Usability takes a holiday on a tablet the moment I try to do anything the least bit "geeky" like trying to print or use some data that's "alien" or an interesting access method.
The point of a PC isn't the 8G of RAM or the 6 cores. It's the fact that I can do whatever I want with it.
You couldn't just take your iTunes files and leave.
That will continue to work against Android competitors. Although that doesn't seem to have broken attempts to displace Apple phones. The momentum that competitors are allowed to gain over Apple in the phone space will allow for gains in tablets. The level of churn and carrier involvement in phones is a factor too.
Google has set up the classic "Mac vs PC" situation again.
> The PC guys doesn't understand it because it's a different > mindset from theirs. While they often focus on features and > specs, Apple focues on what the product _can do_....you mean like PRINTING, or playing my movies, or transcoding them in a timely fashion if not, or playing some simple game from a big studio, or being able to organize my photos, or being able to add a single album to my media player?
You mean those sorts of "functional things".
"Specs" are what makes "features" possible.
Yes. It is a different mindset: "willfully ignorant".
More precisely, you probably like computers where you can input data without looking at your own fingers and concentrate on a screen that is not itself being mostly obscured by your input mechanism.
They should dress Steve Jobs up as Cardinal Richeleu or Woolsey.
Although the BBS era Bill Gates icon still quite effectively captures the essence of the company and the user community. Besides the fact that it highlights an inconvenient truth, there's really no reason to change it.
Oddly enough, this would mean putting a red hat on Steve...
Back in the day, people that were accustomed to the WinDOS desktop monopoly desperately wanted to extend that to the server room but were unable to. The product simply wasn't up to the task. NT was in fact built and marketed as a "Unix killer".
The idea that Microsoft had nothing to offer the crowd that's prone to run Unix is just self serving historical revisionism.
In fact, being able to ditch WinDOS for NT in those days made the Windows desktop experience a lot more bearable.
Microsoft's engineering mediocrity led to the creation of Linux and helped create the gap that Linux could grow to fill.
...or they could simply get comped their actual "living in two different places" type living expenses.
Have a congressional residence. Have that residence either be owned by the House or Senate or the State's congressional delegation....kind of like road warrior consultants.
Nothing was "shoved down anyones throat". The republicans were pretty good at neutering obamacare. Although that's kind of what they are there for.
Republicans are great at "party discipline". It makes for very effective obstructionism when they are in the minority. Although this means that each individual republican is less like a free man and more like a member of the communist party.
There is more than one way to cast the "opposing party" as some sort of "godless communists".
Personally, I wish the GOP would/could jettison their theocrat wing.
The average would-be-serf is so far removed from the conditions that corporations inflicted upon most of our immediate forebears that they no longer appreciate what corporations would do to us again if they could get away with it.
> As for the "most expensive hardware" claim, there are PLENTY of machines, > especially laptops that cost as much, or even significantly MORE
This is Apple fundie logic for you. There exists some PC that is more expensive than a Mac (for whatever reason), therefore there is no PC that is both cheaper and more suitable than the Apple.
The problem here is that Apple gives you only one choice. If you are lucky and it is suitable, then all is well. Otherwise, you are just SOL.
A PC buyer has a multitude of choices and the ability to mix and match any features of their choosing including features that no Apple offers or things that will require the most expensive Apple option available when it's not really necessary. That flexibility also extends to after the sale.
The fact that you can find some multi-GPU Tesla PC vendor doesn't alter the fact that Apple stuff is overpriced....and as far as the "dumpster" goes: the Apple gear I have had the misfortune of directly experiencing has been the lowest quality, most failure prone PCs I have ever dealt with EVER.
"Apple quality" is just another bit of religious dogma.
It's still censorship. If you can't bare to call a spade a spade, then perhaps you need to do a little soul searching and figure out what you really believe in.
Trying to call an act of blatant censorship something else because that term is likely to itself trigger a (rightful) political backlash is even worse than the act of censorship itself. There was this novel that had a term for that sort of thing. Called it "newspeak".
Running MacOS in a VM is something that's no explicitly supported by the VM software vendors because it's not allowed by Apple licensing.
You can try and force it if you want to but it is much like trying to create a Hackintosh. You will have to choose your underlying PC hardware specifically with that in mind and if you change anything it is likely to break completely and no longer work at all.
A VM that can't tolerate changes in the underlying hardware is a bit messed up.
...sure. Pick an OS because it is the one that is the most hostile to being virtualized and has the most expensive hardware so when you do decide to run something in a VM you will pay dearly for the priveledge or simply be out of luck.
The real question is why bother with MacOS in the first place?
...yes. This comes off as some fanboy trying to justify some Apple product that he's already purchased.
Things like cpu speed, disk size, memory size & GPU family are all things that have to be decided on even if you choose the allegedly easier route of buying a Mac.
This may come as a shock to some, but the stock Mac might not even be suitable for what you want to do with it. A good example of this are those suggesting that you use some sort of Virtual Machine to run Windows software. Another is basic casual gaming.
You screech that as if it's going to make some difference. However, anyone that uses Linux long ago had to make piece with the fact that it was MS-DOS that won the OS wars.
Apple has it's own stores and Super Bowl commercials.
Although despite of all of that, it's still just only just partially regained lost ground.
MS-DOS nearly buried it before when the gap between Apple and Microsoft was far greater.
At the end of the day, you are still a dwarf calling a midget shorty.
Slashdot Mirror
Usability takes a holiday on a tablet the moment I try to do anything the least bit "geeky" like trying to print or use some data that's "alien" or an interesting access method.
The point of a PC isn't the 8G of RAM or the 6 cores. It's the fact that I can do whatever I want with it.
This was true in 1983 and is still true today.
iPods also had proprietary lock-in.
You couldn't just take your iTunes files and leave.
That will continue to work against Android competitors. Although that doesn't seem to have broken attempts to displace Apple phones. The momentum that competitors are allowed to gain over Apple in the phone space will allow for gains in tablets. The level of churn and carrier involvement in phones is a factor too.
Google has set up the classic "Mac vs PC" situation again.
> The PC guys doesn't understand it because it's a different ...you mean like PRINTING, or playing my movies, or transcoding them in a timely fashion if not, or playing some simple game from a big studio, or being able to organize my photos, or being able to add a single album to my media player?
> mindset from theirs. While they often focus on features and
> specs, Apple focues on what the product _can do_.
You mean those sorts of "functional things".
"Specs" are what makes "features" possible.
Yes. It is a different mindset: "willfully ignorant".
Macs were better for image manipulation in the mid 90s.
It is no longer the mid 90s.
You could do a basic flyer using wordpad.
Back in the day, you could even do OLE embedding with wordpad. Probably still can.
More precisely, you probably like computers where you can input data without looking at your own fingers and concentrate on a screen that is not itself being mostly obscured by your input mechanism.
They should dress Steve Jobs up as Cardinal Richeleu or Woolsey.
Although the BBS era Bill Gates icon still quite effectively captures the essence of the company and the user community. Besides the fact that it highlights an inconvenient truth, there's really no reason to change it.
Oddly enough, this would mean putting a red hat on Steve...
Back in the day, people that were accustomed to the WinDOS desktop monopoly desperately wanted to extend that to the server room but were unable to. The product simply wasn't up to the task. NT was in fact built and marketed as a "Unix killer".
The idea that Microsoft had nothing to offer the crowd that's prone to run Unix is just self serving historical revisionism.
In fact, being able to ditch WinDOS for NT in those days made the Windows desktop experience a lot more bearable.
Microsoft's engineering mediocrity led to the creation of Linux and helped create the gap that Linux could grow to fill.
> Yeah, I came up with the paper clip, the safety pin, and the
> ballpoint pen just last week. They were all perfectly
> obvious--once I'd seen them.
If the mere sight of something is enough to replicate it, then it's hardly very inventive is it?
This especially goes for something that is more complex than a safety pin.
...or they could simply get comped their actual "living in two different places" type living expenses.
Have a congressional residence. Have that residence either be owned by the House or Senate or the State's congressional delegation. ...kind of like road warrior consultants.
Insurance companies don't want to be held accountable for VALID claims.
THIS is the fundemental problem with letting a bunch of Ferengi's run insurance companies.
My premiums went up by an egregious amount last year because I live in a Red state and the state regulators were asleep at the switch.
At the rate we're going, even the "rich" won't be able to afford basic catastrophic medical insurance.
Nothing was "shoved down anyones throat". The republicans were pretty good at neutering obamacare. Although that's kind of what they are there for.
Republicans are great at "party discipline". It makes for very effective obstructionism when they are in the minority. Although this means that each individual republican is less like a free man and more like a member of the communist party.
There is more than one way to cast the "opposing party" as some sort of "godless communists".
Personally, I wish the GOP would/could jettison their theocrat wing.
No. Not even fully socialized medicine is more "un-american" than suppressing political speech.
You have the free time to post this comment.
You owe that to a Union.
The average would-be-serf is so far removed from the conditions that corporations inflicted upon most of our immediate forebears that they no longer appreciate what corporations would do to us again if they could get away with it.
My idea of an "improved tablet" is something that I can treat like a PC and be in full control over.
I can print from it without any nonsense.
I can move files on and off of it without any nonsense.
I can run whatever apps I want without any nonsense.
Plus, sometimes a puny SSD just doesn't cut it.
> As for the "most expensive hardware" claim, there are PLENTY of machines,
> especially laptops that cost as much, or even significantly MORE
This is Apple fundie logic for you. There exists some PC that is more expensive than a Mac (for whatever reason), therefore there is no PC that is both cheaper and more suitable than the Apple.
The problem here is that Apple gives you only one choice. If you are lucky and it is suitable, then all is well. Otherwise, you are just SOL.
A PC buyer has a multitude of choices and the ability to mix and match any features of their choosing including features that no Apple offers or things that will require the most expensive Apple option available when it's not really necessary. That flexibility also extends to after the sale.
The fact that you can find some multi-GPU Tesla PC vendor doesn't alter the fact that Apple stuff is overpriced. ...and as far as the "dumpster" goes: the Apple gear I have had the misfortune of directly experiencing has been the lowest quality, most failure prone PCs I have ever dealt with EVER.
"Apple quality" is just another bit of religious dogma.
It's still censorship. If you can't bare to call a spade a spade, then perhaps you need to do a little soul searching and figure out what you really believe in.
Trying to call an act of blatant censorship something else because that term is likely to itself trigger a (rightful) political backlash is even worse than the act of censorship itself. There was this novel that had a term for that sort of thing. Called it "newspeak".
"Forced" is perfectly accurate.
Running MacOS in a VM is something that's no explicitly supported by the VM software vendors because it's not allowed by Apple licensing.
You can try and force it if you want to but it is much like trying to create a Hackintosh. You will have to choose your underlying PC hardware specifically with that in mind and if you change anything it is likely to break completely and no longer work at all.
A VM that can't tolerate changes in the underlying hardware is a bit messed up.
...sure. Pick an OS because it is the one that is the most hostile to being virtualized and has the most expensive hardware so when you do decide to run something in a VM you will pay dearly for the priveledge or simply be out of luck.
The real question is why bother with MacOS in the first place?
...yes. This comes off as some fanboy trying to justify some Apple product that he's already purchased.
Things like cpu speed, disk size, memory size & GPU family are all things that have to be decided on even if you choose the allegedly easier route of buying a Mac.
This may come as a shock to some, but the stock Mac might not even be suitable for what you want to do with it. A good example of this are those suggesting that you use some sort of Virtual Machine to run Windows software. Another is basic casual gaming.
It helps to actually know what you want.
> Just install windows on the mac?
That only works if you don't despise Apple keyboards.
Try using the thing first. Then work from there.
You screech that as if it's going to make some difference. However, anyone that uses Linux long ago had to make piece with the fact that it was MS-DOS that won the OS wars.
Apple has it's own stores and Super Bowl commercials.
Although despite of all of that, it's still just only just partially regained lost ground.
MS-DOS nearly buried it before when the gap between Apple and Microsoft was far greater.
At the end of the day, you are still a dwarf calling a midget shorty.
> Incorrect. OS X is Certified UNIX.
You weenies keep on repeating this like some religious chant as if it actually means something without really understanding it.
The relevant visible parts of MacOS are pretty anti-unix actually.
The CentOS fanboys are all far too busy actually doing real work.
No time for trolling...