Re:Too little too late. Macs will slowly die off.
on
MacOSX and X11
·
· Score: 1
Where to begin...
First and foremost, if you're to argue on the basis of specific facts, check them.
A quick bounce over to Apple's website would have shown you that the plain-vanilla imac does not have firewire. For that, you have to buy one of the DV models which cost $1300__three hundred dollars more than the standard imac, and an even greater premium than I myself mentioned.
While we're on the subject of imacs, it should be mentioned that they leave you with one and only one choice of monitor, while ethernet in a single CPU environment has a stunning similarity to tits on a bull.
You might want to bag the idea of automatically assuming that the person you're responding to is ignorant of macs because he/she has something to say other than "Go Apple." I've worked with them in one capacity or another since '92. I've done hardware work with them, resolved SCSI conflicts, installed drives and memory in them, and I've never lost a patient yet. I am not ignorant about Macs, I simply dislike them.
"It's not Unix, but it's worlds better than the Mac OS architecture of 3 years ago."
Actually, you're right, but then, a severe beating is arguably better than the function in question.
I last used MacOS 9, some months ago on a powermac G4 that I had set up out of the box. I installed bbedit and and one or two other apps on it. It was less than one day old and had nearly nothing on it in way of software: mirabile visu, it crashed at least once.
Before that, I had a stint in front of Blue and white G3 in the art department of a very large corporation. Watching it function was like watching an old silent movie where people slip around on soap foam and banana peels. At no time was the machine up for two consecutive hours.
Sometime before that, I had the pleasure of watching someone try to join a brand-new bronze keyboard powerbook to a network, and watching it go down over and over again. I saw this with my own eyes.
Yes, I do consider the entire publishing industry to be a niche.
Outside of MacUser candyland, publishing is a niche. Low-end graphics are a niche. Even if you were to double the figure of the most commonly quoted statistic regarding the distribution of OS in the real world (windows: 95% Apples and everything else: 5%), you are still talking about a niche market, in fact, you're talking about several different niche markets it's hard to tell because they're all very small.
"...the motorola machines where an abomination..."
I suppose it was esthetic revulsion then that caused Steve Jobs to refer to companies like Daystar (which was making advanced multiprocessor Macintoshes that still doesn't make) "parasites."
Please keep in mind, the fact that Apples have problems has nothing to do with any other computing system(s)and vice versa. Your friend's PC USB problems are his own affair and outside the scope of this argument.
If you took off the blue-and-white blinders, you might find that my note is concerned not with the development of servers versus Apple, or with Wintel versus Apple. What you would find is my belief that Apple's current success is based on burgeoning internet use among the clueless, and on graphics producers who aren't using something else and something better.
The point I made is that OSX is going to use a server software to do anything but serve, because using a multiuser, multisession operating system to do anything but shore up Mac OS's congenital defects runs counter to Apple's interests. It would allow Apple users to reduce their dependency on Apple hardware to get their work done.
Re:Too little too late. Macs will slowly die off.
on
MacOSX and X11
·
· Score: 1
"Macs slowly dying off?" We'll never be that lucky.
Outside of the print graphics area where Apple has and deserves a lock on the market, Apple's sales figures reflect adoption by people who want a fast and hassle-free sign-on to to the net via AOL (*cough,cough* Net-Porn *cough*)and are willing to pay a premium over the cost of Wintel systems and find themselves sealed out most of the software market to do it:
New imac= $1,000 new Dell home system with monitor and external speakers= $900. Go ahead, argue with it.
When thinking about Apple's sales figures, you really have to ask yourself, "how many weenies with too much cash can Apple access?"
On the other hand, OSX's, getting served could mean the beginning of something nightmarish for Apple: Someone using Apple's new UNIX base to serve applications remotely.
For years now, the stability of Apple computers has given rise to a wonderful run of cigarette breaks for the people who've sat in front of them. Now, Apple's adoption of BSD/NeXT technology is supposed to solve that by finally (finally!!) making some version of MacOS stable.
So far, all of this has involved a big sleight-of-hand trick where we're all supposed to put our fists in the air shouting "Go Apple!!" and not notice that the capability exists to have one of those ultra-powerful G4 machines serve multiple workstations thereby hammering Apple's bottom line.
Apple is a company that operates in a few niche markets selling its own hardware to run its own operating system in a hothouse market with no direct competition. Does anybody remember the first thing Steve Jobs did when he returned to Apple? That's right, he destroyed all the competition from licensees who were building Apples faster and cheaper than Apple itself did while Bill Gates looked on with envy...
With network speeds greater than ever, and cheap UNIX/Linux workstations costing less than imacs, it's pretty easy to imagine Steve Jobs waking up in a cold sweat from dreams involving people thinking of Apples as application servers with apps running on anything but Apple hardware.
With this in mind, you kinda wonder why so many Apple-huggers are smiling.
Yes, I believe this. I believe that someone at Spec made The "error" you point out stems from some interesting assumptions and I believe them.
I believe that he someone at Spec did the study and showed it to his superiors and that they were too brain-dead to notice. I am, in fact, so gullible that I believe that the people at Spec then released it to the press, and in the face of all the inevitable reaction, have not reviewed their findings.
With fast and direct access to everything you own and everything you do on their own servers, M$ will finally have a reason to write email-readers with tighter security.
Once that happens, the only way losers will be able to dominate your computer will be by sitting at a console and those will only be, well.... everywhere.
I think that indignation is not in order. I mean, we all assume that Gates and Co, are the masterminds at the center of a mailstrom of controversial brilliant strategies designed to rock the business world to it's foundations every time they use toilet paper.
"Gates and Balmer are brilliant!" "Microsoft plays hardball!" Yeah, right. How about a different theory: they're nucking futs!
Look at one end of the paper tube and you see a company with true moxie, with genuine chutzpah, that with a conviction on Sullivan Act violations still in the public's memory buffer is willing to keep up the tempo of scumbag activities because they've got it all worked out in advance how they're going to win hands down and nothing that anyone does or knows matters.
Look at it the other way, though and what you see is a bunch of supremely arrogant squirrels who couldn't get laid with a gun, doing the only things they can do because the voices in their heads tell them to. Corporate culture goes a long way.
It's an interesting way of looking at things, and only time will tell whether or not it will really work for them.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe that he someone at Spec did the study and showed it to his superiors and that they were too brain-dead to notice. I am, in fact, so gullible that I believe that the people at Spec then released it to the press, and in the face of all the inevitable reaction, have not reviewed their findings.
I also believe that slugs have wings.
Pull the other leg, it's got bells on it.
With fast and direct access to everything you own and
everything you do on their own servers, M$ will finally
have a reason to write email-readers with tighter
security.
Once that happens, the only way losers will be able to
dominate your computer will be by sitting at a console
and those will only be, well.... everywhere.
"Gates and Balmer are brilliant!" "Microsoft plays hardball!" Yeah, right. How about a different theory: they're nucking futs!
Look at one end of the paper tube and you see a company with true moxie, with genuine chutzpah, that with a conviction on Sullivan Act violations still in the public's memory buffer is willing to keep up the tempo of scumbag activities because they've got it all worked out in advance how they're going to win hands down and nothing that anyone does or knows matters.
Look at it the other way, though and what you see is a bunch of supremely arrogant squirrels who couldn't get laid with a gun, doing the only things they can do because the voices in their heads tell them to. Corporate culture goes a long way.
It's an interesting way of looking at things, and only time will tell whether or not it will really work for them.
TygerFish