Yes, because you could NEVER rent a car in Portland, OR and drive to Seattle in it. I mean, that's totally illegal, right? (Replace Portland, OR with any other major border city, if you like).
Well there's always the "mentality" that you CAN do it, but then there's also reality. Who just up and drives 3000 miles for no reason, just because they can?
And "why would you spend more money for a vehicle that is less capable in this respect"? How about because you are not likely to ever drive across the country, but you are likely to drive to and from work 5 days a week? THIS is the direction American consumerism has head over the past 30 years. Buy stuff with a bunch of features you will never use, just to be safe (i.e. because the manufacturers tell you that you'll need it...OnStar anyone?)
I don't find that to be an endearing quality of American culture at all.
If you drive 75 miles each way to work you are by far in the minority. Most people in that situation would move closer to their workplace.
You've never been to DC I take it? In fact, most large cities in America are largely unaffordable to live anywhere near the city center because we have lousy planning.
Doesn't "hybrid" mean the mix of two different things, such as an engine with internal combustion coupled with an electric motor? The Volt only has one power source...the battery. It's no hybrid.
You actually believe this statement? And this is why car guys like me hate hybrid owners. Not for their preachy 'green' stances, not for their desires to drive completely soulless cars with no charm, but because of their misinformed statements about automotive engineering at every level.
I think the more important point "buy a bike" guy is making is that if you think being "green" is so important, then why do you drive a car? People on slashdot do tend to be quite binary at times, after all.
That's why people like me who like cars aren't preaching to everyone else to be "green".
You people are fooling yourselves. Its not the weight or the aerodynamic that are the biggest waste in a gas car. Drive your car a mile or so, then pull over and open the hood. Feel that heat coming off the engine. There is your biggest waste of energy.
But given the same powerplant on vehicles of different weight and aerodynamics, you'll see drastic changes in the performance of said powerplant. Sure, the ICE is a wasteful resource, but you can't control that. You can control the other variables, though.
To the guy in yesterday's thread who couldn't be convinced that security firms are self-aggrandizing bastards who create their own realities and subsequently (over) charge people for their services...terms used in the summary alone: "nightmare, vulnerable, undeterred attacks, potential, appear, even scarier".
But hey, without all the scary hyperbole, the self-employed security "consultants" out there are deprived of income.
Sorry to not have anything positive to contribute this morning.
You've pointed out that I need to clarify my meanings in a few places here.
Flopped is a relative term. When I say desktops flopped, I mean they were not sufficient enough to keep the company from going under.
I disagree. There would have always been a large enough creative niche to keep Apple alive, just on Mac OS (both 9 and X). Without Mac, the only mainstream option available is Windows, and nobody wants just one option.
Mac growth I believe is primarily on device integration and the social prestige that came with owning an iphone or ipod. That stigma of other mp3 players being inferior stuck after ipods did so well. So when they came out with iphone, you didn't want to be left out. Social prestige is a huge motivator in human society...
Sure there are some really shallow people in the world who buy stuff for the reasons you post. That doesn't diminish the overall quality of the Apple ecosystem.
So now that they have their iphone, their ipod, well, they need itunes, and all this "intergrates" so well with Mac. So now they're like, well, I should have a mac!
Sounds like a great plan that worked.
It's more prestige!
Let's just disagree.
I do not believe that if you removed all the external devices that apples has developed, that people would continue to see such increases in mac desktop sales.
Neither do I. But I also don't think Macs would die out. Too many of us creatives who like alternatives.
Great, apples uses their own hardware/software. That's like the developers of os/2 still using os/2.
Or kind of like Microsoft using Macs to make all their marketing materials?
I'm quite certain that majority of the software that apple uses on macs within apple are not available to the public. I'm sure things like Mac mail, are not in use.
.
And you'd be wrong. Keynote instead of PowerPoint, Pages instead of Word, Numbers instead of Excel. It's not hard to be MS free in enterprise. And I'll bet you one hundred pints of beverage of your choice that Apple uses their own Mail program. Scouring the Googles as we speak to win my 100 pints...
P.S How many people are running a mac web server with mac office producitivity suites and mac exchange servers with mac everything else in their office space besides apple or anything who deals with graphic/video design etc?
Yea...
Let's meet again in a couple of years and talk about it.
...that is only here because they DID fail and microsoft BAILED THEM OUT.
$150 million was welcomed, but hardly saved Apple. Jobs returning to Apple saved Apple.
Then they designed their ipods etc, which apples hardware has always been really nice, and made name for themselves. Mac desktop flopped,
Flopped is an interesting term. The percentage of revenue overall for Macs compared to all the other Apple devices is lower, but Mac growth is higher year over year. When you add a brand new product like, say, an iPhone that sells millions of units, the overall percentage of revenue all other products becomes lower. Macs are the #3 market share for PC brands. I can't think of any company on the planet that wouldn't be thrilled to be #3 in marketshare for their respective industry. Toshiba is #4. Are they going to be dead, based solely on desktop sales?
But back to my main premise... it appears that Macs aren't quite as "fckng useless for most day to day IT uses" as you claim, considering Apple uses Macs, and they are doing just fine.
People keep saying this. Did you ever stop and think WHY Apple viruses only pop up in intermittently? Could it possibly be because Apple squashes them, generally within a couple of weeks, with software update? Virus threats don't just appear then disappear with Apple sitting around doing nothing.
You won't hear shit about this stupid virus two weeks from now because the entire time all you basement dwellers are on slashdot making up statements like "apple doesn't care about security", Apple is probably busy fixing shit.
Just fine, thanks. Fortunately for me, by practicing slightly-below-average security, I was fortunate enough to NOT be one of the less than 1% of all installed Macs on the planet that got infected.
Call me back when I have to completely reinstall my system because I decided to download a track add on for a racing game, or a file that appeared to be Minecraft, or any of the other multiple computer wrecking malware my kids have collected over the years on a PC. Their behavior is no different on my Mac, yet they've never been able to wreck my Mac.
Here's a fun fact: I've had to reinstall every home version of Windows since Win95 due to malware and I've never had to reinstall any version of Mac OS from MacOS 7.6 up to OS X 10.7 due to malware.
Purely anecdotal, but that's good enough for me, because my time is valuable, and my anecdotes are mine. I'm the only one I have to prove my anecdotes are real.
And a an unscrupulous dentist would never have any incentive to determine you need a filling or a shady mechanic would never replace a part that was working just fine...
And while all the slashdotters out there who all know they are smarter than everyone else on the planet are bitching about how Apple fails to acknowledge issues, Apple is quietly fixing shit behind the scenes.
Ever wonder why you never hear anything about reported Apple problems after a week? Because Apple doesn't feed the media troll and respond to overly sensationalized news stories. It's a strategy that -- checking AAPL -- seems to be working.
Not to be pedantic, but the Apple's own webpage link does specifically say Macs don't get "PC Viruses", which make sense, unless you are running Windows in BootCamp, that is. That is also only if you accept the generic sense of PC = Windows and not "personal computer".
Hours of game play divided by cost is not a valid metric for my value. A game is fun or not, irrespective of how many hours of game play I get out of it. Case in point, Portal.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because you could NEVER rent a car in Portland, OR and drive to Seattle in it. I mean, that's totally illegal, right? (Replace Portland, OR with any other major border city, if you like).
I work with software engineers in Texas. Our joke about them is that they drive big trucks to carry all their code.
Well there's always the "mentality" that you CAN do it, but then there's also reality. Who just up and drives 3000 miles for no reason, just because they can?
And "why would you spend more money for a vehicle that is less capable in this respect"? How about because you are not likely to ever drive across the country, but you are likely to drive to and from work 5 days a week? THIS is the direction American consumerism has head over the past 30 years. Buy stuff with a bunch of features you will never use, just to be safe (i.e. because the manufacturers tell you that you'll need it...OnStar anyone?)
I don't find that to be an endearing quality of American culture at all.
Chances are if you own an electric car, you obviously don't like cars and aren't likely to own two of them.
If you drive 75 miles each way to work you are by far in the minority. Most people in that situation would move closer to their workplace.
You've never been to DC I take it? In fact, most large cities in America are largely unaffordable to live anywhere near the city center because we have lousy planning.
well, nix that. I was thinking of a different vehicle. The Volt is the one that has a small gas engine as well as the electric one.
Where's the 100% EV, General Motors?
Doesn't "hybrid" mean the mix of two different things, such as an engine with internal combustion coupled with an electric motor? The Volt only has one power source...the battery. It's no hybrid.
Few will beat me from zero to 15 or 45 to 60.
You actually believe this statement? And this is why car guys like me hate hybrid owners. Not for their preachy 'green' stances, not for their desires to drive completely soulless cars with no charm, but because of their misinformed statements about automotive engineering at every level.
I think the more important point "buy a bike" guy is making is that if you think being "green" is so important, then why do you drive a car? People on slashdot do tend to be quite binary at times, after all.
That's why people like me who like cars aren't preaching to everyone else to be "green".
You people are fooling yourselves. Its not the weight or the aerodynamic that are the biggest waste in a gas car. Drive your car a mile or so, then pull over and open the hood. Feel that heat coming off the engine. There is your biggest waste of energy.
But given the same powerplant on vehicles of different weight and aerodynamics, you'll see drastic changes in the performance of said powerplant. Sure, the ICE is a wasteful resource, but you can't control that. You can control the other variables, though.
They are called bumpers for a reason. They aren't designed to absorb massive impact. They are designed to absorb bumps.
To the guy in yesterday's thread who couldn't be convinced that security firms are self-aggrandizing bastards who create their own realities and subsequently (over) charge people for their services...terms used in the summary alone: "nightmare, vulnerable, undeterred attacks, potential, appear, even scarier".
But hey, without all the scary hyperbole, the self-employed security "consultants" out there are deprived of income.
Sorry to not have anything positive to contribute this morning.
You've pointed out that I need to clarify my meanings in a few places here.
Flopped is a relative term. When I say desktops flopped, I mean they were not sufficient enough to keep the company from going under.
I disagree. There would have always been a large enough creative niche to keep Apple alive, just on Mac OS (both 9 and X). Without Mac, the only mainstream option available is Windows, and nobody wants just one option.
Mac growth I believe is primarily on device integration and the social prestige that came with owning an iphone or ipod. That stigma of other mp3 players being inferior stuck after ipods did so well. So when they came out with iphone, you didn't want to be left out. Social prestige is a huge motivator in human society...
Sure there are some really shallow people in the world who buy stuff for the reasons you post. That doesn't diminish the overall quality of the Apple ecosystem.
So now that they have their iphone, their ipod, well, they need itunes, and all this "intergrates" so well with Mac. So now they're like, well, I should have a mac!
Sounds like a great plan that worked.
It's more prestige!
Let's just disagree.
I do not believe that if you removed all the external devices that apples has developed, that people would continue to see such increases in mac desktop sales.
Neither do I. But I also don't think Macs would die out. Too many of us creatives who like alternatives.
Great, apples uses their own hardware/software. That's like the developers of os/2 still using os/2.
Or kind of like Microsoft using Macs to make all their marketing materials?
I'm quite certain that majority of the software that apple uses on macs within apple are not available to the public. I'm sure things like Mac mail, are not in use.
.
And you'd be wrong. Keynote instead of PowerPoint, Pages instead of Word, Numbers instead of Excel. It's not hard to be MS free in enterprise. And I'll bet you one hundred pints of beverage of your choice that Apple uses their own Mail program. Scouring the Googles as we speak to win my 100 pints...
P.S How many people are running a mac web server with mac office producitivity suites and mac exchange servers with mac everything else in their office space besides apple or anything who deals with graphic/video design etc?
Yea...
Let's meet again in a couple of years and talk about it.
Correction.
The most successful MARKETING company...
Marketing takes you only so far. Apple has outgrown the overall PC market for 23 consecutive quarters in a poor economy. That's nearly six years. Marketing will score you some short term gains, but not SIX YEARS worth. At some point, the product actually has to be kind of decent to maintain.
http://www.macworld.com/article/1164973/apple_reports_record_revenue_profit_for_fiscal_first_quarter.html
...that is only here because they DID fail and microsoft BAILED THEM OUT.
$150 million was welcomed, but hardly saved Apple. Jobs returning to Apple saved Apple.
Then they designed their ipods etc, which apples hardware has always been really nice, and made name for themselves.
Mac desktop flopped,
Flopped is an interesting term. The percentage of revenue overall for Macs compared to all the other Apple devices is lower, but Mac growth is higher year over year. When you add a brand new product like, say, an iPhone that sells millions of units, the overall percentage of revenue all other products becomes lower. Macs are the #3 market share for PC brands. I can't think of any company on the planet that wouldn't be thrilled to be #3 in marketshare for their respective industry. Toshiba is #4. Are they going to be dead, based solely on desktop sales?
But back to my main premise ... it appears that Macs aren't quite as "fckng useless for most day to day IT uses" as you claim, considering Apple uses Macs, and they are doing just fine.
People keep saying this. Did you ever stop and think WHY Apple viruses only pop up in intermittently? Could it possibly be because Apple squashes them, generally within a couple of weeks, with software update? Virus threats don't just appear then disappear with Apple sitting around doing nothing.
You won't hear shit about this stupid virus two weeks from now because the entire time all you basement dwellers are on slashdot making up statements like "apple doesn't care about security", Apple is probably busy fixing shit.
How ya like your Mac now, fanboys?
Just fine, thanks. Fortunately for me, by practicing slightly-below-average security, I was fortunate enough to NOT be one of the less than 1% of all installed Macs on the planet that got infected.
Call me back when I have to completely reinstall my system because I decided to download a track add on for a racing game, or a file that appeared to be Minecraft, or any of the other multiple computer wrecking malware my kids have collected over the years on a PC. Their behavior is no different on my Mac, yet they've never been able to wreck my Mac.
Here's a fun fact: I've had to reinstall every home version of Windows since Win95 due to malware and I've never had to reinstall any version of Mac OS from MacOS 7.6 up to OS X 10.7 due to malware.
Purely anecdotal, but that's good enough for me, because my time is valuable, and my anecdotes are mine. I'm the only one I have to prove my anecdotes are real.
And a an unscrupulous dentist would never have any incentive to determine you need a filling or a shady mechanic would never replace a part that was working just fine...
And while all the slashdotters out there who all know they are smarter than everyone else on the planet are bitching about how Apple fails to acknowledge issues, Apple is quietly fixing shit behind the scenes.
Ever wonder why you never hear anything about reported Apple problems after a week? Because Apple doesn't feed the media troll and respond to overly sensationalized news stories. It's a strategy that -- checking AAPL -- seems to be working.
* blame the users ...
Wait, I thought that was slashdot commenters, not Apple.
Yeah because the most successful tech company on the planet doesn't use any Macs at all. And by doesn't use any Macs at all I mean only uses Macs.
Not to be pedantic, but the Apple's own webpage link does specifically say Macs don't get "PC Viruses", which make sense, unless you are running Windows in BootCamp, that is. That is also only if you accept the generic sense of PC = Windows and not "personal computer".
Millions in China Live in Energy Efficient Caves"
Meanwhile, back in the US, millions of slashdot subscribers live in energy efficient basements.
Hours of game play divided by cost is not a valid metric for my value. A game is fun or not, irrespective of how many hours of game play I get out of it. Case in point, Portal.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs states they should probably focus on the basics like food and shelter before moving up to higher needs like companionship.
Seems like an easy choice to me.