If the industry had an iTunes Music Store five years ago with 50 cent tracks, they never would have had to worry about Napster, because they would have had 3 things that Napster could never guarantee: quality, reliability and speed. Sure, you'd still have people who would go out of their way to download an album from the net rather than pay for it, but if they're that dedicated to get it for "free", they would have bought the cd in the first place anyway.
The fatal flaw in your reasoning is that most of the risks of singing new artists are pushed back onto said arists via recoupable costs. Studio time, MTV music videos etc are all recoupable. This is how bands like TLC and Toni Braxton can win grammys and make their labels about 150 *million* apiece and yet be forced to declare bankruptcy. The best part is that the artists don't even own the copyrights to the music that they've paying to have recorded (rather than the label paying them).
The "we have to make up for acts that lose money" is a bs cop out by the industry to justify their high prices. One question you'll never see them answer is why cd's cost so much more than cassettes, even though cassettes cost far more to manufacture.
Go back and re-read those definitions you just posted. Taking is removing! Copying is copying! If I take something from you, you don't have it anymore. If I copy something from you, you still have the orgional item.
Now take your lame-ass argument and get lost.
Maybe you should take your own advice. For absolute proof that you are a niave sucker who fell for RIAA propoganda, why are they suing students for copyright infringment instead of theft, a far more serious crime?
Its a little more complex than that. Most of the blame for the current crappiness of music can be laid at the feet of radio these days, rather than the labels themselves. With the mega station mergers, radio is getting more and more homogonized, playing to the lowest common denomenator. So labels are going to be more interested in signing J-Lo's and Brittneys as opposed to more creative, edgier stuff like Nine Inch Nails. Also, labels aren't interested in making long running, successful bands like the Rolling Stones or Aerosmith. Sure those bands sell a lot of albums, but those bands take more money and have some clout so the industry can't push them around. Labels prefer two hit wonders so they can make a quick buck and dump the artist before they get too expensive.
CD prices are too high, and are being illegally maintained at this level by the music cartel.
Its not just the price but the packaging. Pre-Napster, the industry could pressure bands to come up with a couple of catchy songs and fill up the rest of the album with filler, and have it sell well. Post Napster, people don't want to pay full the whole album when they want two songs off of it.
The artist sees next to nothing on CD sales; the tour's where the money is made.
One other benifit to p2p is that it lowers the barriers to hearing new kinds of music. This goes back to the radio problem again - unless its "popular" they wont play it. You would never hear KMFDM or Juno Reactor on radio stations in my town, and I don't know anybody who goes looking for new music by running into Best Buy and and plopping down $15 to see whether or not they like something they've never heard.
legitimises the theft
Other people nitpicked at the "irregardless", but I'm going to correct you on this one. P2p, and even those cartels selling counterfit cd's in Hong Kong, aren't commiting theft. Its copyright infringment. No, its not calling it something other than theft to make it sound less serious, its calling it *exactly* what it is. Its the industry and people who have been seduced by its propoganda who call it theft to make it sound more serious than it acutally is.
One of my big pet peeves is when people make "good old days" type statements. Doesn't matter what it is - music, the populations work ethic or the moral fiber of todays youth, some people only remember the good stuff of yesteryear while forgetting all the stuff that sucked at the same time.
Whatever. Like Oreilly should talk about other people being "vicious". The best part was when he said Franklin was "blinded by ideology"...pot, kettle, black, Bill. Maybe he should take a que from Rush and only do shows on his terms, so nobody can give him a taste of his own medicine.
Most of those stations don't have origional programming, which has fixed costs (production) vs invented sums (licensing for movies, reruns etc). The BBC has gobs of origional programming in addition to other peoples.
But you're not. As long as you're ignorant of economics, you'll continue to operate under that delusion, though. So get educated.
Get educated? Is that what your flat-earther ancestors said to Christopher Columbus? Glad to see you've kept to the family tradition of being stupid beyond all reason.
The other day the U.S. Department of Agriculture cafeteria was shut down
You're point being what, exactly? First, as I pointed out before, the government will screw up from time to time. Just because something isn't perfect, isn't a reason to get rid of it. Are you perfect? No? How about we get rid of you?
Businesses-- must keep employees, shareholders and customers happy, or they go out of business.
You, like many libertarians and conservaties, seem to be under the delusion that there is infinte choice and competition, so "if you don't like it go somewhere else". Except that is frequently not the case. If your employee's can't easily get another job, you are pretty free to screw with them, as Tyler Pipe has done. The only reason businesses try to keep customers happy is to make money, and if they make more money by not doing so, they will. Just look at ATM machines and cell phone plans; by using an ATM you *save* the bank money by not having to pay a human teller, but they charge you for saving them money. And try to find a cell phone plan that doesn't suck ass. Pleasing shareholders however, would fall under the "making money" category.
Did you know there used to be many postal services in the US? The reason the government provides it is not because it was an essential service that was not being addressed-- but because it was a profitable service at that time, and the government wanted the money-- so they made it illegal to compete. Read the "No Treason" series of articles by one of the people who used to run a private postal service.
Bzzzz wrong! You can have a piece of mail delivered to any address in the United States for a single price, even if it means flying a plane out to a remote Alaskan cabin or a park bench in Central Park. That would never happen with a non goverment entity that wasn't required to do so.
Government-- must keep people poor, uneducated and insecure in order to maintain power, thus the poorer a job they do, the more they can claim that its lack of funding and the higher the taxes they can raise without a revolution.
Hey, is it pretty warm up there? Why not try laying off the naivette, the paranoia, and the cheap crack and get out of the house for a change.
All services "provided" by government are low quality, and the are all provided at great expense- - where does the money go?
Oooookay. The interstate highway system is maintained by the gvt and paid for by your tax dollars. Without the goverment building roads, it would fall to companies to build them, and if they did they'd be charging tolls. Ever read up on the railroad barons from 100 years ago? How would you like to have highway barons today? Do you honestly think that it would cost you less money to drive across the country, paying tolls as you go, compared to having the government do it? Even if you've never left your hometown, all the goods and services that depend on transportation are going to cost a lot more because even if you don't pay tolls, they will.
I could go on forever about great federal programs, but I don't want to waste too much of my time on an inbred moron.
If you support taxation, for roads, defense, medical care, why doesnt' the government ban private food production and make us all eat government food? Then they could insure that we get good food at a fair price! Wouldnt' that be nice?
Never mine the 100 million people or so who starved in the last 100 years when government did exactly that.
Oh, I see, you're from the old Soviet Union, where Stalin did force farmers into collective farms and about 14 million people died from famine. However, if you were to say that here in the states, what you just said would be asininely stupid.
You're getting less than %5 of the value of the money you pay in taxation--- taxation is just theft.
The world according to Bitgeek's ass, eh? The government is made up of people, and as such it will screw up on a regular basis. But that doens't change its core mission: to serve you. You stop paying taxes and all the things you get from your government you'll now have to get from businesses, who's first, second and third priorities are *not* serving you, but making money.
Its not a problem of gratification, its a problem of being able to focus and an inability to manage your time. Its not that you're distracted by a new game that you just bought, it's that you will somehow find something else to do rather than the task you should be doing. It can be mowing your lawn, doing laundry or even cleaning your bathroom; none of these things are fun, nor do they help you complete your important task, but they'll keep you sidetracked.
The worst of both worlds is when you have a tendancy to procrastinate and a tendancy to have high anxiety under pressure. That way you put things off, and the closer it gets to the deadline, the more anxious you get, which makes it harder than ever to concentrate. You end up thinking "oh my gawd, wtf am I going to do all of this", and since you don't like feeling like you're about to absess, you do something to escape, like play a game or watch a movie.
Here's three things that'll help people like this: scheduling, chunking and environment. You need to schedule when you're going to work on your project or you'll find your days disappearing very quickly. Breaking the task up into smaller chunks makes it easier to concentrate on the pieces rather than on the whole, and make it harder to get anxious over the Big Picture. Finally, pick a good environment that will help minimize distractions. Good places would be a library away from home - if you're still having problems concentrating, you can just walk around for five minutes, then come back to what you are doing. If you try that at home, you might be tempted to check your email or talk to your roomates, which will amount to 5 hours sucked into web browsing or watching a TNG marathon with your roomie.
Presumably the 100k is for some beefcake systems, with load balancing and high availability. Three maxed out Apple Xserves will eat into that 100k pretty fast. Then you need to pay someobdy to support them, and somebody else for a buttload of bandwidth. If you think about it you can see how 100k isn't that excessive.
There will be no market. It will become self-defeating. It is in the interest of the producers to maintain a market for their products.
I think history will go against you on this one. Its a pretty safe bet to say that politicians and business will put short term greed over long term good. Think Bush and his insane budget busting tax cuts, or corporations that move operations overseas. That and the first business to shift to robots will have a great compeditive advantage over those that don't. Take IBM for a current example; they say they don't want to outsource services to Asia, but they feel they have to to remain compeditive.
"Trolls" don't use hard facts to back their points up. Please, allow me to translate your post: I whipped out a big old pile of hard evidence that Apple has been a huge force of innovation in the computing industry, but rather than take the time to make a reasoned reply with "perspective and knowledge", you just declare victory and try to walk away. I don't think so. Far from "discrediting" me, you are merely intellectually lazy.
How do you get that it TOOK SO LONG for Windows XP 64bit edition to ship?
I took "two year release date" to mean that it was due two years after the regular XP, not that it had been out for two years. But hey, feel free to harp on this small point endlessly, you'd make Charlie proud.
I love these posts, people are so quick to jump into a post to 'enlighten' everyone, and they don't have a clue about what they are even talking about.
Funny you should say that....
He was correct in pointing out that even if they are only several 'small' manufacturers, that there are already PERSONAL computers shipping with 64bit CPUS
Really? Show me some. I couldn't find any at Dell, Acer, Gateway, Sony, HP or IBM. And don't be half-assed like Charlie, go find an Opteron system that is actually targeted for the consumer pc market and isn't a bare bones box.
You have to be kidding right? It took them over 10 years to even offer Mac users an OS that was not tied to the System OS underpinnings with its poor memory management, and lack of simple things like pre-emptive multitasking.
The buzzwords were the easy part, my friend. The hard part was comming up with a feasible migration path so developers wouldn't have to rewrite all of their applications from scratch. You must really hate using x86 with all the cruft thats been kicking around in there for over 20 years.
As for other 'Apple' innovations, I could go on all day but just don't have the time.
I would say you're lazy, but thats just me.
Highlight a word or sentence in your word processor, then click on the toolbar to change its Font or alignment.
Woo! Thats pretty earth shattering! But are you SURE that concept was actually thought up by Microsoft? The list of 'Microsoft inventions' that were actually thought up by other companies is pretty long, such as how DOS wasn't written from scratch by Microsoft, they bought it from somebody else, the 3-button mouse that was invented by somebody else, and the sub pixel rendering of Clear Type that was done a couple of decades previously on the Apple II.
From things like the Client/Server Kernel to the Object and Token Based Security System that is at the heart of NT. THINGS THAT STILL ARE NOT IN ANY *nix or other OS.
And it was so successful at keeping NT bug and exploit free!
If you want to believe the Apple lie that they are 'the great innovator and the first to do this or that, then pledge allegiance to them and admit it, but if you want to look at the real world, THEY ARE NOT.
Hey, its a free country, belive whatever you want. There's probably a flat-earther colony somewhere in the US, you'd feel right at home there.
Well for one thing thats a hack. From the IA-32 Intel Architecture Software Developer s Manual:
A program or task cannot address locations in this address space directly. Instead it addresses individuallinear address spaces of up to 4 GBytes that are mapped to the larger 64-GByte physical address space through the processor s virtual memory management mechanism. A program can switch between linear address spaces within this 64-GByte physical address space by changing segment selectors in the segment registers. The use of extended physical addressing requires the processor to operate in protected mode and the operating system to provide a virtual memory management system.
For another thing, how many of those 36 bit Intel systems started out at $2,000?
Considering how portable the whole *nix world is (Panther's roots) it is AMAZING that Apple won't even have a 64bit OS for the machines when they ship, or anytime in the near future.
The whole thing doesn't have to be 64 bit, it only has to allow 64 bit programs to use that much memory.
There are some really 'smart' things that have come from Apple, but to say that they 'innovated' the whole computer UI marke
And you're missing my point, which is that they really aren't comparible.:) If size and weight are very important to you, the Viao is superior, but if you can stand the extra 1.5 pounds the Powerbook has a lot more features for a lower price.
Basically, these laptops are in different classes, with the Viao being super light and the 12" PB being a good compromize between size and features.
Easy cheeta. Wipe the spittle off your monitor and compare the spec sheets of the 12" Powerbook and the Viao. Unless you need a much lighter laptop, the Powerbook has better hardware, and is cheaper to boot. So yeah, its safe to say that the other guys are playing "catch up".
This is the second post you've made with the same assertions. Unless weight is your primary concern, the Powerbook is the one with the decidedly better hardware.
Yes, it does. That's because it is considerably nicer hardware: 1.5 pounds lighter (3 pounds vs. 4.6 pounds), higher resolution screen, more ports.
But the Powerbook has a larger hard drive; larger screen (whats the point of a high resolution on a tiny screen?); a DVD-R drive; 802.11g; a display adapter that supports VGA, S-Video and composite, and a modem (didn't see one mentioned for the Viao). So unless you need that built in camera or the lighter weight I would say the 12" Powerbook is the one with "considerably nicer hardware".
So, the BOXX system is a "personal computer". It's $2200. And it has 64 bit Opterons.
As you say, workstation/personal computer mostly boils down to semantics, but I think a distinction can still be made. A workstation has some additional horsepower than an ordinary desktop would not - whether its multiple processors or i/o, it has some kind of specilization that sets it apart. While they might have similar specs, the difference between BOXX and Apple is that Apple is making the G5 to be a high end personal computer while BOXX is making systems to be used as graphical workstations or as rendering nodes.
One last thing seperating workstations from PC's is price - and a dual Opteron from BOXX with the same features as a G5 will cost you over $1,000 more.
Slashdot Mirror
Thats why you skip to "conclusion" to see which units the reviewer thought were better than others, and for what reasons.
Its only free if your time is worthless. :)
If the industry had an iTunes Music Store five years ago with 50 cent tracks, they never would have had to worry about Napster, because they would have had 3 things that Napster could never guarantee: quality, reliability and speed. Sure, you'd still have people who would go out of their way to download an album from the net rather than pay for it, but if they're that dedicated to get it for "free", they would have bought the cd in the first place anyway.
The fatal flaw in your reasoning is that most of the risks of singing new artists are pushed back onto said arists via recoupable costs. Studio time, MTV music videos etc are all recoupable. This is how bands like TLC and Toni Braxton can win grammys and make their labels about 150 *million* apiece and yet be forced to declare bankruptcy. The best part is that the artists don't even own the copyrights to the music that they've paying to have recorded (rather than the label paying them).
The "we have to make up for acts that lose money" is a bs cop out by the industry to justify their high prices. One question you'll never see them answer is why cd's cost so much more than cassettes, even though cassettes cost far more to manufacture.
Go back and re-read those definitions you just posted. Taking is removing! Copying is copying! If I take something from you, you don't have it anymore. If I copy something from you, you still have the orgional item.
Now take your lame-ass argument and get lost.
Maybe you should take your own advice. For absolute proof that you are a niave sucker who fell for RIAA propoganda, why are they suing students for copyright infringment instead of theft, a far more serious crime?
Most of today's music is crap.
Its a little more complex than that. Most of the blame for the current crappiness of music can be laid at the feet of radio these days, rather than the labels themselves. With the mega station mergers, radio is getting more and more homogonized, playing to the lowest common denomenator. So labels are going to be more interested in signing J-Lo's and Brittneys as opposed to more creative, edgier stuff like Nine Inch Nails. Also, labels aren't interested in making long running, successful bands like the Rolling Stones or Aerosmith. Sure those bands sell a lot of albums, but those bands take more money and have some clout so the industry can't push them around. Labels prefer two hit wonders so they can make a quick buck and dump the artist before they get too expensive.
CD prices are too high, and are being illegally maintained at this level by the music cartel.
Its not just the price but the packaging. Pre-Napster, the industry could pressure bands to come up with a couple of catchy songs and fill up the rest of the album with filler, and have it sell well. Post Napster, people don't want to pay full the whole album when they want two songs off of it.
The artist sees next to nothing on CD sales; the tour's where the money is made.
One other benifit to p2p is that it lowers the barriers to hearing new kinds of music. This goes back to the radio problem again - unless its "popular" they wont play it. You would never hear KMFDM or Juno Reactor on radio stations in my town, and I don't know anybody who goes looking for new music by running into Best Buy and and plopping down $15 to see whether or not they like something they've never heard.
legitimises the theft
Other people nitpicked at the "irregardless", but I'm going to correct you on this one. P2p, and even those cartels selling counterfit cd's in Hong Kong, aren't commiting theft. Its copyright infringment. No, its not calling it something other than theft to make it sound less serious, its calling it *exactly* what it is. Its the industry and people who have been seduced by its propoganda who call it theft to make it sound more serious than it acutally is.
One of my big pet peeves is when people make "good old days" type statements. Doesn't matter what it is - music, the populations work ethic or the moral fiber of todays youth, some people only remember the good stuff of yesteryear while forgetting all the stuff that sucked at the same time.
too funny...espcially since I have an old 1400 PB sitting on my shelf. And that focker was slow when it was *new*! :)
Whatever. Like Oreilly should talk about other people being "vicious". The best part was when he said Franklin was "blinded by ideology"...pot, kettle, black, Bill. Maybe he should take a que from Rush and only do shows on his terms, so nobody can give him a taste of his own medicine.
Most of those stations don't have origional programming, which has fixed costs (production) vs invented sums (licensing for movies, reruns etc). The BBC has gobs of origional programming in addition to other peoples.
But you're not. As long as you're ignorant of economics, you'll continue to operate under that delusion, though. So get educated.
Get educated? Is that what your flat-earther ancestors said to Christopher Columbus? Glad to see you've kept to the family tradition of being stupid beyond all reason.
The other day the U.S. Department of Agriculture cafeteria was shut down
You're point being what, exactly? First, as I pointed out before, the government will screw up from time to time. Just because something isn't perfect, isn't a reason to get rid of it. Are you perfect? No? How about we get rid of you?
Businesses-- must keep employees, shareholders and customers happy, or they go out of business.
You, like many libertarians and conservaties, seem to be under the delusion that there is infinte choice and competition, so "if you don't like it go somewhere else". Except that is frequently not the case. If your employee's can't easily get another job, you are pretty free to screw with them, as Tyler Pipe has done. The only reason businesses try to keep customers happy is to make money, and if they make more money by not doing so, they will. Just look at ATM machines and cell phone plans; by using an ATM you *save* the bank money by not having to pay a human teller, but they charge you for saving them money. And try to find a cell phone plan that doesn't suck ass. Pleasing shareholders however, would fall under the "making money" category.
Did you know there used to be many postal services in the US? The reason the government provides it is not because it was an essential service that was not being addressed-- but because it was a profitable service at that time, and the government wanted the money-- so they made it illegal to compete. Read the "No Treason" series of articles by one of the people who used to run a private postal service.
Bzzzz wrong! You can have a piece of mail delivered to any address in the United States for a single price, even if it means flying a plane out to a remote Alaskan cabin or a park bench in Central Park. That would never happen with a non goverment entity that wasn't required to do so.
Government-- must keep people poor, uneducated and insecure in order to maintain power, thus the poorer a job they do, the more they can claim that its lack of funding and the higher the taxes they can raise without a revolution.
Hey, is it pretty warm up there? Why not try laying off the naivette, the paranoia, and the cheap crack and get out of the house for a change.
All services "provided" by government are low quality, and the are all provided at great expense- - where does the money go?
Oooookay. The interstate highway system is maintained by the gvt and paid for by your tax dollars. Without the goverment building roads, it would fall to companies to build them, and if they did they'd be charging tolls. Ever read up on the railroad barons from 100 years ago? How would you like to have highway barons today? Do you honestly think that it would cost you less money to drive across the country, paying tolls as you go, compared to having the government do it? Even if you've never left your hometown, all the goods and services that depend on transportation are going to cost a lot more because even if you don't pay tolls, they will.
I could go on forever about great federal programs, but I don't want to waste too much of my time on an inbred moron.
If you support taxation, for roads, defense, medical care, why doesnt' the government ban private food production and make us all eat government food? Then they could insure that we get good food at a fair price! Wouldnt' that be nice?
Never mine the 100 million people or so who starved in the last 100 years when government did exactly that.
Oh, I see, you're from the old Soviet Union, where Stalin did force farmers into collective farms and about 14 million people died from famine. However, if you were to say that here in the states, what you just said would be asininely stupid.
You're getting less than %5 of the value of the money you pay in taxation--- taxation is just theft.
The world according to Bitgeek's ass, eh? The government is made up of people, and as such it will screw up on a regular basis. But that doens't change its core mission: to serve you. You stop paying taxes and all the things you get from your government you'll now have to get from businesses, who's first, second and third priorities are *not* serving you, but making money.
You probably support taxation too, eh?
Alright, you have a better way to pay for roads, defense, police and fire protection, food inspection, parks and medical research? Thought not.
Well, piss off. I'm not a number, I'm a free man, and I'm going to listen to my iPod with it cranked all the way up.
Hey, knock yourself out buddy. Just make sure you pay for all of your medical bills for your hearing loss out of your own pocket, thank you.
Its not a problem of gratification, its a problem of being able to focus and an inability to manage your time. Its not that you're distracted by a new game that you just bought, it's that you will somehow find something else to do rather than the task you should be doing. It can be mowing your lawn, doing laundry or even cleaning your bathroom; none of these things are fun, nor do they help you complete your important task, but they'll keep you sidetracked.
The worst of both worlds is when you have a tendancy to procrastinate and a tendancy to have high anxiety under pressure. That way you put things off, and the closer it gets to the deadline, the more anxious you get, which makes it harder than ever to concentrate. You end up thinking "oh my gawd, wtf am I going to do all of this", and since you don't like feeling like you're about to absess, you do something to escape, like play a game or watch a movie.
Here's three things that'll help people like this: scheduling, chunking and environment. You need to schedule when you're going to work on your project or you'll find your days disappearing very quickly. Breaking the task up into smaller chunks makes it easier to concentrate on the pieces rather than on the whole, and make it harder to get anxious over the Big Picture. Finally, pick a good environment that will help minimize distractions. Good places would be a library away from home - if you're still having problems concentrating, you can just walk around for five minutes, then come back to what you are doing. If you try that at home, you might be tempted to check your email or talk to your roomates, which will amount to 5 hours sucked into web browsing or watching a TNG marathon with your roomie.
Presumably the 100k is for some beefcake systems, with load balancing and high availability. Three maxed out Apple Xserves will eat into that 100k pretty fast. Then you need to pay someobdy to support them, and somebody else for a buttload of bandwidth. If you think about it you can see how 100k isn't that excessive.
There will be no market. It will become self-defeating. It is in the interest of the producers to maintain a market for their products.
I think history will go against you on this one. Its a pretty safe bet to say that politicians and business will put short term greed over long term good. Think Bush and his insane budget busting tax cuts, or corporations that move operations overseas. That and the first business to shift to robots will have a great compeditive advantage over those that don't. Take IBM for a current example; they say they don't want to outsource services to Asia, but they feel they have to to remain compeditive.
"Trolls" don't use hard facts to back their points up. Please, allow me to translate your post: I whipped out a big old pile of hard evidence that Apple has been a huge force of innovation in the computing industry, but rather than take the time to make a reasoned reply with "perspective and knowledge", you just declare victory and try to walk away. I don't think so. Far from "discrediting" me, you are merely intellectually lazy.
I took "two year release date" to mean that it was due two years after the regular XP, not that it had been out for two years. But hey, feel free to harp on this small point endlessly, you'd make Charlie proud.
I love these posts, people are so quick to jump into a post to 'enlighten' everyone, and they don't have a clue about what they are even talking about.
Funny you should say that....
He was correct in pointing out that even if they are only several 'small' manufacturers, that there are already PERSONAL computers shipping with 64bit CPUS
Really? Show me some. I couldn't find any at Dell, Acer, Gateway, Sony, HP or IBM. And don't be half-assed like Charlie, go find an Opteron system that is actually targeted for the consumer pc market and isn't a bare bones box.
You have to be kidding right? It took them over 10 years to even offer Mac users an OS that was not tied to the System OS underpinnings with its poor memory management, and lack of simple things like pre-emptive multitasking.
The buzzwords were the easy part, my friend. The hard part was comming up with a feasible migration path so developers wouldn't have to rewrite all of their applications from scratch. You must really hate using x86 with all the cruft thats been kicking around in there for over 20 years.
As for other 'Apple' innovations, I could go on all day but just don't have the time.
I would say you're lazy, but thats just me.
Highlight a word or sentence in your word processor, then click on the toolbar to change its Font or alignment.
Woo! Thats pretty earth shattering! But are you SURE that concept was actually thought up by Microsoft? The list of 'Microsoft inventions' that were actually thought up by other companies is pretty long, such as how DOS wasn't written from scratch by Microsoft, they bought it from somebody else, the 3-button mouse that was invented by somebody else, and the sub pixel rendering of Clear Type that was done a couple of decades previously on the Apple II.
From things like the Client/Server Kernel to the Object and Token Based Security System that is at the heart of NT. THINGS THAT STILL ARE NOT IN ANY *nix or other OS.
And it was so successful at keeping NT bug and exploit free!
If you want to believe the Apple lie that they are 'the great innovator and the first to do this or that, then pledge allegiance to them and admit it, but if you want to look at the real world, THEY ARE NOT.
Hey, its a free country, belive whatever you want. There's probably a flat-earther colony somewhere in the US, you'd feel right at home there.
Well for one thing thats a hack. From the IA-32 Intel Architecture Software Developer s Manual:
For another thing, how many of those 36 bit Intel systems started out at $2,000?
Considering how portable the whole *nix world is (Panther's roots) it is AMAZING that Apple won't even have a 64bit OS for the machines when they ship, or anytime in the near future.
The whole thing doesn't have to be 64 bit, it only has to allow 64 bit programs to use that much memory.
There are some really 'smart' things that have come from Apple, but to say that they 'innovated' the whole computer UI marke
And you're missing my point, which is that they really aren't comparible. :) If size and weight are very important to you, the Viao is superior, but if you can stand the extra 1.5 pounds the Powerbook has a lot more features for a lower price.
Basically, these laptops are in different classes, with the Viao being super light and the 12" PB being a good compromize between size and features.
Yes, its about an hour. And even though I have a 4x, 1x media is so much cheaper right now that that's what I order.
Easy cheeta. Wipe the spittle off your monitor and compare the spec sheets of the 12" Powerbook and the Viao. Unless you need a much lighter laptop, the Powerbook has better hardware, and is cheaper to boot. So yeah, its safe to say that the other guys are playing "catch up".
This is the second post you've made with the same assertions. Unless weight is your primary concern, the Powerbook is the one with the decidedly better hardware.
Yes, it does. That's because it is considerably nicer hardware: 1.5 pounds lighter (3 pounds vs. 4.6 pounds), higher resolution screen, more ports.
But the Powerbook has a larger hard drive; larger screen (whats the point of a high resolution on a tiny screen?); a DVD-R drive; 802.11g; a display adapter that supports VGA, S-Video and composite, and a modem (didn't see one mentioned for the Viao). So unless you need that built in camera or the lighter weight I would say the 12" Powerbook is the one with "considerably nicer hardware".
Hey Charlie, I didn't know you read Slashdot!
So, the BOXX system is a "personal computer". It's $2200. And it has 64 bit Opterons.
As you say, workstation/personal computer mostly boils down to semantics, but I think a distinction can still be made. A workstation has some additional horsepower than an ordinary desktop would not - whether its multiple processors or i/o, it has some kind of specilization that sets it apart. While they might have similar specs, the difference between BOXX and Apple is that Apple is making the G5 to be a high end personal computer while BOXX is making systems to be used as graphical workstations or as rendering nodes.
One last thing seperating workstations from PC's is price - and a dual Opteron from BOXX with the same features as a G5 will cost you over $1,000 more.