Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft May Be Seeking Protection From Linux With Dell Loan
alphadogg writes "Microsoft's $2 billion loan to Dell is a sign that the software maker wants to influence hardware designs in a post-PC world while protecting itself from the growing influence of Linux-based operating systems in mobile devices and servers, according to analysts. As the world's third-largest PC maker, Dell is important to the success of Microsoft's server and PC software. Even though Microsoft's loan does not represent a big part of the total value of the transaction, the software maker does not throw around money lightly and its participation in the deal might be an attempt by the software maker to influence hardware designs in the post-PC world of touch laptops, tablets and smartphones, analysts said. It may also be an attempt to secure the partnership and to stop the PC maker from looking toward alternative operating systems like Linux, analysts said. Dell offers Linux servers and in late November introduced a thin and light XPS 13 laptop with a Linux-based Ubuntu OS, also code-named Project Sputnik. Major PC makers in recent months have also introduced laptops with Chrome OS."
HP has released a statement in response to the deal which talks about how Dell "faces an extended period of uncertainty and transition that will not be good for its customers." Perhaps they're right; HP is certainly familiar with such a situation. However, it's likely Dell is simply hoping to avoid the same struggles HP has faced over the past several years.
Everybody knows that Linux wins.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njos57IJf-0
"I'm on Linux, bitch. I thought you Gnu."
Nobodies Prefect
Tidbits for Techs Technology Blog
I love this generic "serious source" mention. Et tu, Slashdot!
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Like Dell (or even Microsoft) would throw away more than half of their server customers who use Linux.
Microsoft may be investing a small amount to "test the waters." From a business perspective, this could be a good deal for Microsoft than Dell. But then again I also see some uptick for Dell in entering the consumer space where they have failed.
1. Microsoft will have another OEM to deliver more of their designs in the future ala Nexus branding. They will get access to design, manufacturing, and logistics without having to swallow a much bigger company.
2. Microsoft will have more control over products much like Apple without alienating too much other partners like HP.
3. Dell can take advantage of Microsoft (such as with Microsoft rolling out stores and being able to showcase more of their consumer wares.) Dell may enter the market for tablets, mobile phones, and other gadgets which they have failed in the past.
4. Dell may get more technology from Microsoft Research that could benefit them in future breakthrough products (and fighting Google along the way.)
Thinking long term, this might actually be beneficial for both companies. The consumers are very fickle. Who knows who might be the next "big thing." Then again, a product maker is no longer a money maker these days for high tech goods as everyone is focusing on services (with longer revenue streams - think Google.)
HP is a total wreck of a company. Blowing billions on WTF acquisitions and going through CEOs like shit through a goose, not to mention a completely ineffective board of directors.
They used to be great. Their products were a dream of quality. I still have a personal collection of their to-die-for calculators. When the shuttle was first launched the astronauts were issued HP-41s in case they had computer problems or to aid in running experiments.
http://hpinspace.wordpress.com/category/hp-41/
Now they are nothing. They get most of their income from ink cartridges.
It started with Carly who gutted their R&D.
It is not going to stop in the foreseeable future.
RIP HP
Should Windows on the consumer or mobile side go integrated the way Apple is ? MS has the means to buy Nokia and either Dell or HP. Should they do so before Winphone and RT fail completely, investing with the sort of long-term commitment that made the xbox successful in the end ? All of MS's OEMs are looking for a way to get a bigger share of the profits, and to meet customer expectations. Free (as in beer) Android and Chrome OS seem to be good ways to achieve that, instead of handing out the bigger part of each sales' profit to MS as Windows licensing costs.
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
Microsoft's battle is not with Linux.
Rather, Microsoft's future battle is with the smartphones and the tablets and all other new wearable formfactors of computing.
Microsoft's OS is simply too large, too encumbering and too useless for devices that people will use in the future.
Their investment in Dell is that they hope Dell can come up with something that can sell
Microsoft tried their luck with Nokia, and Nokia is going nowhere fast
Microsoft tried to forge it by themselves by their "surface" thingy, but it tanked too
So now, it's Dell.
Ballmer is waging a shotgun approach of computing war --- trying anything and everything --- because the guy has no idea what to do now.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Why would they need protection from Linux when they're "Looking At Office For Linux In 2014"?
Hey man, I don't go looking for this this shit. It just keeps popping up in my feeds and I go with it because it's fun.
I want this account deleted.
End of the PC?
If I have to start programming on a smart phone, tablet, or laptop, I'm gonna quit programming and start a slushie business.
Cause hell will have frozen over. And the ice will be free as in not beer.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
This is stupid. For there to be 1% or even 10% marketshare, there must be 0.1%, and it must not be stifled by artificial means like trusted bootloaders. I don't know who that "average" person is, but I've been using desktop linux, and now also OS X, for quite a while. I run pretty much the same open source software on OS X as I've been running on Linux.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
It's Apple. Linux is just a side show as Apple is eating MS's lunch.
Basically, Dell has brand cache and [used to build] rock solid hardware. If MS can snatch Dell up without paying much (either a buyout, takeover or... loan), then they can compete against Apple and can create the pro-business desire of the elusive closed ecosystem. Nokia is a sinking ship for MS (just keeps everyone at bay). As for servers, pay up on service contracts (MS's ecosystem) or hire expensive sysadmins (Linux)--all ends up costing the same for the commercial user due to the integration problem.
A this point of Linux server adoption, MS likely thinks Linux can go for the guys not willing to pay up or want their own support.... In hopes that it accelerates the environment of Linux apps that are unlicensable (e.g. Mpeg4), slow (the latest DEs), incompatible (mobile, video, flash), or closed (e.g. Android in some respects).
Make Dell hostile to Linux. Good luck with that. Let us know how that goes for you.
You can't be in the server business and not support Linux. You can't be in mobile and not support Linux, unless you're Apple. Pee Cee's? I'm not sure they matter to the fate of Linux any longer.
But feel free to squander that bit of your Linux customer base, if you wish.
This is just some tech writer generating page views.
Microsoft's OS is simply too large, too encumbering and too useless for devices that people will use in the future.
Meh. Once upon a time I would have agreed with you, but now I actually run Windows 7 on a PC that is less powerful than my phone, and it doesn't seem too bad, so I think the idea of resource constraints stopping you from running a desktop OS on a mobile device is something that will soon be consigned to history.
Windows 7 on a PC that is less powerful than my phone
Explain this... I don't believe it.
Unless you have an atom netbook ARM is just not there yet. Sure the processor might be close but everything else is still has much lower specs.
No one wants a windows computer you can only install software from the microsoft store. Dell would be stupid to not seriously consider Linux offerings especially since they no longer have to pander to shareholders and things like Steam on Linux is gaining momentum.
balmer is a good example of why you don't let a marketing guy run a technology company.
Dell's problem is not Linux. Their problem is that they no longer desire to sell computers to anyone. I tried three times last year to buy a laptop and their absolutely useless sales people completely ignored the features I requested. It was comical. I'd been a Dell customer for many years but last year I switched to Asus.
Step 1: Sign up for the Azure free trial
Step 2: Create a Linux VM in Azure... from their VM image archive.
Step 3: Experience your mind being blown as you realize Microsoft, in fact, actively supports Linux.
Actually it is not wrong to let a marketing guy to run a tech company, that is, if that marketing guy has REAL BRAIN
What had transpired in Microsoft is this, Bill Gates chose Steve Ballmer not because Mr. Ballmer has brain.
Bill Gates chose Ballmer because Ballmer is one helluva "YES MAN".
Anything and everything Bill Gates wanted to get done, Ballmer delivered.
That's not the way to lead a tech company.
A tech company needs a leader with a vision --- someone like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs --- someone with a vision that can see into the future.
Not Ballmer.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Now try it with Windows 8. When the OS and bundled software on your tablet is so big that it wouldn't even fit on the largest iPhone 4, and would fill nearly 3/4ths of the capacity of the largest iPhone 5, you have a very serious problem.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Microsoft's gambit with Nokia was a 3 to 5 year game, it hasn't played out yet. Once Nokia has imploded, MS will swoop in and snatch up at least a good chunk of the patent portfolio. Maybe the manufacturing part too, depending on how badly they still want to implement a facsimile of Apple's end-to-end pipeline model.
They've now wormed their way into Dell, albeit with completely a different tactic. I'm not sure how much influence they bought for $2B (out of a $24B valuation), but it's certainly more than none. I wouldn't be surprised if Dell's Linux offerings disappear within 2 years.
MS never really intended to make Surface a hot item, the whole strategy of them making their own branded devices is puzzling, especially since it's never worked before (Zune, Kin). All three seem more like process tests rather than full bore, confident product releases.
I still think tablets are a fad that doesn't have enough momentum to last until the next version of Windows.
Redmond may be running scared, but they don't seem to be sure what to be scared of. Linux is a threat, yes.. one that they will have enabled with the combination of Surface (angering the OEMs) and the stubborn imposition of Win8 and its stupid Metro UI on everything. Plus, they haven't embraced ARM as fully as they could have, much less any other architecture.
I expect at least a few OEMs (not Dell, obviously) to begin discreetly seeking distro partners very soon, so they can release proper desktops/laptops with Linux factory installed in 2015: the long awaited year of the Lunix desktop.
I think you're right.
Windows started out life as an "Operating Environment". (DOS was the "Operating System").
When you change the form-factor, and set of use-cases, significantly, from the Desktop/Workstation model, that strains the Windows "Operating Environment".
Sure - in the "Server" case - having the Windows 3.1 GUI duct-taped on top of Windows NT 3.51 was acceptable. Barely. Windows never made any serious inroads into the server market until IIS matured, and Active Directory made Servers a little more bearable.
And then Apache came along and ate their lunch.
Surprisingly - Microsoft adapted this model VERY WELL to the game-console form factor and set of use cases. Nobody can argue that XBox was not a huge success. But then again - you can hide a crappy system behind the REAL content when the users are 99% into GAMES. But I dont' really want to go there - because Microsoft actually DID do a great job with XBox, and developers flocked to the platform in droves because of that.
But they absolutely failed at media players.
They have failed at netbooks.
They have failed at tablets.
And they have failed at smartphones.
So it's not surpising at all to me that they're running scared.
(and I'm one who believes that most of these other form-factors are really just fads, and that the classic "Desktop/Workstation" is NOT going to go away. The problem is: Desktop/Workstation BECAME a fad, and that fad faded away and was replaced largely by these other gadgets, because people were looking for solutions to the portability problem. We pros STILL need our Desktop/Workstations. We ALWAYS will.)
In any case: Linux can adapt. Because Linux is not an "Operating Environment". It's an Operating System. It's forked and adapted to phones and tablets (android) and little devices (busybox, etc), and it's the mainstay of servers, and it does everything we really NEED on the desktop. It doesn't NEED to have the same front-end on all of them. As long as the back-end is still POSIX. (Microsoft doesn't *get* this. And Windows is freaking POSIX-compliant!) I think Microsoft is still so steeped in MBA-culture, that they're terrified to lose mindshare, so they feel they must use a "seat" sold on a smartphone, to "advertise" for a Server OS, and a Media Player, and a Tablet, and a Desktop. Fucking spreadsheet-jockeys.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I think the idea of resource constraints stopping you from running a desktop OS on a mobile device is something that will soon be consigned to history.
It already has been.
But that's still not good news for MS. They've been charing monopoly rents for their desktop OS for so long, they'll have a hard time adapting to selling it on devices that cost less than they're retailing their OS for.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
"investing with the sort of long-term commitment that made the xbox successful in the end"
After a decade in the console market Microsoft's Xbox 360 is the last place console this gen.
That isn't 'success', it's exactly the opposite. Failure.
Nobody can argue that XBox was not a huge success.
Last I looked, the Xbox was still down a billion dollars or two over the course of its life. And that's 'a huge success'? No wonder Microsoft is in the crap.
Taking the money they blew on Xbox and spending it buying Apple shares at that time... now that would have been 'a huge success'.
Windows never made any serious inroads into the server market until IIS matured, and Active Directory made Servers a little more bearable
Wat. So you are telling me that Windows had no server success before Windows 2000? Your green is showing
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
um .... many phones have an hdmi port, or an mhl port ... completely possible.
Desktop Linux apologists need to stop blaming Microsoft and actually make better software rather than lament the fact that, by and large, people do not want desktop Linux.
I suggest you go and find (it's not hard) and read some of the documents that have come out of the various trials the Microsoft has gone through over the years. They did actively sabotage attempts to get other Operating Systems factory installed by strong arming OEMs and threatening to raise the price of Windows if the vendor did not supply only Windows on their hardware.
The old argument was that people that tried Linux didn't like it because it was too hard to install. Well, that problem goes away if it is pre-loaded, but see paragraph one for why that was not happening. Heck for many years, it's been so much easier to install a Linux distribution on most hardware than Windows. For a long time, non-server Windows installer CDs didn't even boot, so you'd have to fuss with a DOS boot floppy and CD drivers. Then, when SATA came along and Windows didn't know anything about it, you'd need to find a floppy (again!) to have the installer load drivers. Don't bother arguing about slip-streaming drivers into the install CD, if someone can do that they can install a Linux distribution.
Simple fact is, the Linux desktop IS good enough for people to use at home. There will always be some people that have files in some proprietary format for which there is no available software to open it, or some crappy $10 scanner that does not have driver available, but for those that want to do the usual kind of work at home, email, web, IM, type a document, it's fine.
First of all, many thanks are in order for the very thoughtful reply from you !!!
About the desktop/workstation.
As far as I can see, yes, I agree with you, we Pros need the power that only our desktop / workstation can provide us.
Until, of course, they can come up with something that has much more processing power than our desktops / workstations and yet, still in tiny wearable formfactors, like the things they use in startrek.
About XBox.
I agree.
MS has done one helluva great job for their Xboxen.
And as you said, Xboxes are for one purpose, and one purpose only, gaming.
This translate to, Microsoft can be very very good in making one-trade-ponies.
And do you realize that the xbox was introduced when Bill Gates was still in charge?
In other words, Steve Ballmer has absolutely nothing to show, for the years he has been on the top post of Microsoft.
And lastly, about the rent-seeking mentality of Microsoft ...
I'm afraid this rent-seeking mentality isn't confined only to Microsoft.
You and I are from the old time, you probably had spent time in the Silicon Valley (or the equivalent in other places), like I did.
And in those places, we can see established companies - not only Microsoft - that are still in the rent-seeking mode.
From Adobe to Symantec to Intel ... they are all, in fact, rent-seekers.
To ask them to move away from that rent-seeking mode of thought is like trying to get drug addicts to stop using drugs.
It's not impossible. It's just very very hard.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
They were the best. I hate HP. I think their design engineers go through a lot of trouble to use as many different sizes and types of screws as possible into each computer they create. Not impossible to work on but positively the worst to the point that I all but refuse to work on them.
Everyone knows by now... everyone should know by now.... Any time a company takes money from Microsoft, they die very soon thereafter. Microsoft's money (not to be confused with Microsoft Money) is literally poison. Well that may be over simplifying things a bit. The money comes WITH poison would be more accurate to say.
We all know Microsoft is struggling to remain relevant. They are prepared to do anything except change what they are doing to stay alive and relevant. And when they pay, excuse me, 'invest' in some company to ensure they do their bidding, the comnpany languishes in failure shortly thereafter. SCO and Nokia come to mind, but they also managed to screw over quite a few smaller operations as well. To accept money from Microsoft, you have to give something up. And it is invariably what they give up which kills them. Nokia was toying with Linuxes on phones and was probably about to join their brand with Android when Microsoft stepped in. SCO was doing "okay" with their Linuxes but their name was famous enough in the board rooms that no one at a high enough level cared whether or not SCO was actually any good or not. They took Microsoft's money in exchange for their credibility. If anyone thinks SCO didn't know they didn't have the rights to Unix, they weren't paying attention. They knew. They were just hoping that *maybe* the judges and juries wouldn't understand.
Microsoft's and Dell's relationship goes way back. Some might say that it was evidence to the contrary of my assertions. It's not. The leverage Microsoft used over Dell was prices for a product that was all but 100% necessary to sell with a PC compatible. After all, no corporation can legally installed a volume licensed version of Windows onto a PC that didn't already have Windows or Mac OSX pre-installed. It's in the new license agreements now. Surely everyone knows about this by now -- that all desktop/client Windows volume licenses are "upgrades"?
Dell got discounts... pretty much like everyone else. But unlike everyone else, Dell has been a bit more hesitant than the rest to join in with the Android and Linux crowds. Sure, there was the Dell Streak which was immensely popular but somehow lost momentum from Dell. Too hard to support? Not main-line enough? Can't me when Samsung and ASUS are doing so damned well with their Android devices. Nope. Dell "gave up something" and it's already costing them. But that's the way marriage works right? The least fortunate spouse is the one who gave up the most?
Witness it happening.
I'm going to miss Dell. I have only ever really used Dell. They have been the best servers, desktops and laptops I have ever owned, and the best supported. I'm really going to miss Dell.
Yeah - I stopped reading at that point too
Unless Apple buys Dell in its entirety and starts concentrating on making Linux boxes.
Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
I can't disagree with this. Novell was THE server OS for file/print and applications ran on Unix.
Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
I suggest you go and find (it's not hard) and read some of the documents that have come out of the various trials the Microsoft has gone through over the years. They did actively sabotage attempts to get other Operating Systems factory installed by strong arming OEMs and threatening to raise the price of Windows if the vendor did not supply only Windows on their hardware.
yet there were still vendors that produced linux desktops, and still no one wanted them. best buy tried it too, no one wanted them. hp and dell tried it, no one wanted them. microsoft certainly had a go at linux, just as apple has a go at windows, but in the end there has always been consumer choice, and consumers did not choose desktop linux, these days fewer are even choosing windows, instead opting for android, ios or osx for their basic computing.
The old argument was that people that tried Linux didn't like it because it was too hard to install. Well, that problem goes away if it is pre-loaded, but see paragraph one for why that was not happening.
we've had live cds for a decade, stop making excuses.
Simple fact is, the Linux desktop IS good enough for people to use at home.
that isn't a fact at all, even if it were, "good enough" is not enough! windows phone is "good enough", webOS was "good enough" but they won't disrupt the market.
but for those that want to do the usual kind of work at home, email, web, IM, type a document, it's fine.
and "fine" is not enough, it's an alternative for alternative's sake. Android and iOS rose to significance over windows mobile and blackberry because they weren't just "me too" operating systems, they were different and innovative in ways consumers actually cared about, desktop linux is none of those things, that's why it languishes.
I'm struggling to see how anyone wins out of this. Microsoft gets to loan money to a company which is cratering fast without getting any control or real influence. Michael Dell gets to double down on a company in crisis, that in the last few years (by many accounts), he seems to have lost interest in. Even he didn't lose interest, its hard to see how he can fix it, when he's had a long time to fix it. Shareholders get a small premium on the already cratered share price. HP gets a small leg up on the "uncertainty", but really, they are dead man walking too. The PC industry is a real mess.
Novell version 3 had dominant position, but many customers never upgraded to Novell 4 and NDS. By the late 1990s, Windows NT 4.0 was kicking their butts.
worth adding that i predominantly use osx which has gotten significant market penetration thanks to it being a consistent, user-friendly and well-supported unix environment.
there's a whole lot of netbooks out there using some kind of celeron thing. i have a toshiba that runs win7 very well. by "well", i mean the experience is good but the stability is not so and i get ~2 hourly BSODs. that's as well as you're likely to get out of a mac to be honest (i just bought one, and i've gotta say, linux is easier and faster to get to a point where it's useful).
there's a lot of assumption out there about OS's that's actually quite wrong.
- windows is unstable
- linux requires a comp-sci degree to use
- osx is stable and easy to use
since buying my mac, i've realized that OSX is less stable than winXP and more difficult to set up than ubuntu (by a lot!). maybe it's because it was a fresh install of snow leopard, which is quite old now... but then winXP is very VERY old now, so apple have no excuse to offer less support to 10.6 than MS does for something they EOL'd long ago.
Bullshit, that is the same bullshit the press has been spewing and its as much bullshit as saying "Well now that the real estate bubble has burst houses are worthless now"
Look its actually REALLY simple, okay? the period between 1993-2005 was a BUBBLE, no different than the housing bubble or financial bubble or any other bubble, it was an UN-NATURAL CONDITION brought about by what we now call the "MHz War". you look at PC sales before the MHz war, how often did people replace PCs? Every 5-7 years. Now that the bubble is over how often will people be replacing PCs? Every 5-7 years. As a guy down here in the trenches I can tell you that not only is the PC NOT "going away" but frankly most folks? Up to their asses in PCs. Before the bubble most had only ONE PC, now most have a PC for every member of their family PLUS one or more laptops.
But the simple fact is once we moved away from simply raising the MHz of a single core into multiple cores PCs went right past "good enough" and straight into "insanely overpowered" for most users. I mean look at what I was selling on my LOW END builds FIVE years ago: A phenom X3 with 3GB-4GB of RAM and a 300GB-500GB HDD. Now how many of your average users are gonna max out that system? Damned few. On the laptop side i was selling Turion X2s with 2GB of RAM and 250Gb HDDs. Now how many people are gonna have needs when they are mobile that that system won't handle? Again damned few.
You want a perfect example of the "typical PC user" just look at my dad, he runs Skype, checks his webmail, does FB, runs his QuickBooks and burns DVDs, about as bog standard as you can get. When the Phenom X6s got cheap i thought "Well it has been a few years since i built that Phenom I X4 for dad, maybe I should see if its time to replace it" so I ran a 3 week monitoring of his system load and then checked the results, what did I find? 43%, that was the MAX he had gotten with the system and that turned out to be a hung browser tab, when I removed that anomaly he averaged less than 35% load. I checked his Core Duo desktop at the shop, similar results.
So the problem with MSFT is NOT Linux, and its NOT mobile anything, although from the way Ballmer is burning the damned company down trying to be Apple you'd think otherwise, but the real problem is they, like many on wall Street during the housing bubble, expected the bubble to last forever. Frankly MSFT could be making money hand over fist if they'd quit trying to ape Apple and ape IBM instead, sell services to that huge install base, but like most short sighted CEOs Ballmer only cares about being "hip and trendy" but no matter how many times he clicks his heels together and says "There's no place like Cupertino,There's no place like Cupertino," you simply can't turn MSFT into Apple and trying to force an iOS style OS onto the desktop is just running off new purchasers.
But at the end of the day the PC is going nowhere, the amount of crap you'd have to plug into a tablet to make it equal the power of even a 4 year old PC would make it a bloated mess so people will continue to buy PCs, they'll continue to buy laptops, they just won't be replacing them every 3 years like they had to do from 93-05 is all. But at the end of the day the amount of power X86 gives you at frankly an absurdly low cost still makes having a PC VERY attractive but that same absurd amount of power means you just don't need to replace as often, that's all. Hell I personally LOVE to play FPS games and used to have to build a new machines every year, now I'm playing on a 3 year old X6 and feel no need to upgrade, the chips are just too damned powerful for even the games to slam anymore. so unless some "killer app" comes along that can blow through anything less than an octo-core i just don't see people needing to replace that often, doesn't mean there isn't still plenty of money to be made in PCs though.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
...when Microsoft gave all that money to Apple a few years back. Apple was all but gone at the time, Microsoft essentially saved 'em.
Yes. MS invested 150 million $ in Apple in 1997.
After some years, another great CEO tossed a couple of billion dollars (and a chair?) and said, "here, don't get yourself a real operating system".
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Just look at Nokia, gutted its phone development division (which was outselling Android and iOS at the time). It sacked it's developers. It handed it's only major app, Nokia Maps/Navigation to Microsoft.
Elop made Nokia into such a basket case that it had one and only one chance, deliver a successful Windows phone.
So I wouldn't put it past Microsoft to stick its own guys in, and destroy Dell's non Microsoft related businesses.
Everyone knows by now... everyone should know by now.... Any time a company takes money from Microsoft, they die very soon thereafter
Like Apple?
I can't disagree with this. Novell was THE server OS for file/print and applications ran on Unix.
Was? Novell still IS the file/print server at work.
The difference between the housing bubble and the desktop bubble is that at the bursting of the housing bubble people didn't go and live in caravans instead. The desktop bubble burst and people are moving to doing a great many of the things they previously used a computer for on devices like smartphones and tablets, even Apple has outwardly stated the iPad has cannibalized Mac sales, and they have the most profitable PC business in the industry. The MHz war was a big factor in the decline of the PC market in recent years, no argument about that but that decline is being spurred on by the fact that people can do most of their basic personal computing on smartphones and tablets. It's a combination of both elements.
$2B is a lot of money, but not that significant, relative to their cash on hand. So, they aren't putting much at risk. As problematic as Dell can be, their organization works better than HP, and MS execs don't need clown suits for management meetings.
Microsoft gets some interesting things in return:
If Microsoft is going to start investing in partners, it signals a real sea-change in the PC market. Up til now, they've been critically dependent on OEMs to make compatible hardware. Instead, they've been hurt by lousy drivers for incompatible hardware. Dell has enough clout to steer the market. But that assumes this deal produces more than just promises.
Play it cool, play it cool, 50-50 fire and ice.
It doesn't surprise me that your comment is just butt-hurt rhetoric. 'Oh I don't like that their product is successful but I know there's nothing objectively wrong with it so I'll call their customers stupid, that'll zing 'em!' and a quick hippy-esque 'They're slaves to the corporation maaan!'
Call me old fashioned, but I don't want to wear my computer, I prefer a big comfy chair infront of a large PC screen.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
There is institutional inertia in Microsoft that demands product executives still "act as if" Microsoft were still the 800lb gorilla of technology, master of all they survey: an emperor so dominant that they demand their visitors be trained as supplicants wary of offending the Beast before they dare even approach.
Once upon a time this is what they were. 2x above the nearest technology competitor and master of all that is invented and all that is prevented, deciding quarter by quarter which of their partners live and die based on which is most helpful to them. The bodies of their foes are immense and numerous: Sun, Novell, Borland are but a few. The bodies of their allies fallen from favor are even far more numerous. Technology companies, particularly startups, did kneel before the king. Microsoft leveraged their various properties to defeat every foe by being deliberately incompatible with the challengers and innovators of the day a few at a time.
Today though Microsoft do not stand above the biggest company in tech by 2x. The biggest tech company is Apple which stands above them by 2x now. The second biggest is Google - a company Microsoft's CEO swore to kill when it was but a gnat, but somehow he failed and Google now is well ahead of them. Yesterday they were not even third biggest tech company. The IBM they thought they killed in the early '90s has in its quiet conservative way been creeping up on them and finished ahead in market cap again yesterday - soon a position to be made durable. Samsung is working on it too and may someday claim a solid fourth, relegating Microsoft to the fifth position in tech until Cisco spoils even that. Even Microsoft's mighty partners - the ecosystem that drove out innovation they did not control by proxy - is weakened beyond repair. It is just not profitable to make Windows client PCs. It hasn't been for a long time and they know it but are dependent on the revenue flow to maintain their size, clinging to that as they lose profitability permanently. Innovators are coming now not a few at a time to be vanquished and fed to the beast one by one, but in a flood that may drown the beast. They come bigger also now, so big the beast cannot wrap its jaws around them. The loss of the power to drive innovation isn't the most important thing for Microsoft. The loss of the power to prevent innovation they don't control is. That is what is killing them: Chromebooks that last all day, Nexus 10 tablets with insane resolution, iPads and iPhones and Android phones more powerful than a recent laptop that delight and amaze. And this is nothing compared to the fact that they're going into battle wielding their sword holding the wrong end.
For Microsoft to survive the transition to mobile they have to reorient to being a scrappy startup striving for a place in a hostile world, not approach it as if they were entitled to appear and claim it as an entitlement of their dominion, swaying all with their massive billions. They don't have it in them to do that. They literally can't do it. The very concept is so alien that they cannot grasp the need for it. Anyone there who proposed such a thing would be walked to the door by security immediately. That is the problem they face: their inability to assess the situation and respond appropriately. From here the end is clear.
All empires fall in the end. Usually for this very reason: the inability to see their own mortality.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
I would call it an Apple/Mac environment. The only notable UNIX aspect that a normal user can see is the shell, and that's pushing it because the entire system is designed so that the typical Mac user never will likely never even see (or use) it.
Apple and Google are mega corporations that have mass quantities of money to throw around to get products built to sell, burn on advertising, and get shit done. That's what it takes... money talks. I have been using Linux on my desktop systems exclusively since 2006, and in many cases it is "ready." There's just not enough money flying around from companies in support of it.
A friend of mine used Ubuntu several years ago (back when it was halfway decent), only gave it up in the end because he wanted to play some Windows-only MMORPG. When he used it he liked it though and used it most of the time, and the only reason he ditched it is because his Windows installation was fucking up (big shock...). He ended up deciding to do a system restore which, as I warned him, would most likely wipe all non-Windows partitions and rewrite the bootloader, eliminating any chance of booting into Linux again, destroying ALL of his files, no matter whether they were on a partition of the disk Windows had any business dealing with or not.
I recently "fixed" an old PPC G4-based iBook for someone. They only wanted to use it for the basics, primarily web browsing; Safari was unusable and Mac OS X was running slow. They did not have the original OS disc, and they did not want to go through the trouble (and additional money) to get one if they didn't have to. Apple no longer supports the PowerPC architecture, the latest versions of OS X do not run on it, Adobe does not support it so Flash is stuck at an old version, and even YouTube does not support anything less than a semi-beefy x86-based Mac. Now, the system is running Debian stable, Wi-Fi is even working (which they did not cite as a high priority), and the system is running quite smooth and decently. It's even playing Flash videos on YouTube with Gnash, although the CPU usage spikes. No complaints, last I heard it was still working just as well as when they received it back.
Linux is most definitely usable as a desktop for the average user in many situations. If anything, Windows' refusal to peacefully coexist on a disk with anything but itself is what ends up fucking shit up.
hahaha another "marketshare" moron... you do realize most people get linux for free? ...and even if linux did hypothetically suck on the desktop (it doesn't) i guess its domination of the mobile, server, embedded and supercomputer markets kinda makes up for it.
You would think that Microsoft could comprehend that repeating their same monopolistic practices might land them in the same hot water. But I guess not. So can we please get the FTC and the DoJ involved in this matter? In the last two years, Microsoft has stooped to some extreme measures in an effort to surpress Linux. At least this time, we can rest easy knowing that they only have Steve, not Bill, and have been headed toward oblivion for a long time.
i get ~2 hourly BSODs.
Then there is either something wrong with your computer, or your install of win7. I installed win7 on this computer just a couple of weeks after it came out, and it is still running perfectly on that same, years old install.
apple does go against normal consumer mentality though...
q: why spend $2000 on a laptop when you can get a different laptop with the same specs for $1000?
a: because the $2000 one is shiny with a big glowing apple on the back of the screen
there are fanbois of all sorts, but most fanbois outside the apple camp don't take it quite to the extreme of emptying their wallets to make their point
apple and google success has less to do with the use cases of the software and more to do with the respective hardware platforms and marketing
you're right about linux priorities though... however not caring about what the mob wants means you don't get continually harassed by the mob. seems like a pretty smart move to me.
your wrong about linux developers "just [wanting] to run Emacs and Perl scripts in their XTerms", and most linux users do more with their machines than a windows user could ever hope to
i can only imagine if microsoft and apple both tanked it would be a nightmare for linux developers as the mob would direct its bitching at them expecting linux to take up the slack (even if there is no real 'slack', except for the old "why isn't linux like windows").
linux developers (and many linux users) don't hate microsoft... i use linux because windows is a crappy operating system regardless of who made it
We know it's barely a blip in the market though
linux is free... what market blip can something given away possibly make?
if all PCs were purchased without an operating system (hypothetically) and 90% had linux installed on them, if only 11% of that 90% actually paid for their copy of linux, then linux would still only have a 0.1% market share.
many businesses buy from dell as a matter of policy. that's not to say they should, but they do. many businesses are also fairly trapped in the microsoft ecosystem by dependence on legacy data such as access applications. you can use microsoft access tables from a non-microsoft front end, but i'm yet to see any non-microsoft product run a complete mdb(x) file as seemlessly as access.
people don't buy linux computers because its easier to buy windows computers regardless of any differences in cost or software usability. to get a computer with linux preinstalled (let alone having to build it yourself) is hard. you can't get it from conventional local stores. if something isn't available, people won't buy it.
people are lazy, and microsoft brings computing to the lazy masses. that's what the lazy masses want, and that's great for microsoft and the lazy masses. eventually linux will creep into the oem space and become more available to the lazy masses, and they will adopt it because its just as easy to use as windows and they likely won't know the difference anyway. its already happening with the extremely successful chromebook.
despite the lag in the desktop oem market, lots of people (even the lazy masses) use linux every day though. it may not come with a big "linux" splash screen, but if you have a modem/router, a set top box, a gps, an android phone/tablet, etc there is a good chance you interact with linux, and if you browse the web there is also a good chance that the back end serving the web pages is running some flavor of linux (even google).
shills and fanbois have been degrading linux since its inception, and yet its gradually increasing its user base without the marketing and money that microsoft and apple throw behind their products
There are multiple 10 billion dollar plus companies putting money into open source hardware.
Restricted boot mobo's will go the way of the dodo.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
So Microsoft invest in a company that is strong in x86 desktops and laptops?
That is exactly the kind of product where Microsoft already has a strong position and has the least to fear. I guess their best bet would be smartphones and tablets that extend their corporate solutions, especially Office and Outlook, to the new form factors.
They get some of that right (there is an Office version for Windows8 RT), even if Office RT lacks a few features of the x86 version. But Outlook is still missing, which has to hurt.
C - the footgun of programming languages
Mark My Words (official introduction to doom laden prophesy)
In 18 months, every family will have a tablet per member, plus a surface that has crashed, and will go back to using the laptop/desktop for school/work/email and will only use the tablet for videos (porn).
Apple's model is to target fanbois and the follow-fashion monkeys. There is no shortage of them, so they are good for a few more years to come.
I also predict BB will survive if they go back to having keyboards. Round here, all the schoolgirls use them for texting. (Business men need a bigger screen for porn) However, BBs problem is that three year old BBs work fine, so, at the end of a two year contract, they get a Samsung as well. When that contract runs out, they will probably replace their now five year old BB if the new model has a keyboard else it will be a new <random Android manufacturer's product>.
Moral: Short MS, Hold BB and buy APPL
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Both installers for Windows and Linux distributions are equally capable of fucking up an already-installed OS if you don't know how to deal with them.
I've done dual- and triple-boot thing before. I don't anymore, for a variety of reasons, but it's never been particularly horrendous with any of the different operating systems I've done it with.
In fact, the last time I built a dual-boot box, I used the Windows Vista (!) bootloader to launch Ubuntu. It worked fine. Peacefully, even.
*shrug*
The only rational complaint I have about MSFT in this regard is that it'd be nice if they'd spend even a tiny fraction of the effort that random folks put into making NTFS fly under Linux into making ext3/4 work well under Windows.
Poor sharing of filesystems between operating systems is the biggest showstopper for dual-booting, in my experience:
At home/work, it's easy(ish) to use a network share to share data and documents between operating systems, which crosses the filesystem void neatly enough as long as you store everything worth sharing on the network.
But with a singular dual-booting laptop on the road? Not so much: It's still a whole lot like having two or more different computers, only one of which can be on at the same time.
Kid-proof tablet..
So has XPS 13 / Project Sputnik merely been a way for Mike to "convince" MS to part with significant amounts of money?
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
if all PCs were purchased without an operating system (hypothetically) and 90% had linux installed on them, if only 11% of that 90% actually paid for their copy of linux, then linux would still only have a 0.1% market share.
i mean 0.11% of that 90% (forgot to divide by 100)
yet there were still vendors that produced linux desktops, and still no one wanted them. best buy tried it too, no one wanted them. hp and dell tried it, no one wanted them.
It's not a case that no one wants them. It's a case that no one expects them. When I buy a Mac I expect to end up in an ecosystem of limited Mac based apps, running OSX, on a single approved piece of hardware. When people buy a PC they expect a machine which can run 99% of the software they hear about and expect to see a familiar OS.
Car analogy, have you ever bought a car in America with right hand drive? It's usable but it feels weird and if you bought a car without looking at the details and it suddenly arrives with the steering wheel on the wrong side you'd be pissed.
It's not that people don't want Linux, it's that they don't expect it or what is involved with using it. My cousin was one of those people who bought a Linux based netbook and then returned it because it couldn't run windows software. No other reason. It was perfectly functional, and he used it for several weeks before taking it back, but he wanted to run windows software and he expected that he could because he didn't know any better.
Already done. Ubuntu has been run on several mobile phones, including the Nexus, several HTC handsets, and some Galaxy models. Xda Developers has whole forums dedicated to Linux on phones and Boot2Gecko.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
The desktop doesn't matter any more. It's not "dead", it's not going away entirely, and they aren't going to come around to your house to pry it from your cold, dead fingers; but it just doesn't matter. It's not where interesting developments are happening. It's not where the puck *is*, let alone where it's going to be.
"Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
I'm sure you remember the time when people came to you because they wanted a computer to "get on the internet" I do. That also helped to drive the PC bubble in the consumer space. Now-a-days you don't need a PC to "get on the internet", "get my email", and "browse the World Wide Web" anymore. People now buy laptops because its needed for three main reasons 1) school or 2) work. 3) creativity/productivity. If they don't need it for those reasons then they stick with their smartphone or maybe get a tablet. In the age of cheap tablets the PC will no longer be the primary Internet access device further driving down sales of the PC/Laptop for the sole purpose of basic internet access.
Well, if you compare the two laptops simply at the hardware level then I would fully agree with you. I own two Apple computers but I also have Windows computers and sometimes I run Linux on my iMac so I'm not a fanboi in the traditional sense ( i.e. all Apple all the time). They all have their merits. But I have to say that Apply makes damn good hardware. The iMac is 5 years old and the MacBook Pro is 4 years old. Neither one has ever given me a problem. Neither one of them has ever crashed. Both of them run pretty much as well as the day I got them.
Is Apple's hardware overpriced? Probably. But the OS is very slick and it's kind of nice having UNIX running underneath it. You can build a Hackintosh for a fraction of the cost of equivalent Apple hardware.
Would I buy another Apple desktop/laptop? Probably not. At the time I got mine I rather liked the OS and the direction it was going in. Now, not so much. About a month ago I made a decision to dual boot my MacBook Pro with Windows 8 and I have to say that I like it. Yes, it has it's flaws but overall it's responsive and stable.
Eventually Apple will stop supporting Snow Leopard (the version that I'm running). At that point I'll probably just turn my old Apple hardware into Windows boxes. Linux is fine but, for me, it's not 100% suitable for work use.
So iOS has it's good and bad points, just like the other OS's. Sure, the Apple stuff costs more but it's a very well made machine. Just a matter of individual choice really.
2013... the year of linux desktop.
Microsoft is surely trying to influence Dell, as it has in the past. This time it will have invested in Dell so this makes perfect sense. However, I don't see it as being very effective for the price tag at stake, considering Dell's dwindling market share. And, Dell customers will still do what they do now, if they choose to rip out Windows and install GNU/Linux on the hardware, they'll do it regardless. I do give some credit to Dell for attempting to provide solid GNU/Linux support in the past, and unfortunately has succumbed to Microsoft's lobbying efforts.
That whole comment of power is subjective in that the best ARM processors are still chasing Core 2 Duos. Really the problem right now is Windows 7/8 isn't a mobile OS and google & apple aren't interested in a MS partnership for office/productivity software.
This loan sounds more like extortion mixed with honest R&D. If Dell can develop a line of tablets or phones that could be sold to businesses MS would be in a prime location to retake market share.
The mobile OSes shine at doing light weight activities in a light weight environment. When asked to do PC work though they fall short. So I don't see a post-PC world so much as a displaced-PC world.
I'm running Win 7 on a P4 machine; that's quite a bit weaker than my phone (QualCom QC8960 I think), although they do both have 2GB of RAM. Granted the P4 is nearly 12 years old... but Win 7 works fairly well on it.
- chrish
A lot of people I know see low-end dell laptops as a good choice to buy, and with all the talk of 'It's up to the OEMs to decide if to allow the bootloader to be unlocked' you can see where this might be going.
For Windows 8 certification, on x86 hardware, the user must have the option of disabling Secure Boot. See the official requiements (Windows 8 System Requirements PDF), page 121. A couple of select quotes:
17. Mandatory. On non-ARM systems, the platform MUST implement the ability for a physically present user to select between two Secure Boot modes in firmware setup: "Custom" and "Standard". Custom Mode allows for more flexibility as specified in the following:
18. Mandatory. Enable/Disable Secure Boot. On non-ARM systems, it is required to implement the ability to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup. A physically present user must be allowed to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup without possession of PKpriv.
Obviously, this is the requirements for Windows 8, and there's no guarantee Microsoft won't remove that for the next iteration - and it's only for x86, whereas ARM must be locked down. We should definitely be wary & weary, but let's still stick to the facts, right?
Coffee-driven development.
It was actually the NT family's interoperability with Novell Netware and the ability to offer Netware-compatible services, bypassing Netware licensing costs that helped Microsoft gain inroads into the server market - and it was a very inexpensive (if resource-intensive) server solution until they got that pesky Netware competition out of the way.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Unless you have the first P4 process (Willamette (180 nm)) and the low end version.
Your single core performance is most likely double that of your phone. Those memory and pipeline speeds look slow but they still will be very competitive with your phone.
Actually I've found that even those with iPads and other high end laptops simply don't use them for basic web surfing, they just don't like the visual keyboards. Instead what the iPad/iPhone/Android units are getting used for is 1.-A portable IMDB lookup on the couch so they can find out "What has that guy been in that I've seen before?" and 2.- A fancy portable video player.
That's it, that is ALL they are being used for. I've had to LMAO walking through a store when i watched some hipster girl in her early 30s struggling with her purse and shopping cart because she was using an iPad as a grocery list and when I said "Trying to justify all that money you spent huh?" she gave me a look, well let's say if looks could kill I wouldn't be typing this right now.
Believe me, this ain't my first dance, I've seen these fads come and go. I was there when the press proclaimed "The PC is dead, thin clients and the web will rule!" and this was when Win9X was the dominant OS and would crash if you looked at it funny, still didn't come to pass though. Then there was "Nobody will read books, it'll all be eReaders!" this was in 99, those fizzled pretty quickly, kinda like how we are seeing dedicated eReaders fizzle again now. There was tablets in 02/03, phones in 05, tablets again thanks to dirt cheap ARM cores making tablets so cheap you practically can find one as the toy surprise in Cracker Jacks, its all the same old dance.
At the end of the day nothing lasts 30+ years unless it has some serious positives, and with the PC you have a full touch type capable keyboard, you can have as small or as big a screen as you want, you get just insane amounts of computing power, they last quite a long time, and they are very cheap. Yeah....I'm not worried just because the MHz bubble burst, people will still kill laptops and PCs, they'll still want them replaced, just as the laptop didn't wipe out the desktop so too will the tablet not wipe out the PC, tablets like netbooks fill a little niche and in that little niche they do well, but as Surface has shown a "jack of all trades" is just not something the people want.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Wrong.
You don't even have numbers to back that up.
Xbox is a failure in your own mind, MS has actually made billions
http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_blog/archive/2012/05/29/xbox-beyond-the-box.aspx
All I found in the link you provided was retail sales. We'll ignore that it is the "Official Microsoft Blog" posted by the "chief marketing officer" and assume it's true anyway, but I don't see where they say they have recouped all their development cost and the XBox is actually in the red for its entire lifetime. They certainly have sold a lot and have a large market share, but have they actually turned a profit against all their spending, R&D, and operating costs? most places say "no". The best I found with a few minutes of searching was here. They state that it looks like XBox is still $4.1 billion in the hole overall from creation to current. Of course, they admit that MS had swapped the way things are reported by MS at least twice and it was a best estimation they could do. Now, we're looking at a new console which will have similarly large development costs and probably be sold at a loss again till component costs come down, so current profits may not last long enough to cancel out that $4.1 billion plus new costs.
If you have better links, I'd be grateful if you posted them.
the OS is very slick and it's kind of nice having UNIX running underneath it
fair point. i build my own machines on the cheap to run linux, but if linux didn't exist i would probably pay a little more for a better os than windows
i dunno whether i agree with the "damn good hardware" argument. i'm sure its no worse than any other, but i know people with new macbooks that get uncomfortably hot. when it comes to laptops at least i won't buy anything other than toshiba (although someone almost convinced me to get an asus).
desktop hardware is a bit different, because apple makes their imacs look so much different to conventional 'box' pcs. personally i don't care about looks and i will buy components as cheap as possible as long as they meet my spec requirements, and i rarely have problems. the only thing i like to make sure i don't go too cheap on are psu and hard disks.
It's not that people don't want Linux, it's that they don't expect it or what is involved with using it. My cousin was one of those people who bought a Linux based netbook and then returned it because it couldn't run windows software. No other reason. It was perfectly functional, and he used it for several weeks before taking it back, but he wanted to run windows software and he expected that he could because he didn't know any better.
I'm not saying it isn't perfectly functional, but I'm saying - just like in the anecdote you've told - people don't want them. And 'not wanting them' includes not wanting all the things involved with them, part of which is exactly what you've outlined above. A lot of people do want Macs though.
q: why spend $2000 on a laptop when you can get a different laptop with the same specs for $1000?
Well if you give me concrete examples i'll tell you exactly why. Hint: it's not the answer you gave.
I would call it an Apple/Mac environment.
And i would call it what it is, which is a certified UNIX system.
The only notable UNIX aspect that a normal user can see is the shell, and that's pushing it because the entire system is designed so that the typical Mac user never will likely never even see (or use) it.
So you're saying that because they've put a user-friendly face on UNIX - whilst not taking away anything - that somehow makes it not UNIX anymore? That's just an elitist attitude.
My view of Apple hardware is surely objective. I know people that have had problems with their Apple devices. In my case, they have performed flawlessly. One thing I would point out is that in surveys I have read Apple consistently scores at or near the top in both customer satisfaction (very high) and device failures/returns (very low).
Your point on desktop hardware is well taken. While I like the iMac it does have some deficiencies, chiefly the difficulty in upgrading them. Upgrading memory is easy (at least on mine...newer ones not so sure). Upgrading the hard drive was quite a challenge. I swapped out the slow HDD with a fast SDD and it made a world of difference. But it took me about an hour to do it and it's not for the faint of heart.
Nothing like being repeatedly sold fluffware (i.e. software designed for retards), being constantly treated like a brain-dead toddler
BAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA...oh holy fuck that's a good one, let me introduce you to Microsoft Windows, it's got big colorful tiles that make it easy to hit regardless of your spasticity, meanwhile I'll stick to UNIX thank you very much.
No, certainly not. For two reasons...
1) Cellular access EVERYWHERE makes the possibility of "thin client" computing a realistic scenario going forward.
2) Components are shrinking, and power requirements are falling, to the point that a portable system could very well be just as capable as top-of-the-line Desktop/Workstation PCs soon enough.
Hard drives used-to commonly be over 5 inches. For the past few decades 3.5" has been the most common, but servers started switching to 2.5" enterprise hard drives many years ago, and with SSD drives getting popular and all being 2.5" or smaller, that looks to become the standard form factor in short order, so your desktop hard drive can just as easily go into your laptop.
CPUs are going the same way. After Intel screwed up with the Pentium 4, CPU TDPs have been falling steadily. I'm putting together a new desktop system for myself with a quad core CPU with a TDP of just 45W... Not ideal for a laptop, but low-powered enough that it could be easily accommodated in one.
And let's talk about expansion... New motherboards don't come with serial, ps2, and parallel ports that take up a lot of space... They just come with a bunch of USB ports. VGA is pretty well gone, and DVI can and is being replaced with the much smaller HDMI connector everywhere. Even high-end video chips are integrated on motherboards now, thanks to NVidia being in the chipset space, and AMD buying ATI and pushing radeons everywhere.
So if we can have a laptop that's as high-end as any desktop, why can't we cram that into a laptop form-factor, too? Of course we can, and the "professionals" among us will just be the ones carrying around bluetooth keyboards.
So what will the future bring... Tablets becoming the glass ttys of the old days? Or high-end workstations shrinking down to the point that we all carry them around with us?
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
And i would call it what it is, which is a certified UNIX system.
Money talks. You could get a "certified" sticker for probably just about any BSD or Linux distro if you had the dough to hand over to The Open Group. Fuck, Microsoft could probably take the NT kernel and give it full POSIX/SUS compliance and a UNIX-like userland and with their money obtain almost immediate certification and be allowed to officially call it "UNIX." I don't use "official" UNIX certification as any kind of proof whatsoever that something is UNIX or not. It really doesn't mean jack shit. The Open Group owns the name "UNIX" and they therefore have the right to say what everyone else can say is "UNIX." One profit-based controlling group decides.
So you're saying that because they've put a user-friendly face on UNIX - whilst not taking away anything - that somehow makes it not UNIX anymore? That's just an elitist attitude.
Apple took away the standard UNIX windowing system by default, requiring the user to install it themselves if they want anything even remotely resembling a UNIX GUI. Of course, once again, this doesn't matter to the vast majority of Apple's audience--they don't know what the hell UNIX is, and probably never even heard of it.
Is this bad? Not necessarily; Apple fans buy their machines because they want a Mac and the MacOS interface that comes with it. Its interface might even have some advantages (especially those Mac users who it was designed for in the first place). But it's not a very UNIX-like system without some additional work (unless you primarily use the terminal). Under the hood it may be UNIX, but that's not my point. My point is, Mac OS X was designed with Mac users in mind above all else, not UNIX users. The UNIX certification is just a secondary selling point; just another bullet point to add to the "features" list to get more users (primarily corporate and geek types) that they otherwise may not have had the chance to sucker into buying it.
I don't use "official" UNIX certification as any kind of proof whatsoever that something is UNIX or not.
Well it seems you don't really know what UNIX is at all anyway.
Apple took away the standard UNIX windowing system by default, requiring the user to install it themselves if they want anything even remotely resembling a UNIX GUI.
Ah so you only go by whether it looks like UNIX.
My point is, Mac OS X was designed with Mac users in mind above all else, not UNIX users.
And who cares? That doesn't change the fact that it's UNIX. Linux was originally designed for x86 PCs, not embedded ARM devices, supercomputers and servers...but look at what it's actually capable of.
Yeah, because not-otherwise-described open source software running on an OS X desktop = Desktop Linux. You can't read, AC, and you assume too much.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Well it seems you don't really know what UNIX is at all anyway.
Historically, a highly influential OS designed in the late 1960s. These days, just a trademark owned by a standards body who sets the specification for others to follow to varying degrees, and if a company wants an extra selling point they can exchange some money for a compliance test and obtain the right to use the UNIX name for their product.
Given that a large part of Mac OS X's very own core was derived from FreeBSD, that alone says something about the validity of an officially "certified" UNIX vs. the OS upon which it owes in large part its very existence. Hence, my reasoning for not taking Apple's "official" certification too seriously. Not to mention that FreeBSD itself is a direct descendent of the original AT&T UNIX, with certain parts rewritten purely to avoid copyright infringement lawsuits, but is it legally able to carry the UNIX name? Nope, because it would be pointless and simply not possible to throw cash around for the certification. And then when a new version is released... they'd have to pay up yet again just for the privilege to keep using the name.
And who cares? That doesn't change the fact that it's UNIX. Linux was originally designed for x86 PCs, not embedded ARM devices, supercomputers and servers...but look at what it's actually capable of.
Not sure exactly what you're getting at here. Linux is not UNIX either according to The Open Group. Hell, even based on its origins it is not UNIX... Linux was designed as a clone of the UNIX kernel. Or more accurately, a clone of another clone (Minix) of the original OS (UNIX) kernel. It has no backing from the owners of the "real" UNIX trademark whatsoever. And GNU? Well, it's in the name: GNU's Not UNIX, either.
Mac OS X is a Macintosh interface built onto a proprietary replacement windowing system on top of a BSD/Mach core that has been put through and passed certification so that it can carry the official UNIX trademark. It still doesn't change the fact that it feels like a Mac, not UNIX, unless you use the terminal emulator a lot and/or install the X Window System. What I said still stands. I never denied that OS X was UNIX under the hood, just that under normal use it feels nothing like it. And again that is fine, because most Apple users want the feeling of a Mac system.
can you tell me why you believe the usage share of Linux on the desktop is so low?
that's easy...
availability
how many people do you think actually buy and install windows separately from their computer? not many
if desktop linux was available to the masses preinstalled on pc's, it would be much more popular... just look at the latest chromebook, which has been very successful (although not really a 'desktop')
android is only popular because of its availability, being preinstalled on a large number of phones
same with mac os and ios... there are a large number of apple stores
success and marketing go hand in hand... if a product isn't easily accessible, it will ultimately do poorly in the market
when linux becomes more available preinstalled on oem pc's (microsoft's recent investment in dell may spur its competitors) more people will buy pcs with desktop linux
desktop linux isn't as popular as windows (or mac os for that matter) because at the moment for someone to use it, they either have to buy a windows pc, download a linux image and install it over windows, or they build a pc from components, and then install
microsoft's success with windows has less to do with the software itself and more to do with marketing and the availability of its flagship os preinstalled en mass on cheap readily available oem bundles
microsoft has contributed... linux doesn't have clout when dealing with oems, regardless of how well they might do from selling linux pcs
the desktop share of linux only really started with corporate marketing from canonical and redhat... without marketing and availability of preinstalls, linux will continue its ever so slow gradual ascension (its usage will always increase because it isn't tied to the success of any one company) but if (when) desktop linux eventually gets a serious (fair) bite of the oem pie, i wouldn't recommend holding onto microsoft stocks.
Apple consistently scores at or near the top in both customer satisfaction (very high) and device failures/returns (very low)
i dunno whether i would call that objective
both statistics are from apple itself, and a company assessing its own performance is never objective
also, customer satisfaction is subjective, and is part of the point i was trying to make originally about fanboi extremism
for example, do you think a die hard democrat would ever openly criticize a statement made by president obama, regardless of what they really thought of it deep down?
loyalty will always cloud objectivity
Well if you give me concrete examples i'll tell you exactly why. Hint: it's not the answer you gave.
i'm not going to bother building a straw man for you to flame... you will ultimately think whatever i come up with that doesn't support your choice is wrong even if its not... that's what makes a fanboi
i don't really have anything against apple products except their prices... if they were more competitively priced i would probably buy them, but i wouldn't ever spend extra money for a brand or perceived quality of a brand (every brand has dud batches regardless of how much you pay)
the japanese paved the way for and excel in quality control, including lean manufacturing, so if you were really concerned about quality and value for money, you would be buying devices manufactured in japan (such as toshiba)
No. People expect something else. It was never made clear from the onset that this is a different computer. People in general have no problem buying something that doesn't run windows apps when they don't expect it to, see iOS, see Android, see OSX. The Apple and Android logos really helped here. You could not possibly buy a device with a shiny little green man on it and expect to run a windows program. Yet if you went out and bought a netbook, and many of your friends had a netbook, and you didn't read the size 2 font at the bottom that says *Runs Linux you too would have been quite disappointed.
I'm actually interested to see if the experiment of the cheap computer with Linux were repeated en mass now like the Netbooks did years ago, and if the Ubuntu logo or the Penguin became the feature logo on the package if the response would be different as people are now conditioned to the thought of a App Store and non-windows programs.
Sidenote: This is also why I expect Windows RT to be even more of a failure than Windows 8. Customer expectations.
Given that a large part of Mac OS X's very own core was derived from FreeBSD, that alone says something about the validity of an officially "certified" UNIX vs. the OS upon which it owes in large part its very existence. Hence, my reasoning for not taking Apple's "official" certification too seriously. Not to mention that FreeBSD itself is a direct descendent of the original AT&T UNIX, with certain parts rewritten purely to avoid copyright infringement lawsuits, but is it legally able to carry the UNIX name? Nope, because it would be pointless and simply not possible to throw cash around for the certification. And then when a new version is released... they'd have to pay up yet again just for the privilege to keep using the name.
Right, so again it's nothing to do with its technical capabilities - or maybe you just don't know enough about it - but about the face value appearance, which is the thing people who have no interest in the UNIX side of things care about.
Not sure exactly what you're getting at here.
That nobody care what it was originally designed for, they care what it is and what it can do. OS X is UNIX, we all know that but you seem hell bent on pretending that it's not just because it doesn't look like it.
i'm not going to bother building a straw man for you to flame...
if all you can build is a strawman then obviously your argument has no merit.
you will ultimately think whatever i come up with that doesn't support your choice is wrong even if its not...
or perhaps i have a valid reason, but you don't want to believe that's possible.
No. People expect something else. It was never made clear from the onset that this is a different computer. People in general have no problem buying something that doesn't run windows apps when they don't expect it to, see iOS, see Android, see OSX.
That's because they choose to use those OSes, but when Linux was the choice nobody chose it. The problem is that there is no compelling reason for the average consumer to choose Linux over Windows.
I don't recall saying anything about "look." "Feel" is more the point I was trying to make, but I'm done with this thread.
I don't recall saying anything about "look." "Feel" is more the point I was trying to make, but I'm done with this thread.
So now the problem is it doesn't feel like UNIX? The look and feel of the OS is irrelevant when discussing whether or not it is UNIX, in fact that's the sort of thing the Mac user hipster stereotype cares about in their OS.
And I don't know why the iFanboys get so mad at that fact. Hell look at how much Nike makes off of Air Jordans, would you call that anything OTHER than fashion?
Apple has spent years cultivating the "toy of the rich" culture and it has made them the largest company on the planet, why should anybody get pissed that its about fashion? some of the biggest names on the planet are all about fashion and they are doing great, Prada, Porsche, Ferrari, heck I've seen 7 year old Ferraris getting sold for less than $15k, why? Because owning a used Ferrari destroys the entire point of owning a Ferrari, which is the "I am wealthy" vibe that comes with the car.
Let me put it THIS way: Do you think a $1000 app that just put a red jewel on the front and called "I am rich" would have sold even a single copy on Android or Windows?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
So now the problem is it doesn't feel like UNIX?
Did you read anything I said since my first post?
Yes and your only argument about the way in which OSX has a functional difference from UNIX is in the "feel" of it, which is not only not a part of the UNIX specification but also not relevant for people who actually want to use it as a UNIX operating system. And even if you do care about that you could always use X11 on top of it.
Now try it with Windows 8. When the OS and bundled software on your tablet is so big that it wouldn't even fit on the largest iPhone 4, and would fill nearly 3/4ths of the capacity of the largest iPhone 5, you have a very serious problem.
===
The hardware (SSDs) will be large enough and cheap enough so that operating size will not be a real constraint. -- Except if you have to download and rebuild the system
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Look up the Nokia N97 which was released long before Microsoft stepped in. Nokia was on the rocks.
I had a N97 (and several Nokia smart phones before that - so yes I was a believer) and it was total shit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJpEuMidcSU - quite possibly the best video to describe Nokia before their ship ran aground.
Nokia killed Nokia.
obviously you don't know what attacking a traw man actually means
from wikipedia:
"To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position"
or perhaps i have a valid reason, but you don't want to believe that's possible
if you had a valid reason you would have offered it already, even if for no other reason than to rub it in my face
Bullshit. Tablets are a toy, a solution in search of a problem. Microsoft will never get more than 5% of the smartphone market. They have lost. Microsoft's bread and butter is and always will be selling to business. MS has Apple and Google envy, but neither of those companies are competitors with Microsoft, although MS seems to not understand that. MS continually follows these companies but I don't think MS knows why. The future of business computing are not toy tablets, but rather the so-called cloud, which is nothing more than a distributed mainframe. Yes, everything old is new again. This is where MS should be, not in the consumer toy market. It is only a stupid business that would trust a "cloud" setup operated and controlled by a third party. There really isn't any good off the shelf solution for a company that wants to use these distributed mainframes and MS would be in a perfect position to solidify their future by offering a solid solution. But no, they continue to chase the consumer toy electronic market and continue to get their asses beat. Followers never succeed. MS has a chance to go into a pretty bare, but potentially lucrative market, but they are too slow, and too stupid to grab it. Apple could introduce the iCar and inside two year MS will enter the auto business, you could bet your house safely on it. Fucking retards have earned their trip into irrelevancy hell.
Windows is much harder to install than Linux.
I can go from from nothing to a fully installed, fully functional system including every app and driver I need in under 30 minutes and no reboots.
Your average Windows user couldn't take a Windows CD and a PC with nothing installed do anything with it. Even if this average windows user got the install rolling, the system would not be fully up and running for hours, if not longer.
Tablets are a toy, a solution in search of a problem.
Microsoft will never get more than 5% of the smartphone market. They have lost this pointless war.
MS shouldn't have even tried, but envy gets in their way.
Microsoft's bread and butter is and always will be selling to business. They have forgotten that, and are in big trouble because of it. I guess the best thing to do with a losing hand is double down because that is exactly what is happening.
MS has Apple and Google envy, but neither of those companies are competitors with Microsoft, although MS seems to not understand that. MS continually follows these companies but I don't think MS knows why.
The future of business computing are not toy tablets, but rather the so-called cloud, which is nothing more than a distributed mainframe. Yes, everything old is new again.
This is where MS should be, not in the consumer electronics toy market.
It is only a stupid business that would trust a "cloud" setup operated and controlled by a third party. There really isn't any good off the shelf solution for a company that wants to setup and manage their own distributed mainframe and MS would be in a perfect position to solidify their future by offering a solid solution.
But no, they continue to chase the consumer toy electronic market and continue to get their asses beat. Followers never succeed.
MS has a chance to go into a pretty bare, but potentially lucrative market, but they are too slow, and too stupid to grab it.
Apple could introduce the iCar and inside two year MS will enter the auto business, you could bet your house safely on it.
Unlike Ballmer, Jobs had some technical skill and was able to tell if something sucked or not. Ballmer is a complete retard that has no clue what he is doing and why.
If losing money is your idea of "working" then Ballmer has an executive position for you!
No one will ever get any real work done on a touchscreen. Ever. We are not built for that.
If you think programmers, graphics artists, editors, etc will ever be able to do their job on a handheld, you are delusional.
As for laptops, name a laptop that is equal in hardware to a high end desktop and I will show you a laptop that:
1. Overheats constantly, and thus unstable
2. Is extremely expensive
3. Doesn't really exist.
Laptops have been in a usable state for over 15 years and they have never come close to high-end desktops.
You are not only an idiot but have drunk the kool aid being passed out by clueless, trendy "technical" writers.
It wasn't until 96-97 that computers in the home were not uncommon. Before that, very few people owned anything that could be called a computer. Other than that I agree. I built my current computer in 2007(which was mid-high end at the time), and besides a video card dying, I have had no need to upgrade it.
A PC that is half the cost of a Mac can not be compared to the Mac.
A PC that costs 40% of a Mac might have comparable hardware, but it is loaded with crapware and can't come close to the performance of that Mac,
Like a Lexus is more expensive than a Hyundai, but much more advanced, so is a Mac.
Before you label me a Cult of Jobs member or some other equally inane statement that could only come from someone who feel inferior, I have never given even 1 penny to Apple.
Apple doesn't make hardware.
Intel, Nvidia, Asus, etc are harware companies.
Apple is an OEM that also has its own operating system.
What Apple does is use high quality off the shelf hardware with a custom designed high quality case and then puts high quality software in it.
In many respects that are far and above any other OEM, like Dell that buys cheap parts and stuffs cheap crapware in it, but they are still just an OEM.
Do you actually think that the $500 Dell can compete on hardware specs, quality or software against a Mac? If you do you are beyond retarded. Go compare spec for spec machines, and even ignoring the crapware that Windows OEM's stuff in their machines, the Mac is almost always cheaper.
Why should Microsoft be allowed to dictate anything to hardware makers and thus non-Windows users?
Nokia was headed towards death and as I last-ditch effort they actually tied themselves to the failure known as Windows Phone.
MS's incompetence drove the final nail into Nokia, but it is still Nokia's fault for climbing into bed with MS.
"Own up to the fact they aren't in the same league as Dell, HP, and other major players"
WTF?
Since when has canonical ever been in competition with OEM's?
dell is shit... i hate dell and never buy anything from dell (i build my own systems mainly, except for notebooks in which case i stick with toshiba, which also shits all over dell)
i would take a toshiba notebook over an apple notebook anyday
in any case your argument is full of crap regardless; what mac can you get for $500, let alone one that would compete with a $500 dell machine? maybe a second hand one from ebay
Dumbass People are saying that Apple is twice as expensive as comparable PC's which is not only false, Apple is cheaper on comparable hardware. I see you are too stupid to follow conversations so I am done with you, but will just add a little anecdote since you mentioned Toshiba In 2007 I got a Toshiba Qosmio for $550 at Best Buy, well BB listed it at $1500 and I didn't order that one. I ordered a $550 lower end Toshiba through their web site for store pickup and their moronic staff gave me the Qosmio. No, it did not compare with any Apple laptop. It was heavy, poorly made, sluggish, even when I tore out Windows and put a proper OS on it. To Toshiba's credit they use very Linux-friendly hardware.
Apple is cheaper on comparable hardware
erm... on what planet is apple cheaper for comparable hardware than any other oem (like toshiba)? how stupid do you think i am?
i've had a toshiba tecra since 2004 that's running debian lenny just fine (so i agree with linux-friendly)
new apple notebooks are lightweight, but they also overheat, so i would prefer a bit more insulation, and toshiba notebooks aren't much heavier than apple, and much cheaper
apple is a ripoff no matter how you look at it (except if you live in the same prison as all the other stupid islaves)
Why should Microsoft be allowed to dictate anything to hardware makers and thus non-Windows users?
I don't believe they should - and I hope I'm not giving off that impression. But I'm trying to deal with the actual facts of this whole miserable situation - which is bad enough without resorting to FUD. Better to stick with the facts, so we can cry (even more) foul if Microsoft violates their own guidelines...
Also, I don't find the idea of a "secure boot" in itself to be such a terribly bad idea... but the way it's being dropped upon us, with ARM being locked out from the beginning, and the level of uncertainty for the x86 future? Not good.
Coffee-driven development.
It's always fascinating when a calm, rational, well-reasoned arguement elicits an angry, vitriolic rant that doesn't even argue with the points raised. But looking at your other comments, I see this is just SOP for you...
In fact digital artists have used graphics tablets for decades now. Those are functionally quite similar to touch-screens, and the later could in-fact be superior, thanks to the direct feed-back.
I could ("destop replacements" have been around for well over a decade), but I really don't have to... Your statement includes things like "ever" and "always", and forever is a pretty long time. Even if it takes a decade for such a device to come out, you'll still be wrong.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
you must be living on a different plant
can you provide some sources to back up you rediculous claim?
even direct spec comparison, without consideration that japanese computer hardware is much higher quality than crappleware (only a fanboi would be ignorant of that)
i shudder to think but what mac are you comparing to a toshiba from 2007?
no actually i think even you know that macs are a ripoff deep down under the deluded fog in your measly 'brain'... you will just never admit it because you are a fanboi, and even if macs weighed a tonne and cost a billion dollars each and stunk like shit you would still think they were awesome
Assuming what you say is correct that means it truly must be something people don't want if it's that much easier to install, there are even live cds that don't require installation.
obviously you don't know what attacking a traw man actually means
Of course i do, which is why i wonder why you would present me with an 'unequivalent proposition', you claim you can get a different laptop with the same specs for 1/2 the cost and cannot understand why somebody wouldn't do that. The obvious answer would be that they are unequivalent, as such that should tell you immediately there must be a reason for it and if you present me with a concrete example i will tell you what it is.
if you had a valid reason you would have offered it already, even if for no other reason than to rub it in my face
How can i give you a valid reason for choosing one item over another when you don't tell me what those items are?
yeah. i think the later crops of Toshibas are pretty cheaply made, sadly. i have fond memories of a pentium 100 tecra that i couldn't kill no matter how much abuse it received.
i've no unique data on this machine, funnily enough.
Explain this... I don't believe it.
It's quite simple, really: my usual PC died last week and I had to resurrect an old one. The old one is inferior in almost every respect to my phone. Its single-core performance is somewhat faster (despite only having 50% higher clock rate, it benchmarks at well over twice the speed), but as it's a quad-core versus my desktop's single core in terms of total CPU power it's much better. They both have 1GB of RAM, but my desktop's onboard graphics uses up a rather large chunk of that for video RAM. My desktop's integrated intel graphics has a theoretical shader throughput of about 1300 Mpix/s while my phone's Mali400 can handle about 1600. My desktop has a 40GB hard disk, which is larger than the integrated 16GB in my phone, but I have an extra 32GB SD card in there, too.
Despite the lower power of my PC, it handles Windows 7 just fine. No Aero, but I don't really care that much.
Unless you have the first P4 process (Willamette (180 nm)) and the low end version.
Your single core performance is most likely double that of your phone. Those memory and pipeline speeds look slow but they still will be very competitive with your phone.
Sure, but with quad-core phones on the market these days, why does the single-core performance matter?
Because in almost all complex user-level applications are still bound by single core performance.
Sure you can multitask and get some application a little faster but actually using all those 4 cores at once is pretty rear on a desktop/cellphone. Quad cores on phones is a marketing gimmick or a niche area.
Your CPU is massively more powerful than your phones, that's my main point. The average speedup of a quad core is well under 200%, they are only really useful for batch jobs. I would think you memory bandwidth is higher as well.
The latest Samsung processors are better than atoms i remember now.
Graphics are for games and desktop effects that you can turn off.
I'm not going to argue about single/multi-core, except to say that any application that requires the kind of performance we're talking about is likely to be of the easily-parallelizable kind (image manipulation, etc), so is likely to get above average speed-up. But this, I will:
I would think you memory bandwidth is higher as well [on the desktop machine].
Nope. The desktop has a 667MT DDR3 x 64-bit interface = 5.3GB^-s. The phone's is 800MT and the same width, so 6.4GB^-s.
the kind of performance we're talking about is likely to be of the easily-parallelizable kind
I'm not. The OS you chose is independent from raw computational performance. This is about you saying that phone has enough power to run win 7 and do something useful at the same time. ARM has only just reached Atom level performance, which is capable of running windows 7 but struggles to justify it over an OS with generic applications, such as basic chromeOS/Linux installs.
Of course i do, which is why i wonder why you would present me with an 'unequivalent proposition', you claim you can get a different laptop with the same specs for 1/2 the cost and cannot understand why somebody wouldn't do that. The obvious answer would be that they are unequivalent, as such that should tell you immediately there must be a reason for it and if you present me with a concrete example i will tell you what it is.
there are laptops made by companies other than apple that have equivalent performance specs to apple laptops but are much cheaper (exact fraction being irrelevant; original figures were illustrative only). maybe if take apple out of the picture to help remove any subjectivity; if you had the choice of two hamburgers... both had the same ingredients, both were the same size and weight, but one was cheaper, which would you buy? most would obviously buy the cheaper one unless there was some aspect of the other that you perceived to make the extra expense worth it (maybe you saw the guy making the cheaper one looked like a druggo or something). i guess where i'm coming from in the whole apple thing is that i can't identify with that aspect that makes the extra expense of an apple product worth while when just about everything in cheaper products is the same. the only thing i can think of that's obvious is appearance, and aesthetics is important, but surely its worth in a laptop can only be so much, and i just can't see how it could be worth all of the difference.
How can i give you a valid reason for choosing one item over another when you don't tell me what those items are?
but i did... "q: why spend $2000 on a laptop when you can get a different laptop with the same specs for $1000?"
one is a laptop made by apple, the other is a laptop with the same specs made by any other company (such as toshiba)
if you want to get specific, there are some slight differences (flash hdd for mac over sata for satellite, 256 gb storage for mac vs 750 gb for satellite, different os, 1gb gddr for mac vs 2gb gddr for satellite) but generally they appear to be similar in spec.
http://store.apple.com/au/browse/home/shop_mac/family/macbook_pro?afid=p219|GOAU&cid=AOS-AU-KWG-PLA
15-inch: 2.4GHz
i7,15in,8gb ram,256gb flash hdd, 1gb gddr
with Retina display
AU$2,499.00
http://www.mytoshiba.com.au/products/computers/satellite/pro#
Satellite Pro L850
i7,15in,8gb ram,750gb sata hdd,2gb gddr
AU$1,299.00
so tell me what about the mac justifies the extra $1200?
- i personally think retina is a big wank (what's the point of having smaller pixels if you can't take advantage of them with a higher resolution?)
- flash hdd may be better, but smaller capacity makes it less of an 'upgrade' (likely requiring an additional removable hdd; pain in the ass)
- didn't go into depth with the graphics comparison, but the mac would have to be super fucking crazy awesome to make it worth it
i look forward to your response, but i won't hold my breath :)
but i did... "q: why spend $2000 on a laptop when you can get a different laptop with the same specs for $1000?"
Well obviously you wouldn't, but, as i suspected, the laptops you managed to find don't have the same specs, if they were identical and merely the brand name was different you would go for the cheaper one, obviously.
so tell me what about the mac justifies the extra $1200?
Obviously the retina display is a big part of that - even if you don't understand how resolution works - higher resolution isn't just about making things smaller (have you used a smartphone with a high-res screen vs low-res screen?). Even if you do want to do that the options are there in OSX and you could also use Windows or Linux where you can also take direct advantage of the significantly larger amount of screen realestate.
For the HDD/SSD i agree, the speed vs size tradeoff probably makes them about even.
The 640M is a significantly better graphics card and has huge performance benefits in CAD environments.
There is the operating system, the Mac can run OSX (in addition to Windows, Linux, etc) where the Toshiba cannot.
And of course there is the build quality, the unibody chassis is a damn side better than the plastic chassis of the Toshiba.
One of the biggest things is the warranty support - to be able to just take it to an Apple store rather than box it up and ship it off for repair - assuming you have one nearby (this probably doesn't have as much value otherwise).
I can understand if you don't think these things have value, you probably also don't see the point of paying a price premium for a Dell 27" 2560x1440 display over a 1920x1080 display or a higher performance graphics card, or build quality or operating system and if you don't need those things then obviously you would just choose the cheaper system, and if the Toshiba came with those things and was cheaper I can guarantee I'd choose that system too.
i read that retina isn't about resolution but pixel size (making the pixels small enough that the human eye can't differentiate them from a certain distance)
the only problem is that for a laptop, most people work a little bit further away from the screen than they do phones so the effect is partially wasted from the outset, and its subjective but i would argue that pixel deresolution is less important on a laptop/desktop
what i was trying to say is that if you could take advantage of retina by increasing the screen resolution so that a retina pixel matched a display pixel (so a retina display would have much higher resolution capability compared to a another similar size screen but with larger individual pixels) then it might be better but i've heard that pixel density of a retina isn't the same as resolution... it's also ironic that apparently the retina displays in iphones are manufactured by samsung.
in any case, i have no doubt that retina is better than regular lcd, just not THAT much better.
with regard to toshiba support, i've never had to for a toshiba except for a memory upgrade but there are a lot of regular computer shops that are licensed repair agents for various oems including toshiba, and there are likely more of these than there are apple stores (i've never heard of an 'apple authorised repair agent' in any of the same regaulr computer shops).
aluminium chassis is definitely a good point... my first toshiba (tecra a2) had an aluminium top (underside was plastic though). aluminium looks nice but stains a bit where your hands rest (at least after 6 years of use lol). the only thing i would be a bit cautious about with all-aluminium is the use of the body as a heatsink to excuse the use of a smaller fan. i've heard that some macbooks in particular have a tendency to get uncomfortably hot on contact faces, whereas in ergonomic design you really want the majority of the heat being channelled to non-contact areas like the side or back of the unit. plastic besides being perceived as cheap does insulate the user from the heat, but requires chunkier fans to pump the heat out elsewhere.
regarding operating system - i would prefer mac os to windows, but i would really prefer linux over all of them. since that is rarely an option (particularly for new toshiba laptops) i would prefer windows because oem price of windows is pretty cheap and i can easily shitcan windows and put linux on. mac os is a more valuable os, which means shitcanning it would be a bigger loss.
i couldn't be bothered checking the graphics comparison, but while the macbook graphics may be better for CAD, what CAD software is available for the mac? i use autodesk products in my job (engineer) but i'm not aware of mac versions of these. i know of draftsight which is dwg-compatible and has a linux version (maybe there is also a mac version). CAD/workstation graphics is only really a plus if you have software that can take advantage of it. i know macs are a favourite in graphics/advertising/desktop publishing/photography industries so not doubting that there are, just not sure about CAD in particular.
regarding quality, i've heard a lot of people claim that macs are better than everything else, but i've also heard the horror stories. toshiba no doubt suffers from the occasional bad batches, but i've never known anyone that has got a bad one (and i always recommend toshiba over all else). toshiba hardware seems to long outlast the software (windows, office, etc) that they are shipped with, and being japanese (home of lean manufacturing and other quality-related practices) i would think they are generally pretty decent build. use of plastic isn't a sign of poor build quality (particuarly in heat insulation as noted above) and use of aluminium isn't a sign of good build quality. i'm sure macs are decent quality (many mac parts are probably also manufactured in japan).
you make a fair attempt, and while the things you note would justify some extra expense, i still can't imagine any justification for