie. The problem is, Internet Explorer was really slow and felt kind of crappy. To this day, whenever you launch it, it bugs you about "making it the default application" while ignoring your request to not display the message again. Not surprisingly, Microsoft killed it (and with it, all Mac compatibility with web designers who insist on designing for Internet Explorer). That action showed the side of Microsoft that all Mac users expect is lurking underneath the shiny, Aqua exterior.

--
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.

Re:Credit where credit is due, but ... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-30 13:53 · Score: 2, Informative

Just as a point of reference .. I spoke to the Mac BU @ macworld exp this year about their plans w/ entourage .. that project center is a great idea and asked if they were planning on getting it to work w/ address book .. the dude told me that they were working on that, you could import the addresses and stuff into entourage .... notice, you're not using the address book .. so I asked him if you can export out back to address book ... which made him laugh a bit and he asked me why they'd do something like that ...

too bad ... entourage seems like it could be quite useful.
Re:Credit where credit is due, but ... by Graymalkin · 2004-01-30 17:05 · Score: 3, Informative

Actually Microsoft killed IE in name but released MSN Explorer in its place. Explorer uses the Tasman rendering engine with the glitzy MSN interface on top of it. It's pretty much the same as MSN Explorer on Windows, including even WMP and Messenger.

It is likely Microsoft will keep MSN Explorer et al up to date because they are trying to grab the Mac crowd for MSN internet access. Earthlink and AOL have long had good support for Mac users and as such they've got quite a few Mac subscribers. Every Mac you buy comes with 30 days of free Earthlink service, AOL dial-up support in Internet Connect, and an AIM compatible IM client. Apple's very friendly with Earthlink and AOL for sticking with them even in bad times. MSN on the other hand has pretty much ignored the Mac market for most of its operational lifetime. Now that MSN is fighting to retain customers left and right they have to support the Mac market. They're losing customers left and right to cheaper dial-up services and broadband providers.

--
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.

Re:Office for Mac by Unregistered · 2004-01-30 13:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

Methinks Appleworks will eventually become a version of openoffice, but only after the OSS community ports it to aqua. Apple feels like its dev time would be better speant on stuff like iLife that may make people actually switch to the mac, which a decent version of appleworks won't as MS office is pleanty good enough, even if apple doesn't profit off it directly.

Two words... by 1984 · 2004-01-30 13:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Aggressor Squadron"

(Yes, yes, it's not for the same thing, I know. Go back to your 'Dew.)

Go Apple! by rune.w · 2004-01-30 13:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

What I say is that Microsoft should recognize the superiority of the Apple platform. They would probably earn a better reputation if they only developed software for the Mac. They'd probably make MORE moneyb if they developed software in an honest manner.

J.

Re:Office for Mac by rampant+mac · 2004-01-30 13:46 · Score: 4, Funny

"Realtime spell-checking comes to mind, I'm fairly sure I was doing that using 1st Word Plus on an 8Mhz Atari ST 512k more than ten years ago..."

Back in my day real time spell-checking was your cousin sitting next to you with a Speak 'n' Spell, keeping pace at 35 WPM!

--
I like big butts and I cannot lie.

is that an Oxymoron or is that Irony... by SPYDER+Web · 2004-01-30 13:47 · Score: 5, Funny

Maybe every business has a unit that uses competitors products like Coke has a Pepsi unit and Crest has a unit that brushes their teeth with Aqua Fresh. Its like one big Utopian Free-Market captialist society....

--
Trix are for kids!

Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-30 13:49 · Score: 3, Funny

If I were Bill Gates, I could probably afford a Mac too.

Not surprising really... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-30 13:55 · Score: 3, Interesting

Microsoft have written software ever since the Mac was released in 1984. In fact I believe one of the Office family (was it Word or Excel?) made its GUI debut on the Mac.

While they might have their differences and have even taken each other to court over OS appearance etc, Bill Gates has been quoted as saying something along the lines of 'The Apple Mac is the only other computer system worth writing software for'.

Personally I think the Microsoft Mac team write some great software. Nice to see common sense transcending the die-hard zealotry we usually see...

Why would they NOT have Macs? by Saeed+al-Sahaf · 2004-01-30 14:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

I have no idea why the parent is "funny". Everyone knows Microsoft makes Mac software, and without question, they have labs that have everything from Macs to vanilla Linux machines, Sparc Stations and everything else. Any company that does not investigate it's competition is beyond ignorent. People cut Microsoft a lot, but stupid people they are not.

--
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck

Re:Why would they NOT have Macs? by grahamlee · 2004-01-31 00:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

Microsoft aren't "investigating their competition"; much of their graphical software (including graphical versions of Word) started life on the Mac. The Macintosh Business Unit is a semi-autonomous division of Microsoft, comprising some incredibly competent Mac programmers. They pride themselves (and rightly, IMHO) on creating quality software for a quality platform; often the Mac version of Office will have a few features that haven't yet bled into the Wintel version; the MBU announced a few of these in the January Stevenote. Even Internet Explorer:Mac is a passable web browser.

Re:Office for Mac by woohoodonuts · 2004-01-30 14:13 · Score: 2, Informative

True, at least in my opinion.

as someone who has just finished two books on Microsoft Word...
(uses 10% of my processor just sitting open in the dock... has only two choices for background color... has a sub-par thesaurus)
and as someone who has previously written a book on Appleworks...
(document manager slows significantly with over a few hundred documents... plain white background is only choice [yes, this is a nice feature to be able to change when you work with text for 5+ straight hours]... doesn't consistently convert files properly... finally, it appears to be stagnant.)
I can safely say that the next evolutionary step is to Nisus Writer Express. The software has recently been updated and is worth a second look. If this sounds like a plug for Nisus... it is.
New features for nisus can be found here.

If you think there's no solution for appleworks other than Word and other office variants... check it out.

Re:Not only Macs... by Junta · 2004-01-30 14:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

I remember working for a certain networking hardware company that was not cisco and was fiercely competing with Cisco..... However all the site's switches and routing equipment that wasn't used explicitly for testing or development purposes? Cisco......

A *lot* of companies won't eat their own dog food, and that is really funny to me...

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.

Of course they use Macs!!!! by artemis67 · 2004-01-30 14:29 · Score: 5, Funny

How else are they going to get any work done when they get hit with these Outlook viruses?

Some critical apps missing by medazinol · 2004-01-30 14:37 · Score: 5, Interesting

While I generally like Office, Remote Desktop and can tolerate Virtual PC (lack of G5 support is not acceptable) I find the Mac BU decision re: Exchange server quite criminal. Yes, they added support for Exchange server in Entourage, however that support is for Exchange 2000 and only if you leave things alone in a stock install. We have numerous clients that run Exchange sevrer 5.5 and 2000 but turn off all but MAPI support. MS decided to not include any support for the MAPI protocol in Entourage!! They could have just ported Outlook 2001 to the Carbon spec and we'd be pretty well off but they took another route wich in most corporate environments almost lock us out totally in this manner. Thank Apple for including a fairly robust Classic environment so we can still run Outlook 2001 but if you've ever dealt with Classic apps and trying to get something like Outlook 2001 to runs problem-free then you know that we really need an OS X native Exchange client. To add insult to injury they still don't offer MAPI support in the new Office 2004 they recently announced. Just last week I sent feedback to Apple asking them to explore the possibility of them creating an collaboration system like Notes or Exchange on the Mac platform but making sure they use open protocols, 100% equal Mac, Windows and Linux clients, a plug-in system to integrate with Notes and Exchange and practically give it away. Talks about a killer app for Mac OS X Server.

Re:Some critical apps missing by Endive4Ever · 2004-01-30 18:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

I've gotten the feeling for a long time that Microsoft is more comfortable selling Mac Office as a home-office software product than as a Corporate desktop product. For this reason, they don't really emphasize the 'corporate desktop' connectivity features on Mac Office, which is really important for Windows Office.

--
---

Re:also because... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-30 14:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

People get those rates because of deals that companies like Dell, HP, etc. negotiated with Microsoft. I am sure Apple could negotiate a similar deal. I would also point out that most people who buy Office for Windows buy in bulk. There are for more corporate users than home users. Full Office is pretty much a waste for most home users that don't use their computer for business. I can't remember the last time my Aunt Myrtle put together a PowerPoint presentation.

I also see no reason why they shouldn't discriminate.

Do the numbers by SuperBanana · 2004-01-30 14:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

It may be profitable, because they have very low marketing expenses for Mac products (do they market them at all?)

It has little to do with marketing budgets; they advertise in Macintosh magazines- they're regularly the first two pages in Macworld. You wouldn't be asking questions if you saw how much Office for the Mac costs.

That's doubtful.. The OS and Office divisions are the cash cows for Microsoft. There is no way the Mac group is more profitable than the Office group.

Office is the Mac group's only product, and further, I specifically said the OS division is more profitable. Read, kay? Jesus, it was even in the text you quoted from my comment.

Here's a few numbers to wrap your head around. 1)MS Office for PCs? Included with almost every PC for nearly free. 2)Office for Macintosh? $400. What's bigger, 5% of the market at $400/copy, or 95% of the market at "near free"? Hmm?

Why do you think the Macintosh version of Office always comes out first? Why do they sign agreements committing to developing it well into the future? Why do you think it doesn't have any pisses-off-customers product activation? Hmm...maybe because they make a shitload of money off it and want to keep the gravy train rolling?

--
Please help metamoderate.

Re:Do the numbers by RazzleFrog · 2004-01-30 14:56 · Score: 3, Informative

Hahahah. Now I understand. You really have no clue what you are talking about. I usually don't take on other people's arguments but you are really scary. You say Office is the Mac group's only product and then you tell him to read? You didn't even read the article.

I can't even begin to untangle the mess about OS division vs Office division vs Mac Division.

And you obviously never priced a PC. Office doesn't come with PC's. Dell charges you $129 for the most basic Office and $340 for the full Pro version.

And here is some numbers for you:
Market size (hypothetically) - 10,000,000
Mac - 500,000 * $400 = $200,000,000
PC - 9,500,000 * $129 = $1,225,500,000

I already made my point in another post about Mac version coming out first.

Re:also because... by artemis67 · 2004-01-30 15:09 · Score: 3, Interesting

People get those rates because of deals that companies like Dell, HP, etc. negotiated with Microsoft.

No, they get those hardware bundle rates because Microsoft offers them for Windows systems. You can get it, too, just go up on PriceWatch and see how cheap you can get Office 2003 with the purchase of a hard drive.

HP and Dell get an even GREATER discount than you are able to get because of the volume of units they move.

Three reasons to discriminate against Mac users:

1) They have a virtual monopoly on office software for the Mac. Therefore, they can charge each and every Mac user full pop without fear of losing marketshare. I believe Office has consistently been the top-selling software title for Macintosh for a number of years, so what's the motivation to cut the price?

2) It contributes to the general belief that Macs are overpriced. You spend a couple hundred more on the hardware, and then you have to spend an extra $200 more than Windows users for Office? It helps price Macs out of the competitive price range of Wintel systems.

3) Keep Macs out of the lucrative corporate market. Again, they'll sell in volume discount their Windows solutions, but corporate Mac users are stuck.

No Wonder They Were Worried About Location by weston · 2004-01-30 15:18 · Score: 2, Funny

I'd be waiting to mug their sanitation guys with that kind of stuff being thrown away. Bet there's perfectly good G3/G4's going soon.

--
Tweet, tweet.

Re:Roz Ho by lightningrod220 · 2004-01-30 15:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

...judging by her performance during her segment of the MacWorld Keynote, she's a ghastly public speaker...

Of course! I was watching the live webcast, and was irritated by how annoying she was. I was actually screaming at my computer. "Boo! Boo! Put Steve back on the stage! Get her out of there! Boo!"

Not bloatware! by benwaggoner · 2004-01-30 15:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

Given all the times /.'ers complain about Microsoft doing bloatware, you'd think there would be some thanks for doing a new version that's snappier, up to date, but doesn't go overboard on new features.

I easily spend 1000+ hours a year in Office v.X, and I'm really looking forward to the new version. It's darn complete - there really weren't that many holes, and it looks like they're filling most of them.

--

My video compression blog

Re:Most requested ports?? by libra-dragon · 2004-01-30 16:05 · Score: 3, Informative

I agree with your points above, but maybe I should have elaborated.

OG blows in it's Visio interoperability --granted .vdx support is recent... If it would read .vsd files I wouldn't be so opposed to using it --but that's not OG's fault. As one of the two Macs in a company of about 50 Visio users, I routinely find myself using Visio via VPC to export vsd to vdx files. If I'm lucky VPC/WinXP/Visio will keep from crashing just long enough for me to pull the export off.

That's why I want MS Visio for Mac. I'm hoping they can improve upon the Windows counterpart just like Office v.X. So, maybe my anger was a little misdirected. OG doesn't necessarily blow, but jumping through hoops just to read a Visio drawing in OG does blow.

Scary quote by brucmack · 2004-01-30 16:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

From the article: ...they recounted with pride such tales as the colleague who broke up with a girlfriend who bought a Windows PC.

This kind of statement really doesn't help the Mac cause... To a non-Mac user, it freaks me out, to tell you the truth. It seems too cult for my tastes.

Re:The only reason.... by catdevnull · 2004-01-30 16:28 · Score: 5, Interesting

I support a whole campus full of PC and Mac Office users. I disagree that the Mac version is better. My PC users don't complain much about some of the bugs we find in the Mac version. I find that there most common complaint is "unexpectedly quit" issues with office even with all the patches.

I find that Mac users are pretty happy with months of uptime but Windows 2K through XP seem pretty stable with a good patch and antivirus regimen. YMMV. Stability is an issue on any system that doesn't get checkups and patches. Windows is definitely high maintenance in comparison.

Linux is still far from "user-friendly" as a desktop solution. Stable or not, it's still has a huge "geek factor" to bridge before you can just give it to a user without your phone and pager going off every 5 minutes. Talk about high maintenance.

--

I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...

Who cares if they stop making Office for Mac? by eclectic4 · 2004-01-30 16:31 · Score: 4, Interesting

As far as I know, .docs created using Office 98 are still translatable to all post version on both platforms. This is a 6 year old app. So, if they stopped tomorrow how long would it be before Mac users REALLY felt the pinch?

--

"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin

MS getting ready to shed its skin? by philge · 2004-01-30 16:32 · Score: 5, Interesting

Microsoft buys virtual PC. Microsoft adopts power IBM PC processor for next Xbox. Word for OSX could be adapted to run on power pc hardware uunder another OS. MS feels mounting pressure of malicious code and is aware of platform monoculture dilemma. Windows for many people just somewhere to run office. If MS wanted to build a new machine with backwards compatibility through virtual PC, running office natively, then all the pieces are falling into place. Get ready for the clone wars

Re:Could you give me a pointer to the version of by Jord · 2004-01-30 17:24 · Score: 2, Informative

Try reading. He said they were using Sun machines because Exchange could not handle the load. He did not say Exchange is running on Sun hardware.

Try reading before posting, it does wonders.

--
seSales, Point of Sale software for OS X.

more like this by twitter · 2004-01-30 17:34 · Score: 2, Informative

I prefer the victim's perspective, rather than the perpetuator's. You present us with an MSNBC article full of appologies and doges. It was more like Microsoft employee fired for violating groupthink.

--

Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

Re:Scary quote - This ain't about macs. by teamhasnoi · 2004-01-30 18:35 · Score: 2, Funny

I spent 4 hours telling my uncle everything I knew about guitars, (which is not a little) and especially what *not* to get. This one singular thing I pounded into his head, again and again - backed up with all the reasons why it would be a bad decision: poor investment, not easily fixable, tonally crap, ect.

What does he show up with nest time I see him. Exactly what I told him *NOT* to get.

This guy was clueless about the subject, and chose to ignore my advice - from someone who has made a living as a musician, built and repaired guitars, and played everything under the sun (at the store, of course).

I didn't say anything. I made a mental note to never waste my time again.

As far as the girly, good riddance. If she can't see why a Mac is better, when she's had every opportunity (the guy's behind one of the best selling mac software titles, for Bill's sake - I'm sure he has a nice one at home), then the hell with her.

I think it says something when someone asks for advice from someone who actually gives a rat's ass beyond some commission or reward *and* is well versed in the subject (a rare thing these days), and goes ahead and ignores it.

I think this statement is fine. Life is too short to waste your time, especially when it's about chicks.

Is she going to ignore advice from her doctor to stop screwing Haitian man-whores? Not listen to her investment manager when he says, 'That Nigerian email is a scam'? How about the recommendation of her video store clerk that 'Caligula' is not a movie to bring over to her niece's slumber party?

I mean, it's questionable at this point.

Change the PC to something you care and are knowlegeable about and see if that little voice in your head says, "Hey, she ignored your advice! MARRY HER!" or if it says, "Hey, she ignored your advice! That chick at the coffe shop was looking at you..."

I'll let you ponder that one.

Microsoft invented the term "dogfood" by kylef · 2004-01-30 19:09 · Score: 4, Interesting

I realize that you didn't make the comment above about Microsoft "secretly using Sun servers", but those are the kind of statements that really make me upset because they are demonstrably false. If you ever had an opportunity to visit the Redmond campus, you would see that.

Microsoft invented the term "dogfood." Eating your own dogfood was slang introduced in the DOS days. Dogfood is software that's not even in BETA yet: in other words, not ready for public consumption. Microsoft is famous for having its people eat their own dogfood. It is not like the networking company you worked at.

Other terms first used at Microsoft? Vaporware. Death March. OOF. See other Microsoft jargon.

How many of you were running 2.3.x or 2.5.x kernels before 2.4.x and 2.6.x came out? It's amazing how people on Slashdot just can't seem to give Microsoft credit.

MS Mac BU notes by themexican · 2004-01-30 21:27 · Score: 2, Informative

If you look over the last 10 years the MS Mac Business Unit has a pretty good record of releasing ground breaking software that then languishes. The question is whether this happens because of larger Microsoft/Apple squabbles or simply because of corporate negligence.

Explorer 5 for the Mac OS 9 was groundbreaking in it's support for web standards. The Tasman rendering engine really was ahead of it's time especially in the support of CSS and web standards. Also many of it's HI features were several years ahead of it's Windows brother and some features (like sliding drawers and XML based customizable buttons) seem to have been 'borrowed' in OS X. Although it was roundly savaged for being dog slow, the OS X port of Explorer helped legitimize OS X (even today it still is the best browser for rendering MS friendly websites). Given the state of development tools at the time (and OS X itself) just the fact that the port worked was a big deal, but MS has since let the browser die blaming competition from Safari. I think it's obvious that MS killed Explorer as a screw you to Apple, but my guess is that we'll have a better Safari as a result.

Starting with Office 98, the Mac versions of Word, Excel, and to a lesser extent Powerpoint have consistently surpassed the Windows versions in terms of usability and design. While the program has evolved little (even through it's OS X port) since 98, it's a workhorse that helps keep the Mac a viable corporate machine. The best thing the Mac BU did for the Mac OS was to make Office documents data compatible across platforms. Back in the late nineties when everyone was thinking the Mac platform was dying more than any other software this version of office and the cross platform documents it produced helped restore confidence in the Mac. Today this platform agnosticism seems to finally be breaking down (Office for Mac can't open some of the latest Office XP documents... but then again neither can older versions of Office for Windows. Also the files produced by the forthcoming Office for Mac will not necessarily be data compatible--you will have to run a check for compatibility instead of the document degrading gracefully). Evil plot or progress. You decide.

Entourage is the grown up version of Outlook Express which itself is the child of the much beloved Claris Emailer (the author was recruited by MS and Emailer's basic form and function were kept intact. While it's showing it's age, for my money, Entourage is still the best power user email solution for OS X (Apple's Mail has surpassed Entourage in junk mail filtering but is still behind in basic mail management especially for users with multiple addresses). Entourage's lack of full Exchange support is it's major flaw and the decision to not include this support seems to be politically motivated. I believe this presents an opportunity to third party developers as there are thousands of users looking for native OS X Exchange support. Otherwise as a personal mail manager Entourage runs circles around Outlook for Windows XP which seems primitive in comparison.

MSN for OS X is a bit of a joke. I'm not sure I've ever met a single person who uses it. It's feature poor (compared to it's windows cousin) and buggy. Especially galling is that you can only log on if you use MSN as your ISP. There are many ISPs (Verizon for example) that give you free MSN email addresses and theoretically should allow you to use this browser, but only a a Windows MSN client is allowed for login.

It will be interesting to see what the Mac BU does with Virtual PC. Most mac users feel that if Connectix was still at the help that we would have a G5 version of the program already available. Also regular updates seem to have just dried up. Will VPC still be a source of innovation or will it just languish... Again happenstance or evil plot? Hard to say.

Anyway the point of all this is that innovation does come out of the Mac BU but then programs are allowed to linger for years between updates and widely reported bugs are al

I can't help but smile at my former co-workers by JayBonci · 2004-01-30 21:41 · Score: 4, Informative

I'll come clean here and say that I in fact did used to work for Microsoft as an intern, in the Macintosh Business Unit. As in, no shit, there I was. These are the people I used to eat lunch with, talk about bugs with, and share the passion for a product with etc. They are Macintosh zealots in the Microsoft community, and deeply care not only about Microsoft, but also the Macintosh community as a whole. As much as you may think of them as black sheep, they wear it as a badge of honor.

I've never heard more talk from a product group about what the "community" will think about a feature, what value it adds to the target audience, etc. It was a core focus, to not only bring Microsoft Office to that community, but enable them to interact fully with their Windows counterparts. There was no secondary citizenship. These people put their all into the product, and are met with relatively great success.

An amazing amount of work goes into making the software a great user-experience. Applescript exposure, different UI, Mac-specific features and development... all of those things because the Mac product was hugely important. Localization into at least 5 different languages (off the top of my head). Different product SKUs, and different new developments with what the Mac community had in mind.

A very cool thing that I found about the team was that in no way lived under the shadow of the greater Office group. They pride themselves on having the "best" version of Office, as wierd as that sounds.

Kevin Brown, the Business Unit Manager when I was there said at a MacWorld (paraphrased from memory): "We know that our users are mostly home and small business users. People aren't using Excel to make incredibly complicated PivotTables, but are using it to balance their checkbook". That quote stuck out in my mind as something that always made me chuckle. It was a realistic look at how this "enterprise class" piece of software was realistically being used by the community at large.

These are developers and testers who use their Mac everyday (some even faking their PC). I knew one tester who used the product for everything. Signs, balancing his budget, right on down to making grocery lists in word, and porting them over to Powerpoint, just to see.

I worked on the clamshell version of Office 2001, and the trophy copy still sits on my desk. I hate to hear when people bash the group as some kind of whack strategy to sink Apple, because not only are these people my professional friends, but they simply don't think that way.

It was a refreshing two summers working for the Evil Empire (tm), but being a part of a group with as much passion for quality and desire to put out the best software possible. It's made me a rabid tester, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

I remember that huge Mac lab you see behind you running SETI at home, as we were in the top 20 or so for a while ;)

If you guys are reading this, glad to hear you're going strong.

--Jay Bonci (summer of 1999, 2000, Mac Office Core)

Re:I can't help but smile at my former co-workers by JayBonci · 2004-01-30 22:05 · Score: 3, Informative

No, and there are reasons for each one of the things it doesn't have.

No Outlook: Has Entourage and Exchange client for Mac. Mac BU used to do Mac OE, but Entourage is basically that with Calendaring and other office integrations

No Project: There's no market for it. Project is niche on windows.

Access: Access is too windows specific, and there's no market room for it. Everyone uses FileMaker Pro, of which there are huge amounts of import and conversion functions for in Excel. I think you can convert mdb files to FileMaker (but my memory is fuzzy)

If there isn't a market for it, don't spend millions on dev time, pm time, testing time, localization, and then support costs in porting it. That's simply the nature of commerical software.

--jay

Re:MSoffice on Mac is STILL second rate by ducomputergeek · 2004-01-30 21:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

Oddly enough, I love MS Office on Mac better than windows and I beta tested Office 2000 and XP. To our small business, the lack of access is mute. We run 95% macs, with BSD or Linux on our servers. I refuse to use Access and run either PostgreSQL or MySQL that handles all of our CRM/ERP. But that's overkill really. We get buy with Mac Mail and Quickbooks Pro quite nicely. We have less than 10 employees, but when things like MyDoom come along we don't worry about it.

Also, even if Office goes away for Mac I don't think its going to be much a problem. OpenOffice is making great strides, I have had several clients switch to OpenOffice and save thousands of dollars as opposed to going to Office 2003. Most of my clients don't need anything other than a word processor and spread sheet on most of their desktops.

On the other note, of my clients, the video production folks are buying macs in droves and spending an average of $7000 a peice for them. Why? Final Cut Pro is the defacto small shop editing software for video production companies. Even major motion pictures are being edited on the machines and that market's not going away so long as Apple continues producing excellent software.

Furthermore, there is something going on your not reading about much: The rest of the world is going to LINUX as their OS of choice. Microsoft maybe able to bribe some back to their side, but largely, I think the desktop market over the next five years outside of the United States is going to Linux. I also see some larger companies going to Linux as well as soon as a clear defacto desktop enviroment emerges.

Discovered this while working and studying in Germany. The german college I attended for a semester had two Linux labs and one Windows XP lab. The students spent more time usually typing up papers in StarOffice on SuSE Linux than in MS office and Windows.

Mac and BSD dying threads just aren't true. I switched myself from Linux to Mac about two years ago and never looked back. So far I have been very impressed with my iBook and now Powerbook.

--
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.

Re:Not only Macs... by spongman · 2004-01-30 22:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

Gotta love the 'informative' mod on this one. This post couldn't be more uninformative if it tried.

Firstly, internally, Microsoft uses SQL Server and Exchange pretty much exclusively for their respective purposes (for both development and enterprise). Exchange is perfectly capable of handling all of microsoft's employee's email around the globe.

Secondly, if there are no MS products in use at Sun, how do you recon they develop and test their Java software?

Re:MSoffice on Mac is STILL second rate by HSpirit · 2004-01-31 02:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

The argument against this which I have heard in the past is that Access relies heavily on backend DLLs shipped as part of the Windows OS, and hence would require more work to port to Mac than the other Office apps.

Having said that, I've never been convinced of this argument, as the same is true of IE, but of course that didn't stop a Mac version of IE being developed.

My suspicion has always been that not porting Access is a strategic decision by Micro$oft to keep the SME market away from Macs - I have absolutely no evidence for that, I just haven't heard a better competing theory.

Microsoft's Linux Business Unit by The+Breeze · 2004-01-31 03:04 · Score: 2, Funny

I haven't seen an article yet about the MS Linux Business Unit programmers.

Oh, wait. That's because the Microsoft Linux Business Unit has no programmers - just a legal staff, and they are outsourced to some company based in Utah.

Re:Wow by aristotle-dude · 2004-02-02 04:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

First of all, are we talking about laptops, desktops or workstations? If you are comparing a desktop (P4 eMachine with onboard video and shared ram) versus a Dual G5, then you are comparing a bottom of the barrel desktop versus a workstation. Are we talking about special Dell deals or regular retail prices? Apple is very competitive with laptops from a price/performance/feature standpoint in the "retail" segment. You cannot compare some stripped down dell laptop with a special online coupon against a retail priced pbook. They are not even in the same category. The are also competive in the workstation market when compared against a similar spec Dual Xeon.

--
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.

Slashdot Mirror

Microsoft's Mac Business Unit

84 of 460 comments (clear)