i don't know how much money Be was wanting, but I think it was probably less than what Apple ended up paying for NeXT. I know Gasee was wanting a seat on the board. This was all during Amelio's tenure, when they deep-sixed the Copland effort. But then Jobs got wind of this and decided to open up a can of Reality Distortion Field on Apple's execs, and now we have what we have....
I remember being so in love with BeOS. God it was fast and beautiful compared to Apple's System 7.x. I had been waiting for pre-emptive multitasking, dynamic memory allocation, etc. etc. etc. from Apple for so long, and then there was BeOS to come along. JOY!!!! There were a lot of apps for it, and a lively development community, but i ddn't want to pay for software for an OS that hadn't been officially released. There WERE/(are) apps for BeOS, and some darn good ones, too. Just some of them were too expensive for me for the amount of time I spent in BeOS. I really admired the work they did on this OS. They did so much from the ground up, and tried to do it right. From the ground up. Not like MacOS, Windows.. Very refreshing.
It gives one pause to wonder why it is that it is so damn near impossible for another OS company to make headway in the consumer/business desktop market. No matter how great it is.
"How is this any different than a totalitarian regime (i.e., China) monitoring the news and only allowing certain material that they deem "suitable for public consumption" to reach the masses? "
well, yeah, it LOOKS like a totalitarian regime, but in this special case, i.e. in the highly dynamic software industry, it is an example of healthy competition and innovation on the part of a company who is just trying to satisfy customers, because anyone can knock them off the planet at any time.
"The main reason a non-Graphics professional would want to buy a Mac or other PPC machine would be because of the hardware."
I'd have to question that...
I know for myself the main reason I bought and buy Macs is because of the OS and the overall user experience that encompasses: adding new hw, adding/removing sw, troubleshooting, GUI, how you actually perform some task,...in short, maybe everything that -isn't- hardware, specifically. Unless you count that: because the hw is more 'well controlled' there are fewer opportunities for driver conflicts, etc. Also, I think a main reason is personal taste. I really like the Look & Feel of MacOS over Windows, and even Gnome/KDE/Solaris/etc.
Granted,...the MacOS has been -sorely- lacking in what have come to be termed modern OS features.
BTW, I am posting from the Win98 side of my RH7 machine, and have an OS X'ed Cube by it's side. I worked with LPPC for some time, but went out and bought a PC/W98 so I could use it for an x86 Linux box -- I wanted to make use of all that was available for x86-based Linux.
Bottom line: I didn't stop using LPPC because of OS X. Instead I went to x86 Linux, and will use it along side OS X. I like and will use both.
The thing is, that if people are not given the training they need AND the work/projects to use it and continue to improve their skills and experience, the good ones will leave anyway, no matter what the PHBs do.
If they are given the training but have no opportunity to use it, they will also eventually leave.
The bottom line is to have good/decent projects to keep everyone happy. The training is secondary to that, but nonetheless important.
Managers that are themselves directed by fear will eventually fail.
Just that. WTF are these people thinking. As if they didn't have enough to worry about. Is/will MS able to claim more thorough support for standards? Irony of ironies...But then this is from the people that gave us the tag. Somebody buy 'em a ticket on the Clue Train, please. hell, I'll pass the hat...
"Firstly, let me say that I hate MS Software as much as the next guy."
Yeah, right. This is to make one think he's not a Microsoft Zealot. But the truth comes out later.
"MS is not a monopoly because other OS' exist."
Under antitrust law you don't have to have an absolute monopoly. It is the degree of market share, something like 65% ??, and the abuse of market power that is the problem, not the degree of your monopoly.
This entire case is a witchhunt supported by Nazis like Stalinman and McNealy. One is motivated by a bunch of libberish, while the other is motivated by sheer jealousy. Scotty boy, you had your chance, you lost. Quit your bitchin. That goes for the rest of you too.
Be sure to get the pissy flame bait in there. Another indicator of a Microsoft Zealot.
"Our business model works even if all internet software is free. How does Netscape's business model look? --- not so good." Bill Gates, shareholder meeting, 1996
"Our business model works even if **ALL** software is free. How does Microsoft's business model look? --- not so good." 'Free Software'
>> "no profitable company survives for long without stepping on a few toes. "
I dare say Microsoft has, over at least the past 20 years, done infinitely more grievous things than, "stepping on a few toes". Please. They have gone out of their way to, intentionally and with malice of forethought, break would-be competitor's, not to mention their own customers' and partners', legs, arms, what have you.
>> "Microsoft has been raking in profits for years, which in turn raise share prices, which in turn make stockholders happy. "
Microsoft has been abusing their monopoly for years, which in turn rakes in profits for years.
"Our business model works even if all internet software is free. How does Netscape's business model look? -- not so good." --Bill Gates at shareholders meeting
"Our business model works even if *ALL* software is free. How does Microsoft's business model look? -- not so good." --'Linux', and Open Source Software Developers
MaxwellSilverHammer wrote: "Be, Inc. clearly does not hold a monopoly on Intel/AMD/et al. based PCs. There is a big difference."
Does Microsoft?
While I am sure there are many opinions on whether or not Microsoft holds monopoly power, (as legally defined), on PC desktop operating systems, I think for at least the time being, that Judge Jackson's own opinion is probably most significant with respect to this case. He has found that indeed Microsoft does hold Monopoly power on Intel-based PC operating systems, which you can read here: Findings of Fact
Here's a quote:
III. MICROSOFT'S POWER IN THE RELEVANT MARKET
33. Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without losing an unacceptable amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahem...
Thats kind of strange considering that Apple didn't exist in 1976!
Apple was incorporated April 1, 1976.
http://www.apple-history.com/history.html
E. All of the above.
Oh, crap...
That was -supposed- to read:
"Using 'intellectual' and 'TV' in the same sentence without them being mutually exclusive!!"
I -did- preview, just didn't parse for content.
Dvorhack has shown himself to be ill-informed and inaccurate.
i don't know how much money Be was wanting, but I think it was probably less than what Apple ended up paying for NeXT. I know Gasee was wanting a seat on the board. This was all during Amelio's tenure, when they deep-sixed the Copland effort. But then Jobs got wind of this and decided to open up a can of Reality Distortion Field on Apple's execs, and now we have what we have....
I remember being so in love with BeOS. God it was fast and beautiful compared to Apple's System 7.x. I had been waiting for pre-emptive multitasking, dynamic memory allocation, etc. etc. etc. from Apple for so long, and then there was BeOS to come along. JOY!!!! There were a lot of apps for it, and a lively development community, but i ddn't want to pay for software for an OS that hadn't been officially released. There WERE/(are) apps for BeOS, and some darn good ones, too. Just some of them were too expensive for me for the amount of time I spent in BeOS. I really admired the work they did on this OS. They did so much from the ground up, and tried to do it right. From the ground up. Not like MacOS, Windows.. Very refreshing.
It gives one pause to wonder why it is that it is so damn near impossible for another OS company to make headway in the consumer/business desktop market. No matter how great it is.
"Me? Work with lasers? Sounds complicated...."
"How is this any different than a totalitarian regime (i.e., China) monitoring the news and only allowing certain material that they deem "suitable for public consumption" to reach the masses? "
well, yeah, it LOOKS like a totalitarian regime, but in this special case, i.e. in the highly dynamic software industry, it is an example of healthy competition and innovation on the part of a company who is just trying to satisfy customers, because anyone can knock them off the planet at any time.
Maybe because it falls into the class of things "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters."
Not all "nerds" have the same interests.
Further, you are quite able to filter stuff out to your heart's content.
"The main reason a non-Graphics professional would want to buy a Mac or other PPC machine would be because of the hardware."
I'd have to question that...
I know for myself the main reason I bought and buy Macs is because of the OS and the overall user experience that encompasses: adding new hw, adding/removing sw, troubleshooting, GUI, how you actually perform some task,...in short, maybe everything that -isn't- hardware, specifically. Unless you count that: because the hw is more 'well controlled' there are fewer opportunities for driver conflicts, etc. Also, I think a main reason is personal taste. I really like the Look & Feel of MacOS over Windows, and even Gnome/KDE/Solaris/etc.
Granted,...the MacOS has been -sorely- lacking in what have come to be termed modern OS features.
BTW, I am posting from the Win98 side of my RH7 machine, and have an OS X'ed Cube by it's side. I worked with LPPC for some time, but went out and bought a PC/W98 so I could use it for an x86 Linux box -- I wanted to make use of all that was available for x86-based Linux.
Bottom line: I didn't stop using LPPC because of OS X. Instead I went to x86 Linux, and will use it along side OS X. I like and will use both.
The thing is, that if people are not given the training they need AND the work/projects to use it and continue to improve their skills and experience, the good ones will leave anyway, no matter what the PHBs do. If they are given the training but have no opportunity to use it, they will also eventually leave. The bottom line is to have good/decent projects to keep everyone happy. The training is secondary to that, but nonetheless important. Managers that are themselves directed by fear will eventually fail.
...that was supposed to be the -BLINK- tag, not just "the tag"...The preview didn't edit it out, but the submit did.
Just that. WTF are these people thinking. As if they didn't have enough to worry about. Is/will MS able to claim more thorough support for standards? Irony of ironies...But then this is from the people that gave us the tag. Somebody buy 'em a ticket on the Clue Train, please. hell, I'll pass the hat...
The Ramones Rule!
THIS is what I have been waiting for!!
Please God don't let it be running some WinDross derivative, or at least if it is, let me put something else on it.
"Does the fact he is anonymous make him any less correct?
No, of course not, and he is correct. It is not about being punitive, but about remedies.
"But once again, the typical Slashdotter shows his incredible ignorance."
THIS is what I was talking about when I said, Typical Microsoft Zealot showing his incredible attitude.
Typical Microsoft Zealot.
"Firstly, let me say that I hate MS Software as much as the next guy."
Yeah, right. This is to make one think he's not a Microsoft Zealot. But the truth comes out later.
"MS is not a monopoly because other OS' exist."
Under antitrust law you don't have to have an absolute monopoly. It is the degree of market share, something like 65% ??, and the abuse of market power that is the problem, not the degree of your monopoly.
This entire case is a witchhunt supported by Nazis like Stalinman and McNealy. One is motivated by a bunch of libberish, while the other is motivated by sheer jealousy. Scotty boy, you had your chance, you lost. Quit your bitchin. That goes for the rest of you too.
Be sure to get the pissy flame bait in there. Another indicator of a Microsoft Zealot.
And the typical Anonymous Coward / Microsoft Zealot shows his incredible attitude.
"Our business model works even if all internet software is free. How does Netscape's business model look? --- not so good." Bill Gates, shareholder meeting, 1996
"Our business model works even if **ALL** software is free. How does Microsoft's business model look? --- not so good." 'Free Software'
There are/were several shareware type thingies for MacOS that allowed this back in around 1995! I forget their names, though :|
It was/is called "Virtual".
>What's next, Santa Clause is Communist?
;-)
Well, he -IS- wearin' RED!!
Sorry, had to say it.
Not really as disturbing as what dog food becomes after the dog has 'processed' it, right? That would explain a lot....
I say we all bend over and drop 'em and show M$ what we think...
"What a maroon. What an ultra maroon." Bugs Bunny
I dare say Microsoft has, over at least the past 20 years, done infinitely more grievous things than, "stepping on a few toes". Please. They have gone out of their way to, intentionally and with malice of forethought, break would-be competitor's, not to mention their own customers' and partners', legs, arms, what have you.
>> "Microsoft has been raking in profits for years, which in turn raise share prices, which in turn make stockholders happy. "
Microsoft has been abusing their monopoly for years, which in turn rakes in profits for years.
"Our business model works even if all internet software is free. How does Netscape's business model look? -- not so good." --Bill Gates at shareholders meeting
"Our business model works even if *ALL* software is free. How does Microsoft's business model look? -- not so good." --'Linux', and Open Source Software Developers
While I am sure there are many opinions on whether or not Microsoft holds monopoly power, (as legally defined), on PC desktop operating systems, I think for at least the time being, that Judge Jackson's own opinion is probably most significant with respect to this case. He has found that indeed Microsoft does hold Monopoly power on Intel-based PC operating systems, which you can read here: Findings of Fact
Here's a quote: