Hey, I'm a Mac fan, and I totally agree--while this bodes well for the future, the benefits of the G5 are clearly application specific. So until you'll be able to test it yourself, with the apps that you use, compiled with whatever they're compiled with, it's just another flamefest.
That said--both you and I clicked the link to "Read More", didn't we?
Works on an iBook; works for me. I would be surprised if hardware made that much difference. I suspect that you didn't try for long enough--although I wonder if you have more RAM than I, which allows for a bigger buffer?
Yes. What makes it more amazing is that MicroSoft itself has forgotten the strategy that made it so popular against the behemoth of the time, IBM. Now, just as IBM did, they want full control; probably, they will lose that control for just the same reasons IBM did.
Furthermore--MicroSoft has forgotten the lesson of "good-enough". Their software may have more capability than Linux--I think it does, especially for end users. However, one of the reasons that MicroSoft won against Apple was that MSFT's offerings were like enough, and good enough, compared to Apple's--but also were cheaper.
Good enough + cheaper=adoption.
Now, Linux is cheaper that MSFT--and it will become "good enough" very soon. Very very soon. And in a down market, people will count their pennies and decide that Linux is good enough for the price, and MSFT loses. So goes my fantasy.
And even at that, it's important to differentiate between:
The fastest workstation available, money no object or
the best bang for your buck.
That is to say: some folks need the fastest machine available, no matter what; their funding may be essentially limitless. However, other folks may need to consider what processor is fastest for the same amount of money. This is relevant to this topic, as it appears that the G5 based Macs are going to be cheaper to purchase than the latest, bleeding edge P4s; so if cost/flop is a factor, you might be more inclined to purchase a Mac next time around. OTOH, if absolute speed is the requirement, the situation isn't as well defined.
Last time I did comparisons was a bit after the Pentium IV came out, and that point the Pentium III gave the best results for the dollar
Bench it again when the G5 Xserves come out--it totally depends on your application, but I believe that in some cases you will get substantially more bang for your buck. (In some cases you won't.) Although you don't say what scientific community you represent, the one that I support--biotech (genome research)--is actually dominated by Macs.
Why do you make so many accommodations for the failures of the OS? Isn't the OS supposed to work for you, instead of you working for it? How many features do you have to shut off before it's not worth the considerable cash you paid for it?
That makes this a pretty interesting proposition. What if the neighbor that I'm purchasing my internet connection from moves? Goes on vacation and the service goes down? What if he doesn't respond adequately to my needs? While I appreciate the sentiment, I don't know how many of my neighbors I would trust for my Internet Access.
Not that I know my computer history as well as some, but isn't for-pay software itself a passing fad?
My impression was that one of the areas that Microsoft innovated was having the gumption to charge for what others gave away for free, inasmuch as it was simply the enabler that made the interesting part, the hardware, work.
Now if that's not true, I'll happily stand corrected.
That may explain a lot of things. I use a computer on the internet, to read email and do other typical things--and I have never been infected with a virus. I don't even use Anti-Virus software to protect my system, at all. I open all attachments sent to me, even those from people I don't know. In short, I use a computer as they were designed to be used, before they were compromised by security failures.
What's my secret? And it's more than just luck.
Re:Learned Professionals?
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 1
Those are interesting numbers, but don't totally refute the possibility of generous tax dodges. Since the IRS would be the very agency that cheating taxpayers would attempt to cheat, those folks that made $200K may have actually made $500K in what most people would consider income. But, due to tax loopholes, those making $500K avoided paying the 29.2% and are instead paying the 17.3% associated with the $200K bracket.
So, while it's fair to say that those that reported a given income paid the rates you brought forward, the whole question is about minimizing the amount of the reported income to this same agency.
So I'll remember that when Rush moans about the tax burden on the rich.
"linux" search on MSN; top site goes to Amazon, next two go to Microsoft. "linux" search on Google; no microsoft links on the front page.
Bottomline: MSFT is not a credible source of information. I don't think that I'm the only one that thinks so.
Re:If MS were to use such strategies, would anyone
on
Platform Evangelism
·
· Score: 1
I would like to add a corollary. Although I'm clearly biased--my/. posting history and indeed my email address indicate my bias--I would add that all software developers in general should cheer healthy and competitive alternatives to Microsoft, whether it is Linux or OS X.
Because, ladies and gentlemen, if your development and sales occur only on Windows while you flock and jeer at Apple, you are, in fact, an excellent choice for Microsoft to produce a competing product of their own, with the advantages of pre-install and seamless integration. Whereas, if you have support for more than one platform, even if Microsoft kills you on Windows, you still have a market on the Mac. If you are exclusively on Windows, and Microsoft kills you on Windows, you have nothing. Maybe they purchased your IP; or maybe they developed it on their own. Listening, AutoCAD?
And really, for Microsoft to keep growing, which any good corporation should desire to do, they will expand to every area of software sales that they can--now they are targeting the software markets with the highest margins, but that's only because they offer the best return on investment. Once those areas have been dominated, Microsoft is sure to go after even the more obscure, boutique markets; they will become the GE of software, selling in all markets from lightbulbs to jet engines.
I read your scenario--and NetFlix actually works better for that than does Blockbuster. I use a NefFlix competitor (DVD Avenue) and my wife and I watch movies exactly as you do: we put DVDs on our list, and then when they are mailed to us, they sit by the TV until we're in the mood to watch either of the two movies standing by. So, we have the same implusive nature, and the similar inclination to just kinda watch a movie, without a strong disposition to any particular movie--but we didn't have to leave our living room to bring the desire to fruition.
And it's still cheaper to do that than it is to rent a movie, provided we don't want to either a) watch 3 movies in 3 days or b) watch at least 6 movies a month. If you're in that spot, you might want to give NetFlix another look, as they suit our viewing habits which are much more like yours than you seem to think
I'm personally awaiting my copy of "Dancing Barefoot", Wil Wheaton's new book. It's gotten good reviews from people that I respect: Steve Jackson of SJGames among them. I'm really looking forward to it.
Slashdot Mirror
I would turn it up to 11!
You are confusing 64-bit support with a 64-bit OS. You shouldn't.
Yeah, I guess I have been too. Care to go for a +5 Informative and school me on the difference?
Thanks. I've tried Neo, with mixed results. Seems like a giant kludgy hack; essentially portscanning a range of IPs for hosts, yeah? Kinda indirect.
I'll give Direct Connect a try, though--I guess that's one that I haven't heard of.
Wasn't there a Star Trek like that?
Interesting point. But since there's no KaZaa for the Mac...
And, btw, why the hell isn't there?
Hey, I'm a Mac fan, and I totally agree--while this bodes well for the future, the benefits of the G5 are clearly application specific. So until you'll be able to test it yourself, with the apps that you use, compiled with whatever they're compiled with, it's just another flamefest.
That said--both you and I clicked the link to "Read More", didn't we?
Fast Macs, and trollaxor with a story submission. The apocalypse must be near now...
Works on an iBook; works for me. I would be surprised if hardware made that much difference. I suspect that you didn't try for long enough--although I wonder if you have more RAM than I, which allows for a bigger buffer?
Mac OS X currently has IPv6 support un the underlying OS (Darwin), but there's no GUI front-end for it. That should be coming in 10.3 this September.
Indeed, a GUI is there in the build released at WWDC. Maybe you know that and that's what you were implying, but I'll come right out and say it.
Have we gone full-circle?
Yes. What makes it more amazing is that MicroSoft itself has forgotten the strategy that made it so popular against the behemoth of the time, IBM. Now, just as IBM did, they want full control; probably, they will lose that control for just the same reasons IBM did.
Furthermore--MicroSoft has forgotten the lesson of "good-enough". Their software may have more capability than Linux--I think it does, especially for end users. However, one of the reasons that MicroSoft won against Apple was that MSFT's offerings were like enough, and good enough, compared to Apple's--but also were cheaper.
Good enough + cheaper=adoption.
Now, Linux is cheaper that MSFT--and it will become "good enough" very soon. Very very soon. And in a down market, people will count their pennies and decide that Linux is good enough for the price, and MSFT loses. So goes my fantasy.
And even at that, it's important to differentiate between:
That is to say: some folks need the fastest machine available, no matter what; their funding may be essentially limitless. However, other folks may need to consider what processor is fastest for the same amount of money. This is relevant to this topic, as it appears that the G5 based Macs are going to be cheaper to purchase than the latest, bleeding edge P4s; so if cost/flop is a factor, you might be more inclined to purchase a Mac next time around. OTOH, if absolute speed is the requirement, the situation isn't as well defined.
Last time I did comparisons was a bit after the Pentium IV came out, and that point the Pentium III gave the best results for the dollar
Bench it again when the G5 Xserves come out--it totally depends on your application, but I believe that in some cases you will get substantially more bang for your buck. (In some cases you won't.) Although you don't say what scientific community you represent, the one that I support--biotech (genome research)--is actually dominated by Macs.
Why do you make so many accommodations for the failures of the OS? Isn't the OS supposed to work for you, instead of you working for it? How many features do you have to shut off before it's not worth the considerable cash you paid for it?
That makes this a pretty interesting proposition. What if the neighbor that I'm purchasing my internet connection from moves? Goes on vacation and the service goes down? What if he doesn't respond adequately to my needs? While I appreciate the sentiment, I don't know how many of my neighbors I would trust for my Internet Access.
Not that I know my computer history as well as some, but isn't for-pay software itself a passing fad?
My impression was that one of the areas that Microsoft innovated was having the gumption to charge for what others gave away for free, inasmuch as it was simply the enabler that made the interesting part, the hardware, work.
Now if that's not true, I'll happily stand corrected.
Next is learning from these mistakes. Like we have done throughout history.
That may explain a lot of things. I use a computer on the internet, to read email and do other typical things--and I have never been infected with a virus. I don't even use Anti-Virus software to protect my system, at all. I open all attachments sent to me, even those from people I don't know. In short, I use a computer as they were designed to be used, before they were compromised by security failures.
What's my secret? And it's more than just luck.
Those are interesting numbers, but don't totally refute the possibility of generous tax dodges. Since the IRS would be the very agency that cheating taxpayers would attempt to cheat, those folks that made $200K may have actually made $500K in what most people would consider income. But, due to tax loopholes, those making $500K avoided paying the 29.2% and are instead paying the 17.3% associated with the $200K bracket.
So, while it's fair to say that those that reported a given income paid the rates you brought forward, the whole question is about minimizing the amount of the reported income to this same agency.
So I'll remember that when Rush moans about the tax burden on the rich.
Anyone care to guess what this does? I don't get it. I could wait 'til Monday to find out, sure, but I wanna know now!
"linux" search on MSN; top site goes to Amazon, next two go to Microsoft.
"linux" search on Google; no microsoft links on the front page.
Bottomline: MSFT is not a credible source of information. I don't think that I'm the only one that thinks so.
I would like to add a corollary. Although I'm clearly biased--my
Because, ladies and gentlemen, if your development and sales occur only on Windows while you flock and jeer at Apple, you are, in fact, an excellent choice for Microsoft to produce a competing product of their own, with the advantages of pre-install and seamless integration. Whereas, if you have support for more than one platform, even if Microsoft kills you on Windows, you still have a market on the Mac. If you are exclusively on Windows, and Microsoft kills you on Windows, you have nothing. Maybe they purchased your IP; or maybe they developed it on their own. Listening, AutoCAD?
And really, for Microsoft to keep growing, which any good corporation should desire to do, they will expand to every area of software sales that they can--now they are targeting the software markets with the highest margins, but that's only because they offer the best return on investment. Once those areas have been dominated, Microsoft is sure to go after even the more obscure, boutique markets; they will become the GE of software, selling in all markets from lightbulbs to jet engines.
Pardon me, but where do you work? As a Mac Pro, I'm always interested in hearing about what MacCentral used to call "Forward Migration".
Feel free to respond to me "offlist" if you prefer; email is above.
I read your scenario--and NetFlix actually works better for that than does Blockbuster. I use a NefFlix competitor (DVD Avenue) and my wife and I watch movies exactly as you do: we put DVDs on our list, and then when they are mailed to us, they sit by the TV until we're in the mood to watch either of the two movies standing by. So, we have the same implusive nature, and the similar inclination to just kinda watch a movie, without a strong disposition to any particular movie--but we didn't have to leave our living room to bring the desire to fruition.
And it's still cheaper to do that than it is to rent a movie, provided we don't want to either a) watch 3 movies in 3 days or b) watch at least 6 movies a month. If you're in that spot, you might want to give NetFlix another look, as they suit our viewing habits which are much more like yours than you seem to think
I'm personally awaiting my copy of "Dancing Barefoot", Wil Wheaton's new book. It's gotten good reviews from people that I respect: Steve Jackson of SJGames among them. I'm really looking forward to it.
Have you tried Yellow Dog Linux? Did you even try Google first?