Hungrier: They give metric measurements to the cake maker, and the cake doesn't fit through the door ("No! 100 centimeter rocket cake, not 100 inch rocket cake!").
The stuff the bad guys use, is the same as the stuff the good guys use. You CAN'T make changes to one without affecting the other.
That's totally untrue. It's not like everyone has to run from the same code base. I didn't seen the proposed legislation in detail, but you can easily put in exception clauses, or special licensing, or whatever. A bank can easily run something different than what is used by private citizens.
Quite frankly, you remind me of a welfare recipient. You have been so conditioned to look to government for everything that you can't see that the government will NEVER be able to give you what you want.
If you truly care about getting into space -- and staying there -- there is only one solution, and that is to get government completely out of the space business (except maybe the military). For us to have permanent presence in space requires self sustaining colonies and stations. A colony is not going to be self sustaining if it is dependent on the government sending a check to keep it alive.
We need private, self-supporting space colonies, not more examples of government incompetence like the space station.
The point he's trying to make is that the attitude of "criminals use encrypted transmissions so it must be stopped" will also have the effect of halting "banks using secure transmissions".
This is what I find annoying, however: No one has argued banning all encryption. It's like all the fools who think the recently passed legislation defines any hacking as terrorism. The only thing that exceeds the arrogance of these posts is the ignorance.
Like I said, I'm not a fan of the legislation, but advocating marching on Washington to lecture people about what they already know indicates the ignorance of the "marchers", not the legislators.
Isn't it strange how "Encryption" is bad, but "Secure" is good despite the fact that they are the exact same thing? Criminals encrypt their transmissions but Bankers make "secure transmissions"
Why would you think this is strange -- at all? That's like saying, "isn't it strange how 'bankrobbing' is bad, but 'bank withdrawals' are good despite the fact that they are the exact same thing? Criminals rob banks, but brinks trucks make 'legal withdrawals'".
Any laws are designed to deal with illegal uses of tools, rather than legal uses of tools. I'm not necessarily in favor of that legislation, but there's no contradiction here like you seem to believe.
They sued MS. Get over it already. They did not 'sue everyone...'
Yes, they did. HP had NewWave, and Apple sued them as well. There weren't that many graphical environments for the PC at the time, but Apple sued 'em all. Do a google search on "Apple look and feel lawsuit". You will be amazed and astounded by what Apple claimed were infringements ("zooming rectangles" is one of my favorites).
You also seem deeply fascinated with what you could do with your PC instead of what you will do with it. Mac users aren't like that for the most part.
The point isn't whether Apple should push upgradability, the point is that they actively went out of their way to prevent upgrades. Fine, if someone never upgrades their iMac, they don't upgrade it. But why intentionally take away that freedom from the customer? It doesn't hurt the ones who don't choose to exercise that freedom.
I agree that the iMac isn't intended for someone like me, but it's symptomatic of arrogance of the company.
Aw, you gotta be shittin' me! From Sun's Java hype to the XP and.Net hype of MS, to the users of dead operating systems like BeOS and Amiga who still seem to think they'll take over the world like they were promised.
Give me a quote: What did Sun say about Java that was flat-out untrue? They never said it was a speed demon. They actually never said it was going to take over the world, either. "Hype" is not lies, it's a lot of people jumping on bandwagons. Apple is not "hyping" their products when they claim it's "twice as fast", they are lying about them. Forget Sun, give me a quote by Satan's spawn, Microsoft. Give me a quote where they lied about the capabilities of the product. How about BeOS? Give me the lie. Amiga? Intel? Dell? Gateway? If "everyone does it", I'm sure you must have a quote where they put out a "fact" that was provably wrong. Look, I don't even call Apple's repeated incompetence with coming out with a modern operating system a "lie". Schedules change. But that advertising campaign was an out-and-out disgrace.
What they are is a minority company leveraging whatever advantage they can get to fight a company that isn't happy have "just" 95% of the market.
So if you're a minority company, it's OK to lie about your products and mislead your customers?
Put it this way, if Intel made claims that they were "twice as fast" as the G4 for one specific, useless benchmark but played it up like all applications were twice as fast, would you or other Mac people like you give them the same benefit? I highly doubt it.
OS X turns the trash can INTO an eject button when you highlight a CD or removable media device. It turns the trash can into a disconnect button when you highlight a network connection.
Err, how is intuitive that the trash can turns into an eject button?
I mean, I'll give them credit for finally trying to fix that original foolishness (I'm sure the guy who originally did it rues the day), but let's not pretend that it isn't still a kludge.
When did Apple prevent you from buying a computer from another manufacturer?
Why they tried to sue everyone who had a competing computer that used pixels. They sued everyone who had a competing GUI regardless of whether it even worked like the Mac or not (Win 3.1 bears absolutely no resemblence to the Mac, but that didn't stop Apple).
Darwin is even free for the taking and can be installed on x86 equipment.
Yeah, thanks Apple, for giving me BSD which I can already get. But you'll note that anything above the Kernel is strictly verboten. You'll note that Apple threatens to sue anyone that tries to make anything that even looks like OS X (like the themes).
I think you need to open your eyes and see what Apple really produces.
Maybe you should open your eyes and see that what Apple primarily produces is lawsuits.
Uh, do I need to even point out that your statement is true for most anything? From your OS to your hardware to your car and house, you're "locked in" if you think of it as an investment.
There are different levels of "locked in". If I buy a software package for the PC, I can buy a different PC from a different manufacturer without having to throw away my software. With Apple you have one place to go -- back to Apple.
I can upgrade my processor -- from many different suppliers. I can upgrade my motherboard -- from several different manufacturers. Apple, in the case of the iMac, intentionally made it difficult if not impossible to upgrade. We can't be cannibilizing the sales of our more expensive models, you know.
I'd say you're more locked into a PC because there is no VirtualPPC software to let you test out OS X.
And there is a reason there is no VirtualPPC that is commonly used on the PC. Because there is no software that is Mac-only that creates a reason for VirtualPPC. I love Unix, and would love to have a truly consumer-friendly system that was Unix based. But I have a Linux box that I use all day, in addition to my Win2K box, so it's more curiosity than something I can't do without.
You say that as though they were the only ones. Everyone twists and turns whatever statistics they get their hands on for their own benefit. It happens in the Linux community, too, you know.
Ah yes, the ol' "well, everyone lies" argument. No, everyone DOES NOT flat out lie and mislead like Apple does. Can you find exaggerations by other computer companies? Sure. But not at the level of disinformation that Apple puts out. The Mac has NEVER been twice as fast as a PC for practical purposes. Never. Yet Apple knowingly put that in their ads for the express purposes of misleading people. Show me another computer company -- even Microsoft -- that has ever told such a bald-faced falsehood.
And by the way, you will get no argument from me that many Linux advocates don't live in any kind of reality, either. But that's different from a company taking someone's money in unethical ways.
You are locked into Apple forever? Does Steve Jobs have a gun pointed at your puny little brain?
The point is that you are locked in if you don't want to throw away your investment.
I can run [...] Windows 95, Windows NT, BeOS, Linux PPC and Linux x86
Yeah, in a crappy, emulated environment. It's real convenient having to fire up the emulator. Why not just use the apps you want to use on a native hardware?
I can put it on eBay and recover more than 50% of my investment. You are not going to do that with a POS intel box -- no matter who assembles it.
Well, duh, of course you can. That's because it's an artificially tight market. The reason you can't sell used PC hardware is because you can buy better hardware for the same price because of the commoditization of hardware in the PC market. The resale value of Mac hardware is a disadvantage -- that's an indication that the newer stuff is not much better than the older stuff.
This is the sort of gripe I would expect from someone with ZERO interest in capitalism (your Anti-American article link shows your true colors).
LOL! I see you've never seen any posts by me in the past. I am one of huge defenders of Capitalism on Slashdot, not to mention the USA's right to destroy the barbarians (anti-american article!?). Which is why I hate Apple -- they are anti-competition. They are not protecting their "intellectual property", they are protecting their monopoly position. A colored computer is not intellectual property. A gumdrop-shaped button is not intellectual property. The GUI was not intellectual property.
Harley Davidson would not have the right to prevent other motorcycle makers from stealing the sound of their exhaust system. Which they do successfully when challenged. Are you anti-HOG as well?
Actually, I detest Harley Davidsons (too f'ing loud), but that's irrelevent. No, they don't have the right to an "exhaust note". That's simply absurd. And I'm a huge intellectual property advocate. I don't believe in music trading, and I don't believe in software trading. If H/D thinks their engine sound is what their about, then maybe they should think about making motorcycles instead.
When Jobs killed the clones, he saved Mac OS from running on sub par quality hardware like most x86 machines.
What Jobs killed was your freedom to buy what you want. Fine, if you don't like Power Computing's stuff, then don't buy it. But it really takes a Mac Zealot to say that you are better off without the choice.
Apple has demonstrated at MacWorld this fact time and time again.
Apple has demonstrated smoke and mirrors time and again, but funny how when people benchmark real applications, you don't see it. You can find certain things that have been optimized for the Mac, but on average, it's about 20% faster clock-for-clock. Their advertising used the bullshit, ancient "integer Bytemark" that proved absolutely nothing about real world performance. Apple is a pack of liars when it comes to their advertising.
Apple can only assure that by building the product itself. The clone fiasco proved that. Mac users will just point our fingers at you and laugh at your Mac bigotry.
And the rest of the world will laugh back as you convince each other that you're really better off with only Apple as your sole supplier. Competition is such an overrated concept.
You are locked into Apple forever? Does Steve Jobs have a gun pointed at your puny little brain?
The point is that you are locked in if you don't want to throw away your investment.
I can run [...] Windows 95, Windows NT, BeOS, Linux PPC and Linux x86
Yeah, in a crappy, emulated environment. It's real convenient having to fire up the emulator. Why not just use the apps you want to use on a native hardware?
I can put it on eBay and recover more than 50% of my investment. You are not going to do that with a POS intel box -- no matter who assembles it.
Well, duh, of course you can. That's because it's an artificially tight market. The reason you can't sell used PC hardware is because you can buy better hardware for the same price because of the commoditization of hardware in the PC market. The resale value of Mac hardware is a disadvantage -- that's an indication that the newer stuff is not much better than the older stuff.
This is the sort of gripe I would expect from someone with ZERO interest in capitalism (your Anti-American article link shows your true colors).
LOL! I see you've never seen any posts by me in the past. I am one of huge defenders of Capitalism on Slashdot, not to mention the USA's right to destroy the barbarians (anti-american article!?). Which is why I hate Apple -- they are anti-competition. They are not protecting their "intellectual property", they are protecting their monopoly position. A colored computer is not intellectual property. A gumdrop-shaped button is not intellectual property. The GUI was not intellectual property.
Harley Davidson would not have the right to prevent other motorcycle makers from stealing the sound of their exhaust system. Which they do successfully when challenged. Are you anti-HOG as well?
Actually, I detest Harley Davidsons (too f'ing loud), but that's irrelevent. No, they don't have the right to an "exhaust note". That's simply absurd. And I'm a huge intellectual property advocate. I don't believe in music trading, and I don't believe in software trading. If H/D thinks their engine sound is what their about, then maybe they should think about making motorcycles instead.
When Jobs killed the clones, he saved Mac OS from running on sub par quality hardware like most x86 machines.
What Jobs killed was your freedom to buy what you want. Fine, if you don't like Power Computing's stuff, then don't buy it. But it really takes a Mac Zealot to say that you are better off without the choice.
Apple has demonstrated at MacWorld this fact time and time again.
Apple has demonstrated smoke and mirrors time and again, but funny how when people benchmark real applications, you don't see it. You can find certain things that have been optimized for the Mac, but on average, it's about 20% faster clock-for-clock. Their advertising used the bullshit, ancient "integer Bytemark" that proved absolutely nothing about real world performance. Apple is a pack of liars when it comes to their advertising.
Mac users will just point our fingers at you and laugh at your Mac bigotry.
And the rest of the world will laugh back as you convince each other that you're really better off with only Apple as your sole supplier. Competition is such an overrated concept.
are there any valid reasons why he'd like to stay away from macs?
Probably the same reasons that many of us stay away from anything from Apple: It's overpriced, and you are locked in to Apple forever. People like to talk about Microsoft's "monopoly" but it's nothing compared to Apple. You are totally at their mercy, and they haven't exactly been merciful in the past.
That's the practical reason, but you can also choose to stay away from them for moral reasons. Apple lives and dies by the lawsuit. At least Microsoft doesn't sue everyone in existence for ridiculous reasons (like "copying" the concept of a computer with a built-in monitor in a bright color).
Or you could dislike them for how they stabbed the clone manufacturers in the back.
Or you could dislike them for flat-out lies in their advertising ("twice as fast").
Ironically, Apple now actually makes a product that I'm semi-interested in, namely OS/X. But I will never, ever EVER give Apple any money. I'm hoping that someone will make an OS/X clone.
50% slower? Java is at least 80-90% slower (5-10x) that equivalent C code, according to my various tests (particularly XML parsing), and that's using Sun's latest compiler and environment. I like Java-the-language in a lot of ways, but the JVM is a millstone that will never be overcome.
How far would Microsoft have gotten if they "broke binary compatibility" with major releases of Windows? Basically, not far at all. That's not to say that Windows has perfect backward compatibility, but I don't think it's too strong a statement to say that one of the reasons Microsoft has dominated is that they have given people an upgrade path for their old applications.
Of course, the downside to this philosophy is the incredibly crufty interfaces to a lot of the Windows functionality. But I think it's key to point out that users don't care at all about those things -- they just care that their applications work.
If the desktop dreamers ever want to see Linux on the desktop, then they need to not destroy everyone's applications if you want to upgrade. Just telling everone to "recompile your applications" is not going to fly well with the typical user.
Ditzel said Transmeta will prove, despite Intel's claims to the contrary, that the TM5800 beats Intel's lowest power chip by a factor of 2 to 1. "And when we go to our highly integrated chip, we're going to take off another 44 percent," he said. "So we think we've got a substantial lead today, and we're going to keep that."
And yet when we look at these laptops with their lower power processors, there is VERY little added battery life, for the simple reason that the processor is not the major consumer of power in a notebook.
When you factor in that the processors are much slower than the equivalent Intel or AMD (by how much varies by who you ask and what you're doing), and there doesn't seem to be any price break, why would anyone want to use a Transmeta processor?
Transmeta needs to stop trying to sell me that they are "more l33t than Intel" and show me products that are SIGNIFICANTLY better. If they can give me, say, twice the battery life it might be worth switching to an off-brand processor that is much slower.
That story was two years ago. I would believe that they use it internally, I just find it strange that they don't play it up -- at all. Even the StarOffice web site doesn't seem to mention that Sun uses it.
You can think all you want that it's no big deal, but given McNealys hatred of everything Microsoft, I find it very suspicious that they don't play it up as any kind of success story.
Does Sun use StarOffice exclusively within Sun? Maybe I just haven't seen all the press releases of them touting how much money they save and the huge success it has been, but isn't a little funny that they don't make a huge deal of Sun being "100% pure StarOffice -- Microsoft free?"
First off, obviously Hatch doesn't know the differences between a hacker and a cracker.
No, he is using EXACTLY the right word. I'm so tired of people redefining this word, and then getting pissed when others don't recognize their attempts to redefine it.
One of the original definitions of hacker was one who breaks into computers. ESR has attempted to "deprecate" this meaning, but I don't recognize his right to deprecate, and no one else should either.
That's one of the definitions of hacker. Get over it.
Senate Trashes Civil Liberties; House to Vote Today
Only one -- ONE -- senator voted against. Maybe it's not as bad as you think?
When I see bullshit inflammitory headlines like this, it makes me sick. Sick that someone is so stupid that they just assume that ANY legislation that expands the power and ability of the FBI is automatically bad. Sick that they can't actually identify what's wrong with the legislation.
And sick that he is using the same tactics that he accuses others of using: Using flaming rhetoric rather than facts to scare people into going along with him.
Slashdot Mirror
Hungrier: They give metric measurements to the cake maker, and the cake doesn't fit through the door ("No! 100 centimeter rocket cake, not 100 inch rocket cake!").
The stuff the bad guys use, is the same as the stuff the good guys use. You CAN'T make changes to one without affecting the other.
That's totally untrue. It's not like everyone has to run from the same code base. I didn't seen the proposed legislation in detail, but you can easily put in exception clauses, or special licensing, or whatever. A bank can easily run something different than what is used by private citizens.
Quite frankly, you remind me of a welfare recipient. You have been so conditioned to look to government for everything that you can't see that the government will NEVER be able to give you what you want.
If you truly care about getting into space -- and staying there -- there is only one solution, and that is to get government completely out of the space business (except maybe the military). For us to have permanent presence in space requires self sustaining colonies and stations. A colony is not going to be self sustaining if it is dependent on the government sending a check to keep it alive.
We need private, self-supporting space colonies, not more examples of government incompetence like the space station.
The point he's trying to make is that the attitude of "criminals use encrypted transmissions so it must be stopped" will also have the effect of halting "banks using secure transmissions".
This is what I find annoying, however: No one has argued banning all encryption. It's like all the fools who think the recently passed legislation defines any hacking as terrorism. The only thing that exceeds the arrogance of these posts is the ignorance.
Like I said, I'm not a fan of the legislation, but advocating marching on Washington to lecture people about what they already know indicates the ignorance of the "marchers", not the legislators.
Isn't it strange how "Encryption" is bad, but "Secure" is good despite the fact that they are the exact same thing? Criminals encrypt their transmissions but Bankers make "secure transmissions"
Why would you think this is strange -- at all? That's like saying, "isn't it strange how 'bankrobbing' is bad, but 'bank withdrawals' are good despite the fact that they are the exact same thing? Criminals rob banks, but brinks trucks make 'legal withdrawals'".
Any laws are designed to deal with illegal uses of tools, rather than legal uses of tools. I'm not necessarily in favor of that legislation, but there's no contradiction here like you seem to believe.
They sued MS. Get over it already. They did not 'sue everyone ...'
Yes, they did. HP had NewWave, and Apple sued them as well. There weren't that many graphical environments for the PC at the time, but Apple sued 'em all. Do a google search on "Apple look and feel lawsuit". You will be amazed and astounded by what Apple claimed were infringements ("zooming rectangles" is one of my favorites).
You also seem deeply fascinated with what you could do with your PC instead of what you will do with it. Mac users aren't like that for the most part.
The point isn't whether Apple should push upgradability, the point is that they actively went out of their way to prevent upgrades. Fine, if someone never upgrades their iMac, they don't upgrade it. But why intentionally take away that freedom from the customer? It doesn't hurt the ones who don't choose to exercise that freedom.
I agree that the iMac isn't intended for someone like me, but it's symptomatic of arrogance of the company.
Aw, you gotta be shittin' me! From Sun's Java hype to the XP and .Net hype of MS, to the users of dead operating systems like BeOS and Amiga who still seem to think they'll take over the world like they were promised.
Give me a quote: What did Sun say about Java that was flat-out untrue? They never said it was a speed demon. They actually never said it was going to take over the world, either. "Hype" is not lies, it's a lot of people jumping on bandwagons. Apple is not "hyping" their products when they claim it's "twice as fast", they are lying about them. Forget Sun, give me a quote by Satan's spawn, Microsoft. Give me a quote where they lied about the capabilities of the product. How about BeOS? Give me the lie. Amiga? Intel? Dell? Gateway? If "everyone does it", I'm sure you must have a quote where they put out a "fact" that was provably wrong. Look, I don't even call Apple's repeated incompetence with coming out with a modern operating system a "lie". Schedules change. But that advertising campaign was an out-and-out disgrace.
What they are is a minority company leveraging whatever advantage they can get to fight a company that isn't happy have "just" 95% of the market.
So if you're a minority company, it's OK to lie about your products and mislead your customers?
Put it this way, if Intel made claims that they were "twice as fast" as the G4 for one specific, useless benchmark but played it up like all applications were twice as fast, would you or other Mac people like you give them the same benefit? I highly doubt it.
OS X turns the trash can INTO an eject button when you highlight a CD or removable media device. It turns the trash can into a disconnect button when you highlight a network connection.
Err, how is intuitive that the trash can turns into an eject button?
I mean, I'll give them credit for finally trying to fix that original foolishness (I'm sure the guy who originally did it rues the day), but let's not pretend that it isn't still a kludge.
Nice sig, though. I'm not sure about the conclusions that are drawn, but that's me.
FYI to anyone reading this... I just changed my .sig. You can see the Newsweek article he's referring to in my journal.
When did Apple prevent you from buying a computer from another manufacturer?
Why they tried to sue everyone who had a competing computer that used pixels. They sued everyone who had a competing GUI regardless of whether it even worked like the Mac or not (Win 3.1 bears absolutely no resemblence to the Mac, but that didn't stop Apple).
Darwin is even free for the taking and can be installed on x86 equipment.
Yeah, thanks Apple, for giving me BSD which I can already get. But you'll note that anything above the Kernel is strictly verboten. You'll note that Apple threatens to sue anyone that tries to make anything that even looks like OS X (like the themes).
I think you need to open your eyes and see what Apple really produces.
Maybe you should open your eyes and see that what Apple primarily produces is lawsuits.
Uh, do I need to even point out that your statement is true for most anything? From your OS to your hardware to your car and house, you're "locked in" if you think of it as an investment.
There are different levels of "locked in". If I buy a software package for the PC, I can buy a different PC from a different manufacturer without having to throw away my software. With Apple you have one place to go -- back to Apple. I can upgrade my processor -- from many different suppliers. I can upgrade my motherboard -- from several different manufacturers. Apple, in the case of the iMac, intentionally made it difficult if not impossible to upgrade. We can't be cannibilizing the sales of our more expensive models, you know.
I'd say you're more locked into a PC because there is no VirtualPPC software to let you test out OS X.
And there is a reason there is no VirtualPPC that is commonly used on the PC. Because there is no software that is Mac-only that creates a reason for VirtualPPC. I love Unix, and would love to have a truly consumer-friendly system that was Unix based. But I have a Linux box that I use all day, in addition to my Win2K box, so it's more curiosity than something I can't do without.
You say that as though they were the only ones. Everyone twists and turns whatever statistics they get their hands on for their own benefit. It happens in the Linux community, too, you know.
Ah yes, the ol' "well, everyone lies" argument. No, everyone DOES NOT flat out lie and mislead like Apple does. Can you find exaggerations by other computer companies? Sure. But not at the level of disinformation that Apple puts out. The Mac has NEVER been twice as fast as a PC for practical purposes. Never. Yet Apple knowingly put that in their ads for the express purposes of misleading people. Show me another computer company -- even Microsoft -- that has ever told such a bald-faced falsehood.
And by the way, you will get no argument from me that many Linux advocates don't live in any kind of reality, either. But that's different from a company taking someone's money in unethical ways.
Freaking crap Slashdot. I wish they would actually keep the site working correctly. Sorry for the duplicate post.
You are locked into Apple forever? Does Steve Jobs have a gun pointed at your puny little brain?
The point is that you are locked in if you don't want to throw away your investment.
I can run [...] Windows 95, Windows NT, BeOS, Linux PPC and Linux x86
Yeah, in a crappy, emulated environment. It's real convenient having to fire up the emulator. Why not just use the apps you want to use on a native hardware?
I can put it on eBay and recover more than 50% of my investment. You are not going to do that with a POS intel box -- no matter who assembles it.
Well, duh, of course you can. That's because it's an artificially tight market. The reason you can't sell used PC hardware is because you can buy better hardware for the same price because of the commoditization of hardware in the PC market. The resale value of Mac hardware is a disadvantage -- that's an indication that the newer stuff is not much better than the older stuff.
This is the sort of gripe I would expect from someone with ZERO interest in capitalism (your Anti-American article link shows your true colors).
LOL! I see you've never seen any posts by me in the past. I am one of huge defenders of Capitalism on Slashdot, not to mention the USA's right to destroy the barbarians (anti-american article!?). Which is why I hate Apple -- they are anti-competition. They are not protecting their "intellectual property", they are protecting their monopoly position. A colored computer is not intellectual property. A gumdrop-shaped button is not intellectual property. The GUI was not intellectual property.
Harley Davidson would not have the right to prevent other motorcycle makers from stealing the sound of their exhaust system. Which they do successfully when challenged. Are you anti-HOG as well?
Actually, I detest Harley Davidsons (too f'ing loud), but that's irrelevent. No, they don't have the right to an "exhaust note". That's simply absurd. And I'm a huge intellectual property advocate. I don't believe in music trading, and I don't believe in software trading. If H/D thinks their engine sound is what their about, then maybe they should think about making motorcycles instead.
When Jobs killed the clones, he saved Mac OS from running on sub par quality hardware like most x86 machines.
What Jobs killed was your freedom to buy what you want. Fine, if you don't like Power Computing's stuff, then don't buy it. But it really takes a Mac Zealot to say that you are better off without the choice.
Apple has demonstrated at MacWorld this fact time and time again.
Apple has demonstrated smoke and mirrors time and again, but funny how when people benchmark real applications, you don't see it. You can find certain things that have been optimized for the Mac, but on average, it's about 20% faster clock-for-clock. Their advertising used the bullshit, ancient "integer Bytemark" that proved absolutely nothing about real world performance. Apple is a pack of liars when it comes to their advertising.
Apple can only assure that by building the product itself. The clone fiasco proved that. Mac users will just point our fingers at you and laugh at your Mac bigotry.
And the rest of the world will laugh back as you convince each other that you're really better off with only Apple as your sole supplier. Competition is such an overrated concept.
You are locked into Apple forever? Does Steve Jobs have a gun pointed at your puny little brain?
The point is that you are locked in if you don't want to throw away your investment.
I can run [...] Windows 95, Windows NT, BeOS, Linux PPC and Linux x86
Yeah, in a crappy, emulated environment. It's real convenient having to fire up the emulator. Why not just use the apps you want to use on a native hardware?
I can put it on eBay and recover more than 50% of my investment. You are not going to do that with a POS intel box -- no matter who assembles it.
Well, duh, of course you can. That's because it's an artificially tight market. The reason you can't sell used PC hardware is because you can buy better hardware for the same price because of the commoditization of hardware in the PC market. The resale value of Mac hardware is a disadvantage -- that's an indication that the newer stuff is not much better than the older stuff.
This is the sort of gripe I would expect from someone with ZERO interest in capitalism (your Anti-American article link shows your true colors).
LOL! I see you've never seen any posts by me in the past. I am one of huge defenders of Capitalism on Slashdot, not to mention the USA's right to destroy the barbarians (anti-american article!?). Which is why I hate Apple -- they are anti-competition. They are not protecting their "intellectual property", they are protecting their monopoly position. A colored computer is not intellectual property. A gumdrop-shaped button is not intellectual property. The GUI was not intellectual property.
Harley Davidson would not have the right to prevent other motorcycle makers from stealing the sound of their exhaust system. Which they do successfully when challenged. Are you anti-HOG as well?
Actually, I detest Harley Davidsons (too f'ing loud), but that's irrelevent. No, they don't have the right to an "exhaust note". That's simply absurd. And I'm a huge intellectual property advocate. I don't believe in music trading, and I don't believe in software trading. If H/D thinks their engine sound is what their about, then maybe they should think about making motorcycles instead.
When Jobs killed the clones, he saved Mac OS from running on sub par quality hardware like most x86 machines.
What Jobs killed was your freedom to buy what you want. Fine, if you don't like Power Computing's stuff, then don't buy it. But it really takes a Mac Zealot to say that you are better off without the choice.
Apple has demonstrated at MacWorld this fact time and time again.
Apple has demonstrated smoke and mirrors time and again, but funny how when people benchmark real applications, you don't see it. You can find certain things that have been optimized for the Mac, but on average, it's about 20% faster clock-for-clock. Their advertising used the bullshit, ancient "integer Bytemark" that proved absolutely nothing about real world performance. Apple is a pack of liars when it comes to their advertising.
Mac users will just point our fingers at you and laugh at your Mac bigotry.
And the rest of the world will laugh back as you convince each other that you're really better off with only Apple as your sole supplier. Competition is such an overrated concept.
are there any valid reasons why he'd like to stay away from macs?
Probably the same reasons that many of us stay away from anything from Apple: It's overpriced, and you are locked in to Apple forever. People like to talk about Microsoft's "monopoly" but it's nothing compared to Apple. You are totally at their mercy, and they haven't exactly been merciful in the past.
That's the practical reason, but you can also choose to stay away from them for moral reasons. Apple lives and dies by the lawsuit. At least Microsoft doesn't sue everyone in existence for ridiculous reasons (like "copying" the concept of a computer with a built-in monitor in a bright color).
Or you could dislike them for how they stabbed the clone manufacturers in the back.
Or you could dislike them for flat-out lies in their advertising ("twice as fast").
Ironically, Apple now actually makes a product that I'm semi-interested in, namely OS/X. But I will never, ever EVER give Apple any money. I'm hoping that someone will make an OS/X clone.
50% slower? Java is at least 80-90% slower (5-10x) that equivalent C code, according to my various tests (particularly XML parsing), and that's using Sun's latest compiler and environment. I like Java-the-language in a lot of ways, but the JVM is a millstone that will never be overcome.
No, it should be Linus/HURD... just to irritate RMS. :->
How far would Microsoft have gotten if they "broke binary compatibility" with major releases of Windows? Basically, not far at all. That's not to say that Windows has perfect backward compatibility, but I don't think it's too strong a statement to say that one of the reasons Microsoft has dominated is that they have given people an upgrade path for their old applications.
Of course, the downside to this philosophy is the incredibly crufty interfaces to a lot of the Windows functionality. But I think it's key to point out that users don't care at all about those things -- they just care that their applications work.
If the desktop dreamers ever want to see Linux on the desktop, then they need to not destroy everyone's applications if you want to upgrade. Just telling everone to "recompile your applications" is not going to fly well with the typical user.
Ditzel said Transmeta will prove, despite Intel's claims to the contrary, that the TM5800 beats Intel's lowest power chip by a factor of 2 to 1. "And when we go to our highly integrated chip, we're going to take off another 44 percent," he said. "So we think we've got a substantial lead today, and we're going to keep that."
And yet when we look at these laptops with their lower power processors, there is VERY little added battery life, for the simple reason that the processor is not the major consumer of power in a notebook.
When you factor in that the processors are much slower than the equivalent Intel or AMD (by how much varies by who you ask and what you're doing), and there doesn't seem to be any price break, why would anyone want to use a Transmeta processor?
Transmeta needs to stop trying to sell me that they are "more l33t than Intel" and show me products that are SIGNIFICANTLY better. If they can give me, say, twice the battery life it might be worth switching to an off-brand processor that is much slower.
That story was two years ago. I would believe that they use it internally, I just find it strange that they don't play it up -- at all. Even the StarOffice web site doesn't seem to mention that Sun uses it.
You can think all you want that it's no big deal, but given McNealys hatred of everything Microsoft, I find it very suspicious that they don't play it up as any kind of success story.
Does Sun use StarOffice exclusively within Sun? Maybe I just haven't seen all the press releases of them touting how much money they save and the huge success it has been, but isn't a little funny that they don't make a huge deal of Sun being "100% pure StarOffice -- Microsoft free?"
I was wondering if posting this joke would get Taco to post on his own site. :)
First off, obviously Hatch doesn't know the differences between a hacker and a cracker.
No, he is using EXACTLY the right word. I'm so tired of people redefining this word, and then getting pissed when others don't recognize their attempts to redefine it.
One of the original definitions of hacker was one who breaks into computers. ESR has attempted to "deprecate" this meaning, but I don't recognize his right to deprecate, and no one else should either.
That's one of the definitions of hacker. Get over it.
Senate Trashes Civil Liberties; House to Vote Today
Only one -- ONE -- senator voted against. Maybe it's not as bad as you think?
When I see bullshit inflammitory headlines like this, it makes me sick. Sick that someone is so stupid that they just assume that ANY legislation that expands the power and ability of the FBI is automatically bad. Sick that they can't actually identify what's wrong with the legislation.
And sick that he is using the same tactics that he accuses others of using: Using flaming rhetoric rather than facts to scare people into going along with him.
I don't f-king think so! They got ripped off by the record labels...
That may or may not be true, but they don't get zero.