The real difference is that Microsoft does usability by committee. A really big committee in the traditional product management, focus group, search for enhancement requests, etc. Apple doesn't do focus groups or surveys. They don't always end up with the best usability, but it's usually better than most in my experience, although I'm finding Windows 7 to be pretty usable. Apple designs things they want to use every day.
Depends on what you want. If this device is essentially a big iPod touch, and has a good online store for e-books, this is exactly what I want. A device that will let me read a book, listen to music, watch a movie, and browse the internet. I really wanted a kindle but the thing is a unitasker with an e-ink screen and that doesn't work for me. I don't want this to do coding or write documents. This will be much more convenient to carry than my MacBook.
You're confusing freedom of expression with idiotic bureaucratic laws governing exports. I can set up a website that says I think Obama is an asshole or Geroge Bush is a moron, I can have a TV Show where I compare the president to Hitler, and no one in the government can or will do anything about it as long as I make no threat. We have freedom of expression as long as that expression is not a direct threat, or as long as it is not liable. I fail to see how you are linking the issue of regulating the export of products with respecting freedom of expression. Note that I didn't say that the limitation is a good thing. It's not, especially since access to that information cannot really be controlled in this manner.
A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
In any group there are always a certain percentage of people that are insecure and need the approval of others. I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you've never used a Mac in any substantial manner. I'm a long time Windows user. After living with Vista for 16 months and not wanting to pay the premium to "downgrade" to XP for a new machine, I said fuck it and bought a Mac, and I discovered I really like it. I used to enjoy building a system, configuring the OS and tinkering with it, but not any more. I just want a system that I can use to get work done, and that doesn't get in my way. I don't give two shits what anyone thinks about the computer I use, and I don't care* what you use either. If it works for you, that's great.
In my personal experience the guy with the top end XPS laptop can be as much of an insecure douch bag as a guy with a 17" MBP, but in general most people that I encounter (PC or Mac) are not defined by their computer or their phone. Are you sure you're not seeing what you want to see as opposed to what is?
* Unless you expect me to support you, then get what I tell you or call the Geek Squad.
Not really. It's a volume license agreement for schools, etc. I don't see how "not-necessarily smart decision" == corruption, unless you know something we don't? And it could be a good business decision if the majority of the schools use Windows, etc - the volume discounts can be significant.
I save paper all the time. It's called a notebook, or a folder... Plus I can run the paper through my scanner if I really want to. This is a product in search or a purpose, and not likely to find it...
The problem is that PayPal walks like a bank, talks like a bank and acts like a bank, but has so far been able to avoid being classified (and therefore regulated) as a bank. I'm not big on regulation, and my solution was to simply not use them anymore, but the FTC should crawl up PayPal's ass with a microscope. I'm pretty sure that's their Porsche in the parking lot...
Why the fuck would ANYONE use PayPal? They want a shit load of personal info on you, including bank account numbers, etc, and if you follow all their rules to the letter and someone else breaks them when doing a transaction with you they can, and usually do, freeze your account, and it can take up to 180 days to get your money. I got burned a couple of years ago and I haven't been back since - it's just not worth the hassle.
In a free market there can absolutely be monopolies, and monopolies are not in and of themselves illegal.
In a free market everyone can decide to purchase services or products from the same vendor. That's not a problem. The problem come into play when the monopoly starts using their position in an uncompetitive manner, like by requiring system builders to install only your browser, and punishing them if they do otherwise. This behavior is perfectly acceptable in a fragmented market, but not in a monopolized one.
Because if you don't ship a browser with the OS most people would never find the Internets. I never understood this from an anti-competitive perspective. If I remember correctly, a significant factor in the MS case was that you couldn't uninstall the browser, which I again, don't really understand. A browser is integral to most computers. If you don't ship the OS with a browser, most users wouldn't be able to get on the net to find a browser. I suppose that not allowing an FTP client on the system would be next? The whole "distributing IE with Windows" is anti-competitive is predicated on the fact that if IE exists on the system most users will be too stupid to make their own choices, which in fact may be true, but I'm not a big fan of protecting people from their own stupidity by making life harder for others. I HATE IE. Do I want Windows to ship without it? No. That would make downloading Firefox that much more difficult. Using this logic cars shouldn't ship with stereos installed because that is anti-competitive vis-a-vis aftermarket manufacturers.
No. VLANs use same network cabling as everything else. Personally all we do is give top priority to VOIP traffic via QoS in our router. No garbled calls...
I have a small business and we've been using VOIP exclusively for 6 years with only minor, occasional problems, and those were right in the beginning. The problem isn't VOIP, the problem is Cisco's somewhat proprietary and really fucking expensive implementation. Asterisk + Astera is reliable and cheap as hell...
In this context pain generally equals cost, but pain consists of disgruntled customers, bad PR and legal issues as opposed to the straight cost of implementing the solution.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe it will make traffic on the 405 southbound move faster when there's an accident on the northbound side...
I am so glad I moved my family the hell out of California. It's a nice place to visit but I don't want to live there.
The real difference is that Microsoft does usability by committee. A really big committee in the traditional product management, focus group, search for enhancement requests, etc. Apple doesn't do focus groups or surveys. They don't always end up with the best usability, but it's usually better than most in my experience, although I'm finding Windows 7 to be pretty usable. Apple designs things they want to use every day.
Bio: "I'm a cereal entrepreneur: Founder of Weblogs, Inc., TechCrunch50, Silicon Alley Reporter, Engadget & Mahalo.com"
Mmmm. cereal.
Depends on what you want. If this device is essentially a big iPod touch, and has a good online store for e-books, this is exactly what I want. A device that will let me read a book, listen to music, watch a movie, and browse the internet. I really wanted a kindle but the thing is a unitasker with an e-ink screen and that doesn't work for me. I don't want this to do coding or write documents. This will be much more convenient to carry than my MacBook.
ACT! sucks.
Lesson learned, "don't keep those documents anymore"
Only on WIndows...
California Proposition 13 was supposed to benefit renters because it would drive taxes down
Not really. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978)
The problem is that people talking on a cell phone generally speak much louder than someone who is talking to a person next to them.
You're confusing freedom of expression with idiotic bureaucratic laws governing exports. I can set up a website that says I think Obama is an asshole or Geroge Bush is a moron, I can have a TV Show where I compare the president to Hitler, and no one in the government can or will do anything about it as long as I make no threat. We have freedom of expression as long as that expression is not a direct threat, or as long as it is not liable. I fail to see how you are linking the issue of regulating the export of products with respecting freedom of expression. Note that I didn't say that the limitation is a good thing. It's not, especially since access to that information cannot really be controlled in this manner.
A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
Seemed applicable
In any group there are always a certain percentage of people that are insecure and need the approval of others. I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you've never used a Mac in any substantial manner. I'm a long time Windows user. After living with Vista for 16 months and not wanting to pay the premium to "downgrade" to XP for a new machine, I said fuck it and bought a Mac, and I discovered I really like it. I used to enjoy building a system, configuring the OS and tinkering with it, but not any more. I just want a system that I can use to get work done, and that doesn't get in my way. I don't give two shits what anyone thinks about the computer I use, and I don't care* what you use either. If it works for you, that's great.
In my personal experience the guy with the top end XPS laptop can be as much of an insecure douch bag as a guy with a 17" MBP, but in general most people that I encounter (PC or Mac) are not defined by their computer or their phone. Are you sure you're not seeing what you want to see as opposed to what is?
* Unless you expect me to support you, then get what I tell you or call the Geek Squad.
read my sig...
Demonstrably corrupt.
Not really. It's a volume license agreement for schools, etc. I don't see how "not-necessarily smart decision" == corruption, unless you know something we don't? And it could be a good business decision if the majority of the schools use Windows, etc - the volume discounts can be significant.
I save paper all the time. It's called a notebook, or a folder... Plus I can run the paper through my scanner if I really want to. This is a product in search or a purpose, and not likely to find it...
The problem is that PayPal walks like a bank, talks like a bank and acts like a bank, but has so far been able to avoid being classified (and therefore regulated) as a bank. I'm not big on regulation, and my solution was to simply not use them anymore, but the FTC should crawl up PayPal's ass with a microscope. I'm pretty sure that's their Porsche in the parking lot...
You're not missing anything...
Why the fuck would ANYONE use PayPal? They want a shit load of personal info on you, including bank account numbers, etc, and if you follow all their rules to the letter and someone else breaks them when doing a transaction with you they can, and usually do, freeze your account, and it can take up to 180 days to get your money. I got burned a couple of years ago and I haven't been back since - it's just not worth the hassle.
In a Free market there could not be a monopoly.
In a free market there can absolutely be monopolies, and monopolies are not in and of themselves illegal.
In a free market everyone can decide to purchase services or products from the same vendor. That's not a problem. The problem come into play when the monopoly starts using their position in an uncompetitive manner, like by requiring system builders to install only your browser, and punishing them if they do otherwise. This behavior is perfectly acceptable in a fragmented market, but not in a monopolized one.
Because if you don't ship a browser with the OS most people would never find the Internets. I never understood this from an anti-competitive perspective. If I remember correctly, a significant factor in the MS case was that you couldn't uninstall the browser, which I again, don't really understand. A browser is integral to most computers. If you don't ship the OS with a browser, most users wouldn't be able to get on the net to find a browser. I suppose that not allowing an FTP client on the system would be next? The whole "distributing IE with Windows" is anti-competitive is predicated on the fact that if IE exists on the system most users will be too stupid to make their own choices, which in fact may be true, but I'm not a big fan of protecting people from their own stupidity by making life harder for others. I HATE IE. Do I want Windows to ship without it? No. That would make downloading Firefox that much more difficult. Using this logic cars shouldn't ship with stereos installed because that is anti-competitive vis-a-vis aftermarket manufacturers.
No. VLANs use same network cabling as everything else. Personally all we do is give top priority to VOIP traffic via QoS in our router. No garbled calls...
I have a small business and we've been using VOIP exclusively for 6 years with only minor, occasional problems, and those were right in the beginning. The problem isn't VOIP, the problem is Cisco's somewhat proprietary and really fucking expensive implementation. Asterisk + Astera is reliable and cheap as hell...
In this context pain generally equals cost, but pain consists of disgruntled customers, bad PR and legal issues as opposed to the straight cost of implementing the solution.
Anyway, I thought that's what I said?
It won't happen until the pain of not doing it exceeds the cost of implementing it.
and the Catholic church is a business as well. what's your point?