I have three friends at Apple, and they absolutely *LOVE* it there. And they've worked there for about 3 years. Two of them work in OS X Engineering, the other in marketing.
I too am fascinated with the history of Apple. They're reall an American icon, and a great success->failure->success story. Think about it.. Apple was one of the first true tech stocks. Apple started the personal computer industry. Apple made the first PDA. In fact, thereis a GREAT book called Defying Gravity on how the Newton was made. Fascinating book.
I'll share a tidbit about Newton, then, for all of you to enjoy.
The Newton was developed by Michael Tchao.. But he was awfully afraid to present the idea to then-CEO John Sculley, in fear of him thinking it was stupid or risking his job.
They were all on a trip to Japan for Macworld, and Michael's collegues felt it an appropriate time to mention it to Sculley.
Michael did so.. and Sculley, ever eager to learn, began brainstorming with him. Two years later, it was a product.
I think this is a good example of Positive Environment. When you work at a company where you can openly talk about a product idea, and get the ball rolling, that company in the end will be very successful.
I have friends who work at Apple, and they always say what a positive environment it is. How positive the OS X engineers are.. how helpful the OS 9 engineers are.
In fact, if you look at apple.com/jobs (not Steve Jobs, but rather employment;-) -- it says Apple is looking for "cool, talented people"
I hope I wasn't projecting a "conspiracy theory" in the first place.
To answer your question, you have to understand OPEC. They're perfectly content in further controlling and advancing their market. Remmber, OPEC isn't a company, it's a cartel.
OPEC isn't an innovative company searching for the next technology. They're a beurocratic dynasty that has an interest in protecting their one product.
They're not scared of clean energy, because they're so powerful they can keep it away. And plenty of other countries still need oil. Do you think Iraq is investing in clear energy? Or Russia? Don't think so!
And as for the U.S... I really do believe our senators are concerned about energy consumption. And I really do think changes are going to be made.. but look at our situation. We're going to explore in the Arctic. We're insanely dependent on oil.
But the fact is.. we still need OPEC.. and pray they don't close the tap on us (or at least threaten to).. because outside of going to war, we can't do much. They're the supplier. And the only one, really.
So of course we also have a vested interest in clean energy.. but it's a mixed interest. It's as though we're pulling from both sides of the rope, and THAT equals slow turn around times.
From Apple's open documentation on the kernel structure:
[BEGIN]
The fundamental services and primitives of the Mac OS X kernel are based on Mach 3.0. Apple has modified and extended Mach to better meet Mac OS X functional and performance goals.
Mach 3.0 was originally conceived as a simple, extensible, communications microkernel. It is capable of running as a standalone kernel, with other traditional operating-system services such as I/O, file systems, and networking stacks running as user-mode servers.
However, in Mac OS X, Mach is linked with other kernel components into a single kernel address space. This is primarily for performance; it is much faster to make a direct call between linked components than it is to send messages or do RPCs between separate tasks. This modular structure results in a more robust and extensible system than a monolithic kernel would allow, without the performance penalty of a pure microkernel.
Well, hypothetically, the total use of clean-energy = the total use of dirty-energy. Meaning, if I have one SUV that pollutes, and I were to repleace it with a cleaner SUV, I'm not going to use two SUVs. The result is a net loss in energy consumption.
That's good for the environment but bad for business. Only when "dirty-energy" anc clean-energy are at the same price point will clean energy replace dirty.
Maybe the Economist had some different angles on it that I'm not thinking of, but from what I can think of my own, their argument doesn't quite work out *in the current state of the energy*.
See.. the economy acts funny. Think about this: (it's interesting...)
Dirty energy is very cheap relative to inflation, but still makes billions upon billions for the big energy companies and ESPECIALLY the oil companies.
Clean energy is super expensive. So you'd think if we switched to that, those companies would make even more. Wrong. Clean energy is out of the reach of consumers right now. So the issue with $$$ here is your customer base would fall probably by 75%, and you'd be in financial ruin.
What happens is, over time... Clean energy prices fall toward dirty energy prices. And slowly, clean energy filters through the economy, bit by bit.
For the big companies, it's a self-correcting situation. But for now, they have to protect their product -- becuase it's what sells.
As for the argument that total consumption will go up enough to offset the loss in selling clean energy.. the numbers don't add up -- though I do think total consumption will go up faster once we do get clean energy.. but that's besides the point, and just a natural "human race thing.":-)
Of course, we'll only develop alternative energy platforms when it's absolutely necessary. God forbid we think ahead -- no no... we'll procratinate until we have even more major energy problems, and only then will we shift over toward newer technologies.
The thing is, the major energy and oil companies don't want any of this. A major car company figures out a way to have a car run at 150 miles per gallon. The U.S. Government says, No way, buddy!
Why? Because if everyone drove cars that got such incredible mileage, gas consumption goes WAY down, and therefore prices collapse. Commodity markets would anticipate this, and spot prices for gas and creud oil would drop off a cliff.
OPEC has a vested interest in making sure this does not happen, and so does the US Government -- to an extent.
So, new energy technology will be a long and tedious transition. But you can bet in 50 years, there will be a company greatly benefitting from it, and making billions.
I love the Dock, especially when it's hidden off-screen. It has some design issues, yes, but that can change in time.
Coming from a pre OS X perspective, the Dock is great because, for one, it puts the Trash into a centralized location that cannot be blocked by windows. In time, I have a feeling applications will be able to use the Trash, in fact. If I want to get rid of a big block of ObjC code, I just select it and drag it to the trash in the dock. It's functional.
There is an issue that the Dock's position can change, depending on how many apps are in it, but I've never gone to the Dock and suddenly been confused. I believe in motor-memory, but the Dock has never put me to a stop wondering, What should I click on?
The Dock is great for quickly navigating folders... and I believe in time it will hold greater functionality for applications. For example, if I control-click (or right-click hehe) on iTunes, the contexual menu would come up as normal - but also with simple controls for playing, stopping, track navigation, etc.
For now, the Dock seems OS X's most contraversial and largest design issue, if only because it's very much in your face (if you want it) in X.
Luckily Dock is 1.0, and I know in time it will offer much more customization.
Aqua is beautiful. Now it's functionality must be increased (although it certainly is functional, it just needs more tuning).
I'm not sure why the Dock not being flush makes Aqua "hideous." If it were stretched to the edges, you'd in turn be left with a wide gap of empty space until you added more apps.
I suppose technically it wouldn't make a net difference, but i don't think that ruins everything.
I suppose it's a matter of opinion for now, fixed by coming customizations.
Apple never said anything about their primary objective being to bring Unix and Mac together. Their point was to revamp the OS and give Mac users a MODERN operating system.
That is the primary objective. Mac OS 8.6 was outstandingly stable. But.. without protected memory, true multitasking, etc., the Mac would be left behind by itself within 2-4 years.
So, OS X gives us all of this -- and best of all, it'll last 15 years. It's extendible.
However, I also agree another motive would be to bypass Linux/Windows competition by giving people the "best of both worlds" with Mac OS X (and as an extension, OS X Server).
The user interface, Aqua, is *BEAUTIFUL*. That's what graphic designers like me want. But I also want Unix power, because I don't need Photoshop crashing if I'm using a 2GB file.
I think it'll work, and I think it's amazing.
Just my 2 cents.. many of you might not like it.. but give it a shot.
The reviews of Mac OS X have been outstandingly positive, EXCEPT from the likes of News.com and ZDNET, who quite typically blast the Macintosh.
News.com, in fact, COMPLETELY misrepresents what Linus said and turns it into a 1 page anti-Mac article, when really he was mainly talking about Mach. He wasn't saying Mac OS X as a whole is a piece of crap; he just doesn't approve of Mach.
Outside of these two news websites, there have been great reviews of Mac OS X. As a user myself, I must say, I do *love* it.
It's 1.0 product (despite the version 10.0). It's not even close to perfect, but is still absolutely amazing in my opinion.
For the programmers and sysadmins, what Linus says matters, though not everyone agrees with it. To the Mac's primary customers, it doesn't matter, because typically a graphic designer or iMac owner has no idea what Mach is, and wouldn't necessarily notice the difference.
In the end, however, OS X is the best platform, in my opinion, because it is successfully marrying Unix and design.
So many "unix geeks" blast Apple's UI and focus on graphics and design -- and that is why Linux couldn't break into the mainstream as a desktop OS (not that I'm saying it wants to).
However, I think some of us are smart enough to realize design is VERY important -- and having a powerful Unix underbelly as well. Which comes first depends on who you ask, but now you can have both, and in time, OS X will be even more polished and optimized.
Thankfully, Apple is really listening to people's feedback. I know people at Apple, and they're set on learning from users and giving us what we want.
I really believe in OS X, even if Linus doesn't in Mach.
"Has anybody ever seen a bug-free piece of software of any complexity greater than 'Hello World'?"
Unforunately, you're making a pretty immature point. In this case, a bug has put human life at risk. And to a further extent, what if it had fallen into the streets of New York?
Certainly nothing is bug-free (maybe), but this did not have to happen, and should not have.
You're the perfect mix between stupid and funny. Have you ever USED OS X? It is NOTHING like BeOS. I was one of the first hundred people to use Be in the OLDDDD days, and again when it came to Mac. I'm using Mac OS X *right* now and it is nothing like BeOS.
The interface is totally different (Be's, in fact, was more of a rip-off of Mac OS) - the file systems are different, the kernels are COMPLETELY different, the applications are developed totally differently, and I could go on forever.
You're a funny guy, did you know that?
And obviously pretty biased too. You were smart to post anonymously.
Yes, the plot right there is absurd... but I'd love to see the Aqua UI spread all over the universe! Lots of people bitch -- but when you actually spend a week and 1 day with OS X (as I have so far, not including the Public Beta days), you realize how polished and smart the UI is.
I just got OS X set up.. It's incredible. I downloaded Fire.app (AIM for OS X) and it works great.. then the other day, I got logged off. Repeatedly.:-(
The worst part is AIM from AOL won't be available for OS X for a few weeks yet. They block their own service on a platform they're not ready to support just yet!
I hear Apple and AOL have been working close together. Great. Whatever. But for now, I'll glady use pirate software. Fire is so much better than any AOL copy though.. Maybe they can learn?
I've developed, in my spare time after school, a new 500.2TB hard drive that's *incredibly* small. My compression algorithm consists mainly of dividing by two, over and over again.
My lab has been largely automated, thanks to my genius. Unfortunately, the hard drive has become so small, I can't see it.
But really, it is in fact real.
Please invest in my company?
I need to buy an electron microscope now..
I'm sure I want to? No, I don't.:-) Can't stand Be.. and it doesn't have the programs I need to work with.. and if you put a serious app to it, it's not quite as fast as everyone says. The latest dev seed of OS X is quite a bit faster, especially on a 677Mhz G4.
I've been working with Mac OS X for a while now on a G4 system, and I love it. I've never seen anything so fast - and I know the finished product is even faster (MUCH faster). Please don't take away my PowerPC. I won't use an x86. I simply can't; I need the speed for my job.
The G4 is a wonderful chip, and despite delays in speed increases, that doesn't justify switching over the ENTIRE platform. That would kill sales -- just the transition. Yes, Apple's done it before from 680x0 -> PowerPC, but this is very much different.
Apple's worried about speed? From my own experience, there's nothing much to be offered on the other side of the fence either.
Okay, I'm sick of typing, I want to go use OS X more.:-)
Re:Affect hardware sales?
on
OS X on x86?
·
· Score: 1
Hi, I'm not in the media industry. I'm not only into look and feel. I wasn't seduced by plastics.
I buy Apple computers because they're extremely fast, extremely useful, and extremely high-quality products.
So you're VERY wrong in your assessment of the only 3 types of people that buy Macs.
For those of you who don't know -- back in the late 70's, the Beatles' Apple Records filed suit against Apple Computer. Apple Computer, if I remember correctly, won the suit. The courts decided that their domain was entirely different, and the fact that Apple Records is based in Europe is significant.
It seems to me this suit acts as precedent for the etoys suit. Their domains are entirely different (art and toys; computers and records) and they're based in different countries. Different continents, even!
However... In the day of the Internet, continents just don't matter the same way. I'd be confused by eToys or etoys. I think the first to the name gets it. If that was the European company.. Than eToys was just *stupid* in not researching that fact.
Who knows what will happen. Does it really matter for eToys? They're not even in the black..:-)
Okay, okay.:-) I once had a friend from Prince George in B.C. and *he* (a Canadian!) said it was pretty trashy.. Nevertheless, I went to Canada with neutral expectations... So I'm in Quebec.. and everyone speaks French but me. And I'd ask store owners something or other people.. directions.. good restaurants.. and they would snub me. They know English! I even was told to learn French and then snubbed by someone who switched to English for a moment.:-)
Hey buddy, Ich spreche nur englisch und deutsch!
Anyway.. I hear skiing in Canada is, of course, amazing.. I should check that out...
Slashdot Mirror
I love ZDNet. Their writers are filled with the capability of producing great lines like...
"I can't imagine all calls will get this much bandwidth--near CD-quality stereo runs at about 128K per second, I think--so this is way overkill."
Dude, that's like.. true.
I have three friends at Apple, and they absolutely *LOVE* it there. And they've worked there for about 3 years. Two of them work in OS X Engineering, the other in marketing.
Just to let you know ---
I too am fascinated with the history of Apple. They're reall an American icon, and a great success->failure->success story. Think about it.. Apple was one of the first true tech stocks. Apple started the personal computer industry. Apple made the first PDA. In fact, thereis a GREAT book called Defying Gravity on how the Newton was made. Fascinating book.
;-) -- it says Apple is looking for "cool, talented people"
I'll share a tidbit about Newton, then, for all of you to enjoy.
The Newton was developed by Michael Tchao.. But he was awfully afraid to present the idea to then-CEO John Sculley, in fear of him thinking it was stupid or risking his job.
They were all on a trip to Japan for Macworld, and Michael's collegues felt it an appropriate time to mention it to Sculley.
Michael did so.. and Sculley, ever eager to learn, began brainstorming with him. Two years later, it was a product.
I think this is a good example of Positive Environment. When you work at a company where you can openly talk about a product idea, and get the ball rolling, that company in the end will be very successful.
I have friends who work at Apple, and they always say what a positive environment it is. How positive the OS X engineers are.. how helpful the OS 9 engineers are.
In fact, if you look at apple.com/jobs (not Steve Jobs, but rather employment
How COOL is that?!
:-)
I hope I wasn't projecting a "conspiracy theory" in the first place.
To answer your question, you have to understand OPEC. They're perfectly content in further controlling and advancing their market. Remmber, OPEC isn't a company, it's a cartel.
OPEC isn't an innovative company searching for the next technology. They're a beurocratic dynasty that has an interest in protecting their one product.
They're not scared of clean energy, because they're so powerful they can keep it away. And plenty of other countries still need oil. Do you think Iraq is investing in clear energy? Or Russia? Don't think so!
And as for the U.S... I really do believe our senators are concerned about energy consumption. And I really do think changes are going to be made.. but look at our situation. We're going to explore in the Arctic. We're insanely dependent on oil.
But the fact is.. we still need OPEC.. and pray they don't close the tap on us (or at least threaten to).. because outside of going to war, we can't do much. They're the supplier. And the only one, really.
So of course we also have a vested interest in clean energy.. but it's a mixed interest. It's as though we're pulling from both sides of the rope, and THAT equals slow turn around times.
Not a conspiracy.. just a mess of a situation.
From Apple's open documentation on the kernel structure:
[BEGIN]
The fundamental services and primitives of the Mac OS X kernel are based on Mach 3.0. Apple has modified and extended Mach to better meet Mac OS X functional and performance goals.
Mach 3.0 was originally conceived as a simple, extensible, communications microkernel. It is capable of running as a standalone kernel, with other traditional operating-system services such as I/O, file systems, and networking stacks running as user-mode servers.
However, in Mac OS X, Mach is linked with other kernel components into a single kernel address space. This is primarily for performance; it is much faster to make a direct call between linked components than it is to send messages or do RPCs between separate tasks. This modular structure results in a more robust and extensible system than a monolithic kernel would allow, without the performance penalty of a pure microkernel.
[END]
Well, hypothetically, the total use of clean-energy = the total use of dirty-energy. Meaning, if I have one SUV that pollutes, and I were to repleace it with a cleaner SUV, I'm not going to use two SUVs. The result is a net loss in energy consumption.
:-)
That's good for the environment but bad for business. Only when "dirty-energy" anc clean-energy are at the same price point will clean energy replace dirty.
Maybe the Economist had some different angles on it that I'm not thinking of, but from what I can think of my own, their argument doesn't quite work out *in the current state of the energy*.
See.. the economy acts funny. Think about this: (it's interesting...)
Dirty energy is very cheap relative to inflation, but still makes billions upon billions for the big energy companies and ESPECIALLY the oil companies.
Clean energy is super expensive. So you'd think if we switched to that, those companies would make even more. Wrong. Clean energy is out of the reach of consumers right now. So the issue with $$$ here is your customer base would fall probably by 75%, and you'd be in financial ruin.
What happens is, over time... Clean energy prices fall toward dirty energy prices. And slowly, clean energy filters through the economy, bit by bit.
For the big companies, it's a self-correcting situation. But for now, they have to protect their product -- becuase it's what sells.
As for the argument that total consumption will go up enough to offset the loss in selling clean energy.. the numbers don't add up -- though I do think total consumption will go up faster once we do get clean energy.. but that's besides the point, and just a natural "human race thing."
Of course, we'll only develop alternative energy platforms when it's absolutely necessary. God forbid we think ahead -- no no... we'll procratinate until we have even more major energy problems, and only then will we shift over toward newer technologies.
The thing is, the major energy and oil companies don't want any of this. A major car company figures out a way to have a car run at 150 miles per gallon. The U.S. Government says, No way, buddy!
Why? Because if everyone drove cars that got such incredible mileage, gas consumption goes WAY down, and therefore prices collapse. Commodity markets would anticipate this, and spot prices for gas and creud oil would drop off a cliff.
OPEC has a vested interest in making sure this does not happen, and so does the US Government -- to an extent.
So, new energy technology will be a long and tedious transition. But you can bet in 50 years, there will be a company greatly benefitting from it, and making billions.
I love the Dock, especially when it's hidden off-screen. It has some design issues, yes, but that can change in time.
Coming from a pre OS X perspective, the Dock is great because, for one, it puts the Trash into a centralized location that cannot be blocked by windows. In time, I have a feeling applications will be able to use the Trash, in fact. If I want to get rid of a big block of ObjC code, I just select it and drag it to the trash in the dock. It's functional.
There is an issue that the Dock's position can change, depending on how many apps are in it, but I've never gone to the Dock and suddenly been confused. I believe in motor-memory, but the Dock has never put me to a stop wondering, What should I click on?
The Dock is great for quickly navigating folders... and I believe in time it will hold greater functionality for applications. For example, if I control-click (or right-click hehe) on iTunes, the contexual menu would come up as normal - but also with simple controls for playing, stopping, track navigation, etc.
For now, the Dock seems OS X's most contraversial and largest design issue, if only because it's very much in your face (if you want it) in X.
Luckily Dock is 1.0, and I know in time it will offer much more customization.
Aqua is beautiful. Now it's functionality must be increased (although it certainly is functional, it just needs more tuning).
I'm not sure why the Dock not being flush makes Aqua "hideous." If it were stretched to the edges, you'd in turn be left with a wide gap of empty space until you added more apps.
I suppose technically it wouldn't make a net difference, but i don't think that ruins everything.
I suppose it's a matter of opinion for now, fixed by coming customizations.
Apple never said anything about their primary objective being to bring Unix and Mac together. Their point was to revamp the OS and give Mac users a MODERN operating system.
That is the primary objective. Mac OS 8.6 was outstandingly stable. But.. without protected memory, true multitasking, etc., the Mac would be left behind by itself within 2-4 years.
So, OS X gives us all of this -- and best of all, it'll last 15 years. It's extendible.
However, I also agree another motive would be to bypass Linux/Windows competition by giving people the "best of both worlds" with Mac OS X (and as an extension, OS X Server).
The user interface, Aqua, is *BEAUTIFUL*. That's what graphic designers like me want. But I also want Unix power, because I don't need Photoshop crashing if I'm using a 2GB file.
I think it'll work, and I think it's amazing.
Just my 2 cents.. many of you might not like it.. but give it a shot.
The reviews of Mac OS X have been outstandingly positive, EXCEPT from the likes of News.com and ZDNET, who quite typically blast the Macintosh.
News.com, in fact, COMPLETELY misrepresents what Linus said and turns it into a 1 page anti-Mac article, when really he was mainly talking about Mach. He wasn't saying Mac OS X as a whole is a piece of crap; he just doesn't approve of Mach.
Outside of these two news websites, there have been great reviews of Mac OS X. As a user myself, I must say, I do *love* it.
It's 1.0 product (despite the version 10.0). It's not even close to perfect, but is still absolutely amazing in my opinion.
For the programmers and sysadmins, what Linus says matters, though not everyone agrees with it. To the Mac's primary customers, it doesn't matter, because typically a graphic designer or iMac owner has no idea what Mach is, and wouldn't necessarily notice the difference.
In the end, however, OS X is the best platform, in my opinion, because it is successfully marrying Unix and design.
So many "unix geeks" blast Apple's UI and focus on graphics and design -- and that is why Linux couldn't break into the mainstream as a desktop OS (not that I'm saying it wants to).
However, I think some of us are smart enough to realize design is VERY important -- and having a powerful Unix underbelly as well. Which comes first depends on who you ask, but now you can have both, and in time, OS X will be even more polished and optimized.
Thankfully, Apple is really listening to people's feedback. I know people at Apple, and they're set on learning from users and giving us what we want.
I really believe in OS X, even if Linus doesn't in Mach.
"Has anybody ever seen a bug-free piece of software of any complexity greater than 'Hello World'?"
Unforunately, you're making a pretty immature point. In this case, a bug has put human life at risk. And to a further extent, what if it had fallen into the streets of New York?
Certainly nothing is bug-free (maybe), but this did not have to happen, and should not have.
Considering communications lines are the first thing enemies try to destroy..
Yeah, Slashdot and the Internet in general would be REALLY useful.
"Uhh, why can't I get online?" as sirens and the sounds of bombs crash in the background... "I need to check my email!"
You're the perfect mix between stupid and funny. Have you ever USED OS X? It is NOTHING like BeOS. I was one of the first hundred people to use Be in the OLDDDD days, and again when it came to Mac. I'm using Mac OS X *right* now and it is nothing like BeOS.
The interface is totally different (Be's, in fact, was more of a rip-off of Mac OS) - the file systems are different, the kernels are COMPLETELY different, the applications are developed totally differently, and I could go on forever.
You're a funny guy, did you know that?
And obviously pretty biased too. You were smart to post anonymously.
What a great post!
Yes, the plot right there is absurd... but I'd love to see the Aqua UI spread all over the universe! Lots of people bitch -- but when you actually spend a week and 1 day with OS X (as I have so far, not including the Public Beta days), you realize how polished and smart the UI is.
Long live the Mac, on whatever planet!
I just got OS X set up.. It's incredible. I downloaded Fire.app (AIM for OS X) and it works great.. then the other day, I got logged off. Repeatedly. :-(
The worst part is AIM from AOL won't be available for OS X for a few weeks yet. They block their own service on a platform they're not ready to support just yet!
I hear Apple and AOL have been working close together. Great. Whatever. But for now, I'll glady use pirate software. Fire is so much better than any AOL copy though.. Maybe they can learn?
Nahhh.
You're wrong. Inflation currently is around 2% or lower, but over the last *seven years* it's been, on average, much higher than that.
I've developed, in my spare time after school, a new 500.2TB hard drive that's *incredibly* small. My compression algorithm consists mainly of dividing by two, over and over again.
My lab has been largely automated, thanks to my genius. Unfortunately, the hard drive has become so small, I can't see it.
But really, it is in fact real.
Please invest in my company?
I need to buy an electron microscope now..
Damn!
Not only that, but he forgot to post anonymously.
A+ for effort!
I'm sure I want to? No, I don't. :-) Can't stand Be.. and it doesn't have the programs I need to work with.. and if you put a serious app to it, it's not quite as fast as everyone says. The latest dev seed of OS X is quite a bit faster, especially on a 677Mhz G4.
I've been working with Mac OS X for a while now on a G4 system, and I love it. I've never seen anything so fast - and I know the finished product is even faster (MUCH faster). Please don't take away my PowerPC. I won't use an x86. I simply can't; I need the speed for my job.
:-)
The G4 is a wonderful chip, and despite delays in speed increases, that doesn't justify switching over the ENTIRE platform. That would kill sales -- just the transition. Yes, Apple's done it before from 680x0 -> PowerPC, but this is very much different.
Apple's worried about speed? From my own experience, there's nothing much to be offered on the other side of the fence either.
Okay, I'm sick of typing, I want to go use OS X more.
Hi, I'm not in the media industry. I'm not only into look and feel. I wasn't seduced by plastics.
I buy Apple computers because they're extremely fast, extremely useful, and extremely high-quality products.
So you're VERY wrong in your assessment of the only 3 types of people that buy Macs.
For those of you who don't know -- back in the late 70's, the Beatles' Apple Records filed suit against Apple Computer. Apple Computer, if I remember correctly, won the suit. The courts decided that their domain was entirely different, and the fact that Apple Records is based in Europe is significant.
:-)
It seems to me this suit acts as precedent for the etoys suit. Their domains are entirely different (art and toys; computers and records) and they're based in different countries. Different continents, even!
However... In the day of the Internet, continents just don't matter the same way. I'd be confused by eToys or etoys. I think the first to the name gets it. If that was the European company.. Than eToys was just *stupid* in not researching that fact.
Who knows what will happen. Does it really matter for eToys? They're not even in the black..
Okay, okay... But what about a BOOK? :-)
Okay, okay. :-) I once had a friend from Prince George in B.C. and *he* (a Canadian!) said it was pretty trashy.. Nevertheless, I went to Canada with neutral expectations... So I'm in Quebec.. and everyone speaks French but me. And I'd ask store owners something or other people.. directions.. good restaurants.. and they would snub me. They know English! I even was told to learn French and then snubbed by someone who switched to English for a moment. :-)
Hey buddy, Ich spreche nur englisch und deutsch!
Anyway.. I hear skiing in Canada is, of course, amazing.. I should check that out...
Was there ever a book written about the Nintendo Sega Wars? That'd be really interesting I would think...
Sega lost.. but in the end, Nintendo did too.. 70 million Sony's later....
:-)