OK couple things about his statements that jumped out at me from reading TFA: The number [of violations] will be way less because we've done some dramatic things [to improve security] in the code base. Apple hasn't done any of those things.
Even more interesting is the fact that the interviewer hadn't even mentioned Apple yet in the interview. Bill brought this up on his own.
Something tells me you know very little about macs. In my six-freakin-year old Mac, I can swap out ram chips in and be up and running in about 30 seconds. First of all, my PCs that both use the exact freaking SD-Ram, take 30 seconds just to "shut down". Yeah, that's right, I can add ram to a dinosaur G4 Mac tower and be back online faster than my 2 year old XP machine takes to turn-the-fuck-off.
Upgrading the zif socket in my 350MHz G4 to 800MHz cost about $40 and took less than 5 minutes and one reboot. About 4 minutes were spent apply thermal glue. You can go on about upgrading your motherboard all you want. To claim you can't buy a Mac motherboard and install it in a tower just shows you aren't a serious Mac user. Take a trip over to xlr8yourmac.com and inform yourself.
I've spent hours adding a video card to a pc before, and XP has NEVER recognized the card in only one reboot. I've upgraded video cards on Macs, once using a PC version card and flashing the ROM in about the same amount of time it takes to install those ram chips. You stick the card in the slot and boot-up. Done. If I could get all the time back from clicking through Nvidia driver install screens in XP, I'd be a year younger. I've had PC components that refused to work with XP work just fine in my G4, even when designed for XP (and not Mac). This isn't necessarily because a Mac is so well designed. Rather, it demonstrates just how poorly Microsoft designs stuff in their quest to dominate everything, while being good at nothing.
"Upgrading" a hard drive is a freakin' joke in XP. With a Mac, you can borrow your friend's Mac-loaded hard drive and it boots up. No configuring, no restarts, nothing. You get a working desktop in about 30 seconds. The last time I took an XP hard drive out of one machine and dropped it into another, I didn't have working video card, network card or audio for a couple hours and about 10 reboots.
You can go on about "propietary" this and that, but the fact remains that this is a much easier way to perform upgrades.
No kidding! Who is lying here? Gates insinuates that Windows invented "file edit view", however, Apple Macintosh was using "file edit view" 3 years before Microsfot Windows 2.0, the first graphical MS Windows, released in 1987. Win2.0 was a reactionary move to the new trend of graphical UIs; especially that of Mac OS. We see this theme repeat itself even to this day with Vista. "Aero", "Gadgets", "Sidebar", and several other features are not only implementations of features already present on Mac OS X, they shamelessly model their names after the OS X version. Pathetic.
It was a clever lie, though, because Gates doesn't full out say, Microsoft invented "file edit view"! I think he is trying to use the old Mac-bash tactic of "Xerox-PARC" invented that! Of course anyone who knows anything about computers understands that key PARC people left XEROX to join Apple, and that the XEROX inventions likely would never have enjoyed wide-scale adoption if it weren't for the original Mac.
Gates should have pitched the fact that Windows OSes can run on your Intel Mac too, since Microsoft doesn't make computers. They only stand to benefit by selling copies of Windows to the nearly 50 million Intel iMacs sold thus far. Instead of going head-to-head with his product (that loses on most accounts) he should tout something like, "why not run both?".
Hmm, I missed the part where I said oil would last forever. I do, however, see the part where I mentioned that the eco-freaks claimed oil would run out during my lifetime, and how absolutely WRONG they have been these past, oh, FORTY FREAKIN' YEARS.
I didn't bring the hurricane "expert" guy up. I'm just reiterating how selective the eco-warrior mentality can be. Electric cars run on batteries. Period. The overwhelming majority of electricity in the US is produced by burning coal. I grew up in the hydroelectric mecca of the Pacific Northwest, and we benefited from the distinct lack of coal burning for energy. Unfortunately, MOST of the US depends on burning coal to produce electricity. As soon as electric cars run primarily on solar, nuclear, or hydroelectric power, I'll retract my statement. Until then, I think YOU are the one that needs to put a little more thought into this subject. Thank you for branding me a conservative, but I prefer the term realist. You couldn't be more incorrect with your assumptions about my political leanings.
How about I just buy you a beer when Manhattan is submerged? Your ridiculous scenarios ARE fear mongering, and your insecurity is more pathetic than my inability to accept your distorted view of reality. Good job interjecting about 5 presumptions I made no comment what-so-ever about. What the hell do you know about my reaction to 9/11? Do you know anything about me at all? Oh, didn't think so. Thankfully, you have scientific evidence of sea levels for 93 years from now. I won't be alive then, nor will my children, so thanks for frickin' sticking me and my family with a burden that may or may not be reality 100 years from now. Nice talking to you, Chicken Little.
"No end in sight"? Even big oil companies like BP are expecting oil production to peak in a few decades; Exxon has admitted that at least non-OPEC oil will peak on similar timescales.
I heard that back in the 70s. Sorry, it still holds no water. "Peak" and "running out" are two different measurements, I'm afraid. When you grow up with people telling you "We will be completely out of oil in 25 years", and 35 years later, they are still saying, "we will be completely out of oil in 25 years", you tend to want to call bull shit.
Great points. I agree with nearly every one of them.
For all the greenies out there:
Electric cars run on electricity, no? How is electricity produced? Oh yeah, by burning coal (for the most part). Please explain to me how millions of tons of black soot caused by burning coal to produce electricity to charge all the batteries is cleaner than cars burning gasoline with 95% emmissions-free standards? Until electricity is produced primarily by hydroelectric means or *gasp* nuclear power, we (the Eastern US in particular) electric cars will do more harm to the environment than gasoline powered cars.
The guy who predicted the worst hurricane on record for 2006 is a perfect example of the selective science behind the whole movement. When the stats don't support their theory, they conveniently leave them out.
If Manhattan were to end up 10 feet below sea-level, the American economy would be severely impacted and vast amounts of American infrastructure would be destroyed.
"IF"
It is hyperbole such as this that allows those of us not quite sold on global warming to maintain our skepticism. Couple that with the fear-mongering I grew up in the 70s about running out of oil (no end in sight) and acid rain destroying all of humanity, it becomes much easier to blow off the global warming problem.
There's a huge difference between OS stability and hardware failure. Sounds like you got a bum drive. Have you taken your MacBook to an Apple store to be diagnosed?
If all Windows users have to boot their PC daily, can you please explain my Windows box being up for well over a month so far without needing a reboot?
Luck, denial, or most likely, a little of both? Try running Photoshop and Dreamweaver at the same time and see how that goes.
I tricked you. I said I haven't defragged a Mac in over 10 years, but the oldest Mac I have is only 6 years old:-) I'm just saying that if you keep a Mac for its usable lifespan --roughly 5 years-- you most likely won't need to defrag it...ever. I cringe when I hear self-appointed windows experts (i.e., everyone at work) give "advice" to defrag and clean install. No thanks, I have better things to do with my time.
PC's might have the *most* software, but it they also have the *crappiest* software. Windows also offers the largest spread of useless Win utility software simply not needed on a Mac. I haven't defragged a disk or virus scanned a Mac in over 10 years.
In my experience, Mac software --especially shareware-- is head-and-shoulders above PC offerings.
If you get a Mac, you can put your copy of WinXP on it and not worry. I dual-boot, albeit heavily skewed to the mac side (95/5 percent). AVI's play fine with intel Macs on several 3d party apps. I use Divx player. iTunes, you'll find, is pretty sweet on a Mac. I agree it sucks bigtime on pc and is clunky, but on the Mac it is elegantly integrated with the entire system.
To run OS X, you have to have a Macintosh computer. Apple doesn't need to mess around with cd keys, because if you need a copy of the OS, you have a Mac, and therefore have already purchased the OS. Upgrades, however, are a different story.
Slashdot Mirror
Upgrading the zif socket in my 350MHz G4 to 800MHz cost about $40 and took less than 5 minutes and one reboot. About 4 minutes were spent apply thermal glue. You can go on about upgrading your motherboard all you want. To claim you can't buy a Mac motherboard and install it in a tower just shows you aren't a serious Mac user. Take a trip over to xlr8yourmac.com and inform yourself.
I've spent hours adding a video card to a pc before, and XP has NEVER recognized the card in only one reboot. I've upgraded video cards on Macs, once using a PC version card and flashing the ROM in about the same amount of time it takes to install those ram chips. You stick the card in the slot and boot-up. Done. If I could get all the time back from clicking through Nvidia driver install screens in XP, I'd be a year younger. I've had PC components that refused to work with XP work just fine in my G4, even when designed for XP (and not Mac). This isn't necessarily because a Mac is so well designed. Rather, it demonstrates just how poorly Microsoft designs stuff in their quest to dominate everything, while being good at nothing.
"Upgrading" a hard drive is a freakin' joke in XP. With a Mac, you can borrow your friend's Mac-loaded hard drive and it boots up. No configuring, no restarts, nothing. You get a working desktop in about 30 seconds. The last time I took an XP hard drive out of one machine and dropped it into another, I didn't have working video card, network card or audio for a couple hours and about 10 reboots.
You can go on about "propietary" this and that, but the fact remains that this is a much easier way to perform upgrades.
It was a clever lie, though, because Gates doesn't full out say, Microsoft invented "file edit view"! I think he is trying to use the old Mac-bash tactic of "Xerox-PARC" invented that! Of course anyone who knows anything about computers understands that key PARC people left XEROX to join Apple, and that the XEROX inventions likely would never have enjoyed wide-scale adoption if it weren't for the original Mac.
Gates should have pitched the fact that Windows OSes can run on your Intel Mac too, since Microsoft doesn't make computers. They only stand to benefit by selling copies of Windows to the nearly 50 million Intel iMacs sold thus far. Instead of going head-to-head with his product (that loses on most accounts) he should tout something like, "why not run both?".
Hmm, I missed the part where I said oil would last forever. I do, however, see the part where I mentioned that the eco-freaks claimed oil would run out during my lifetime, and how absolutely WRONG they have been these past, oh, FORTY FREAKIN' YEARS.
I didn't bring the hurricane "expert" guy up. I'm just reiterating how selective the eco-warrior mentality can be. Electric cars run on batteries. Period. The overwhelming majority of electricity in the US is produced by burning coal. I grew up in the hydroelectric mecca of the Pacific Northwest, and we benefited from the distinct lack of coal burning for energy. Unfortunately, MOST of the US depends on burning coal to produce electricity. As soon as electric cars run primarily on solar, nuclear, or hydroelectric power, I'll retract my statement. Until then, I think YOU are the one that needs to put a little more thought into this subject. Thank you for branding me a conservative, but I prefer the term realist. You couldn't be more incorrect with your assumptions about my political leanings.
How about I just buy you a beer when Manhattan is submerged? Your ridiculous scenarios ARE fear mongering, and your insecurity is more pathetic than my inability to accept your distorted view of reality. Good job interjecting about 5 presumptions I made no comment what-so-ever about. What the hell do you know about my reaction to 9/11? Do you know anything about me at all? Oh, didn't think so. Thankfully, you have scientific evidence of sea levels for 93 years from now. I won't be alive then, nor will my children, so thanks for frickin' sticking me and my family with a burden that may or may not be reality 100 years from now. Nice talking to you, Chicken Little.
"Windows Speech Recognition was built using the latest Microsoft speech ... you are always in control;"
Maybe the real agenda is to point out a brand new problem for Vista that is yet another 10-year old copied Macintosh feature?
More sad than your story is the fact that speech recognition is being touted as a shiny new Vista feature.
For all the greenies out there:
Electric cars run on electricity, no? How is electricity produced? Oh yeah, by burning coal (for the most part). Please explain to me how millions of tons of black soot caused by burning coal to produce electricity to charge all the batteries is cleaner than cars burning gasoline with 95% emmissions-free standards? Until electricity is produced primarily by hydroelectric means or *gasp* nuclear power, we (the Eastern US in particular) electric cars will do more harm to the environment than gasoline powered cars.
The guy who predicted the worst hurricane on record for 2006 is a perfect example of the selective science behind the whole movement. When the stats don't support their theory, they conveniently leave them out.
It is hyperbole such as this that allows those of us not quite sold on global warming to maintain our skepticism. Couple that with the fear-mongering I grew up in the 70s about running out of oil (no end in sight) and acid rain destroying all of humanity, it becomes much easier to blow off the global warming problem.
If the stupid people of Boston would just watch more Adult Swim, they would have recognized the characters instead of calling in bomb scares!
There's a huge difference between OS stability and hardware failure. Sounds like you got a bum drive. Have you taken your MacBook to an Apple store to be diagnosed?
What would prevent an Intel Mac from triple booting? I don't know enough about Linux, but if Linux runs on a PC, why wouldn't it run on an Intel Mac?
I think you summed up the Microsoft cultural climate perfectly.
The reason he compared OS X to Windows is because you can a learn a lot about design by studying BAD design, and contrasting it with good design.
Ok, I'm just being an ass, but wouldn't it be "semi-opaque"? If something is semi-transparent, it is transparent, no?
I tricked you. I said I haven't defragged a Mac in over 10 years, but the oldest Mac I have is only 6 years old :-) I'm just saying that if you keep a Mac for its usable lifespan --roughly 5 years-- you most likely won't need to defrag it...ever. I cringe when I hear self-appointed windows experts (i.e., everyone at work) give "advice" to defrag and clean install. No thanks, I have better things to do with my time.
PC's might have the *most* software, but it they also have the *crappiest* software. Windows also offers the largest spread of useless Win utility software simply not needed on a Mac. I haven't defragged a disk or virus scanned a Mac in over 10 years.
In my experience, Mac software --especially shareware-- is head-and-shoulders above PC offerings.
If you get a Mac, you can put your copy of WinXP on it and not worry. I dual-boot, albeit heavily skewed to the mac side (95/5 percent). AVI's play fine with intel Macs on several 3d party apps. I use Divx player. iTunes, you'll find, is pretty sweet on a Mac. I agree it sucks bigtime on pc and is clunky, but on the Mac it is elegantly integrated with the entire system.
The Department of Defense Schools use Win2000. 200 schools, 100,000 students, 9,000 teachers http://www.dodea.edu/communications/dodeafacts.htm ...that is slightly bigger than 30 employees, isn't it?
To run OS X, you have to have a Macintosh computer. Apple doesn't need to mess around with cd keys, because if you need a copy of the OS, you have a Mac, and therefore have already purchased the OS. Upgrades, however, are a different story.
Me sentiments exactly. My question is if they make a "full" version (not an upgrade) and if it costs more money. That would be pretty lame.