I'm not sure it is even technically true. I can't think of any year when desktop mac sales were as low as desktop linux sales. The lowest point mac ever hit was well into the OSX era and it still had 2-6% depending on how you counted.
First off I think you might want to learn to express yourself without the insults. Secondly 400x300 = $120,000 not $12,000.
As for the rest do you have any evidence for your speculation that consumers set a fix cost based on some external factor and then buy the most they can for that fixed cost? Also any evidence for the theory that they don't depreciate but rather (essentially) apply a very high rate of interest and consider the computer only for the short term?
Once they have QB interface working they probably are 80+% of the way there to QB enterprise. I doubt much of the enterprisish code is terribly windows specific.
But yeah it isn't there yet. What is important is that intuit has changed their attitude.
I know Haskell and Lisp. When I've done mathematica programs they look like:
Notebook = collection of function = larger collection of calls to kernel.
Very little input and lots of functions. As for for, while.... you can have those in functional languages the question is whether you can break out in your "main" and whether you can execute out of order.
But yes I agree Mathematica is not a pure language. It is essentially a utility language for an app not a programming language.
There were some business like digital printing that were heavily invested in OS9. They did make the switch, or switched to windows.
But Linux perhaps offers a better history. Here you did have enterprises (Burlington Coat Factory, PepBoys) that have moved from Unix to Unix to Unix. Following for example: SunOS -> Solaris -> SCO -> Linux. What they gave up was binary compatibility, instead opting for source compatibility and loosely coupled software. Similarly in the mainframe world client software went from dumb terminals -> PC software -> Web based on loose coupling.
The real question is whether Apple would force enterprises to undergo these sorts of transitions if they had a large part of the market. I tend to agree they would do very reluctantly the question is whether they would have a choice. Enterprises weren't happy about the move from PC software to web software but business demanded it.
I'll say this. Watch her answers on questions about state policy, for example gay marriage where she was informed or her earlier debates during the gubernatorial election. She was out of her league with Biden and played a not-to-lose badly strategy so it wasn't representative of her debates in general.
In terms of an honest debate. You don't have to believe me just start doing a websearch on creation science.
You can look at the mac threads from around 2003,4. Usually when a new system came out these comparisons were made and generally the mac came in 10-15% below the comparable Dells.
As for 20% being a big deal, no I don't think that matters too much. At 8 hrs usage 200 days a year for 3 years that comes out to $.07 / hr.
OK I"ll focus on the programming language. The mathematica programming language is a functional programming language which is semi-stateless . It feels similar to OCaml or Haskell. The maple language is standard procedural. From a programming perspective they both offer hugely powerful libraries of mathematical functions. For really obscure stuff you do better finding Mathematica libraries online.
In terms of documentation the maple docs are better written the mathematica ones are much more comprehensive. Because of the comprehensiveness and the ad-hoc nature of reading documentation in effect the mathematica ones turn out better. Mathematica is much less consistent between versions so your apps are more likely to run into compatibility problems over time.
1) Doesn't do video encoding well enough 2) Doesn't have drag and drop for video/audio files that works 3) Exports don't support video and audio effectively. 4) Doesn't connect directly with home DVRs
They switched horses under Clinton. Microsoft was for a long time active in pro-gay rights and Seattle public transportation issues (both democratic). During the anti-trust fight they were attacked from both sides (because Novell was Republican) but eventually the Republicans supported Microsoft.
This claim has been made again and again. Spec out a system exactly the same as a mac from a major vendor (HP, Dell, Toshiba) and you'll find it is within 20% almost always and sometimes the mac is cheaper.
Come on now. Look at the Apple's developers conferences, they spend 90% of the time talking about:
1) new hardware 2) new os features 3) new APIs to use the new os features
And these talks get watched by millions.
As for Microsoft their core business model is the OS providing services for their office / network apps to create a fully integrated suite. Arguably office, sharepoint.... are essentially part of the OS at this point.
But give it time, there is nothing about OSX or Linux that makes it more secure against idiots installing keyloggers, rootkits, and other malware into their systems. If they ever have the same sizeable legions of inept users then the malware authors will target them too.
What's interesting is the old NT model (capability based not permissions) is much more secure than anything OSX had or Linux had until recently (say the last 5 years). What killed it was that even the most basic windows apps didn't work well or integrate the security features, including explorer and office. So they ended up with a permissions system on top of the capability system.
The advantage that OSX and Linux have is a willingness to break badly written apps and not offer seamless version to version compatibility for app developers. Both of them have capability models now (SE LInux, Trusted BSD) they might pull ahead.
The other thing that Linux has is an OS model which allows for a heavily fragmented market with many many OSes with different balances of security vs. connivance.
Add me to the list. I was a mathematica user since 1.3 (386 with math coprocessor). I had a version I bought around 1995 in '99 after time with tech support I basically got an FU in terms of trying to install on my new machine.
At this point I use maple which is much more reasonable. Mathematica has obnoxious copy protection, strict licensing and the best product out there.
I think you need to read what I wrote. I'm not trying to find out if the "know" i.e. they have faith, in the atomic theory but rather if they have some way of proving it, that is a defense. Ask them. I've done this experiment with lots of very educated people, almost invariably they can't defend the atomic theory vs. the continuous theory.
And again, they don't actually use the scientific method. They believe in the religion of scientism, and that is the problem.
Take for example Genesis 1:6-8 where you have the sky seperating the waters below (terrestrial water) from the water above (what comes down when it rains). Then in Genesis 1:14-19 God puts the sun, moon and the stars in the sky (i.e. beneath the water).
You see this same imagery in places like Ezekiel 1:22 where the sky is a sheet like a glittering crystal (i.e. stars are on it).
Yes I do. There is lots of creation science out there, they really do believe they have a plausible case that can be defended based on the evidence. In their view their opinions are rejected because the secular world has a secular religious belief and won't engage in a honest assessment of the evidence. She really does mean it when she says she wants honest debate since she thinks creationism will win. I really want it because I think it will be terrific for improving the quality of high school science to have any sorts of discussions / debates which cover theories in enough detail and back them with evidence.
IMHO this is a fantastic opportunity to improve the quality of science education and cool down part of the culture wars. Again think of creationism as no different than the continuous theory of matter or the non existence of irrational numbers, it is just an incorrect and disprovable theory useful for teaching students to think scientifically.
I understand what various Christians believe regarding transubstantiation/Metousiosis vs. consubstantiation vs. symbolic presence. My point to Grishnakh was that tongue speaking is just another denominational difference and his beliefs could be looked on equally hostilely. And while/. may not be the best place for religion chanting rituals go back well before 200 BCE when you see the first signs of things that could be called Christian. So arguably her's is the original and the claim that magical fire gave people the ability to speak in other languages came later.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure it is even technically true. I can't think of any year when desktop mac sales were as low as desktop linux sales. The lowest point mac ever hit was well into the OSX era and it still had 2-6% depending on how you counted.
First off I think you might want to learn to express yourself without the insults. Secondly 400x300 = $120,000 not $12,000.
As for the rest do you have any evidence for your speculation that consumers set a fix cost based on some external factor and then buy the most they can for that fixed cost? Also any evidence for the theory that they don't depreciate but rather (essentially) apply a very high rate of interest and consider the computer only for the short term?
I don't know where the cutoff my point was that the GP's statement was not impossible in any way nor self contradictory
Once they have QB interface working they probably are 80+% of the way there to QB enterprise. I doubt much of the enterprisish code is terribly windows specific.
But yeah it isn't there yet. What is important is that intuit has changed their attitude.
I know Haskell and Lisp. When I've done mathematica programs they look like:
Notebook = collection of function = larger collection of calls to kernel.
Very little input and lots of functions. As for for, while.... you can have those in functional languages the question is whether you can break out in your "main" and whether you can execute out of order.
But yes I agree Mathematica is not a pure language. It is essentially a utility language for an app not a programming language.
There were some business like digital printing that were heavily invested in OS9. They did make the switch, or switched to windows.
But Linux perhaps offers a better history. Here you did have enterprises (Burlington Coat Factory, PepBoys) that have moved from Unix to Unix to Unix. Following for example: SunOS -> Solaris -> SCO -> Linux. What they gave up was binary compatibility, instead opting for source compatibility and loosely coupled software. Similarly in the mainframe world client software went from dumb terminals -> PC software -> Web based on loose coupling.
The real question is whether Apple would force enterprises to undergo these sorts of transitions if they had a large part of the market. I tend to agree they would do very reluctantly the question is whether they would have a choice. Enterprises weren't happy about the move from PC software to web software but business demanded it.
I'll say this. Watch her answers on questions about state policy, for example gay marriage where she was informed or her earlier debates during the gubernatorial election. She was out of her league with Biden and played a not-to-lose badly strategy so it wasn't representative of her debates in general.
In terms of an honest debate. You don't have to believe me just start doing a websearch on creation science.
You are saying during Bush-41 (pre Clinton) you think they were Republican?
You can look at the mac threads from around 2003,4. Usually when a new system came out these comparisons were made and generally the mac came in 10-15% below the comparable Dells.
As for 20% being a big deal, no I don't think that matters too much. At 8 hrs usage 200 days a year for 3 years that comes out to $.07 / hr.
OK I"ll focus on the programming language. The mathematica programming language is a functional programming language which is semi-stateless . It feels similar to OCaml or Haskell. The maple language is standard procedural. From a programming perspective they both offer hugely powerful libraries of mathematical functions. For really obscure stuff you do better finding Mathematica libraries online.
In terms of documentation the maple docs are better written the mathematica ones are much more comprehensive. Because of the comprehensiveness and the ad-hoc nature of reading documentation in effect the mathematica ones turn out better. Mathematica is much less consistent between versions so your apps are more likely to run into compatibility problems over time.
Anything specific?
I know tons:
1) Doesn't do video encoding well enough
2) Doesn't have drag and drop for video/audio files that works
3) Exports don't support video and audio effectively.
4) Doesn't connect directly with home DVRs
etc...
They switched horses under Clinton. Microsoft was for a long time active in pro-gay rights and Seattle public transportation issues (both democratic). During the anti-trust fight they were attacked from both sides (because Novell was Republican) but eventually the Republicans supported Microsoft.
Fundamentally it is a pretty democratic company.
Then why didn't you buy a mac back in 1997 when they were talking about the features of Rhapsody? Or for that matter why weren't you a NeXT user?
Mossberg works for the Wall Street Journal / Dow Jones corporation. They are a bit harder to buy positive coverage from than most.
Intuit has made a major push recently for mac:
http://quickbooks.intuit.com/product/accounting-software/pro-mac-business-finance-software.jsp
This claim has been made again and again. Spec out a system exactly the same as a mac from a major vendor (HP, Dell, Toshiba) and you'll find it is within 20% almost always and sometimes the mac is cheaper.
Come on now. Look at the Apple's developers conferences, they spend 90% of the time talking about:
1) new hardware
2) new os features
3) new APIs to use the new os features
And these talks get watched by millions.
As for Microsoft their core business model is the OS providing services for their office / network apps to create a fully integrated suite. Arguably office, sharepoint.... are essentially part of the OS at this point.
The same universe where windows 95 is faster than XP on a Pentium-MMX with 64mb of ram but not on a 2 processor system with 2 gigs of ram.
But give it time, there is nothing about OSX or Linux that makes it more secure against idiots installing keyloggers, rootkits, and other malware into their systems. If they ever have the same sizeable legions of inept users then the malware authors will target them too.
What's interesting is the old NT model (capability based not permissions) is much more secure than anything OSX had or Linux had until recently (say the last 5 years). What killed it was that even the most basic windows apps didn't work well or integrate the security features, including explorer and office. So they ended up with a permissions system on top of the capability system.
The advantage that OSX and Linux have is a willingness to break badly written apps and not offer seamless version to version compatibility for app developers. Both of them have capability models now (SE LInux, Trusted BSD) they might pull ahead.
The other thing that Linux has is an OS model which allows for a heavily fragmented market with many many OSes with different balances of security vs. connivance.
Mac was the home platform for a while. Windows was the difficult (but essential) port for Wolfram research.
Add me to the list. I was a mathematica user since 1.3 (386 with math coprocessor). I had a version I bought around 1995 in '99 after time with tech support I basically got an FU in terms of trying to install on my new machine.
At this point I use maple which is much more reasonable. Mathematica has obnoxious copy protection, strict licensing and the best product out there.
I think you need to read what I wrote. I'm not trying to find out if the "know" i.e. they have faith, in the atomic theory but rather if they have some way of proving it, that is a defense. Ask them. I've done this experiment with lots of very educated people, almost invariably they can't defend the atomic theory vs. the continuous theory.
And again, they don't actually use the scientific method. They believe in the religion of scientism, and that is the problem.
Take for example Genesis 1:6-8 where you have the sky seperating the waters below (terrestrial water) from the water above (what comes down when it rains). Then in Genesis 1:14-19 God puts the sun, moon and the stars in the sky (i.e. beneath the water).
You see this same imagery in places like Ezekiel 1:22 where the sky is a sheet like a glittering crystal (i.e. stars are on it).
Should I keep going?
Yes I do. There is lots of creation science out there, they really do believe they have a plausible case that can be defended based on the evidence. In their view their opinions are rejected because the secular world has a secular religious belief and won't engage in a honest assessment of the evidence. She really does mean it when she says she wants honest debate since she thinks creationism will win. I really want it because I think it will be terrific for improving the quality of high school science to have any sorts of discussions / debates which cover theories in enough detail and back them with evidence.
IMHO this is a fantastic opportunity to improve the quality of science education and cool down part of the culture wars. Again think of creationism as no different than the continuous theory of matter or the non existence of irrational numbers, it is just an incorrect and disprovable theory useful for teaching students to think scientifically.
I understand what various Christians believe regarding transubstantiation/Metousiosis vs. consubstantiation vs. symbolic presence. My point to Grishnakh was that tongue speaking is just another denominational difference and his beliefs could be looked on equally hostilely. And while /. may not be the best place for religion chanting rituals go back well before 200 BCE when you see the first signs of things that could be called Christian. So arguably her's is the original and the claim that magical fire gave people the ability to speak in other languages came later.