There's no accounting for taste. Much of what you cite is personal preference. It is not borne out by neither the majority nor the trend of users.
Discarding the needs and inputs of several of those in the chain of what-makes-a-good-computer is convenient, but unrealistic. e.g., Apple techs are likely not clobbering Apple kit when servicing it just becasue the tolerances are tighter.
Price delta stopped being an issue 6 years ago. Comparing the weight of the two while discarding the tech specs is also meaningless. Your T23 ran a PIII at 1+ GHZ on a 13 (maybe 14) inch screen with a combo drive (maybe) for (maybe) three hours. The current MBP runs core2duo at 2+GHz on a 15 inch widescreen with a superdrive for 5 hours.
The T23's also outclassed by a plain MacBook at the weight you wanted. And that's at only $15 more than a current T60 feature matched.
Apple's market share is increasing largely with their notebooks. The design has been essentially frozen for 6 years now, so we can remove that variable. Why then would more and more people be buying them?
My original point was the way apple has found to sell systems against all odds. Cool stuff that works and that people want.
My second point answered the question "museum-worthy?" in that they are in museums. Pretty good ones, too.
Now to your latest question: How does this make them better personal computers?
Depends on your point of view. Take an iBook G4:
- from the designer's POV: this will sell. To them that's a better PC. - from the sales dept POV: goodby most dongles. To them that's a better PC. - from the consumer's POV: this is cool | I want one | super-tough plastic | no snagging | least buttons. To them that's a better PC. - from the service / support POV: fewer things to snap off. To them that's a better PC. - from the users' POV: I can lift this thing. To them that's a better PC.
They person you talked to has a script in front of him which is badly written. I'm guessing he dropped back 10 and punted. So that's at the least a problem of poor communications, but not proven to be a problem of closed source.
Parallels is apparently getting it done with Apple's blessing and cooperation. So there's no problem there.
Apple's purpose in releasing any of their source is to make sure people can write apps and add-ons that make OSX an uber-amazing OS that runs on museum-worthy hardware and makes people want to buy more of their systems.
You can modify 99% of what happens on a Mac through writing apps and add-ons and tweaking the system through available source.
Apple, and every other for-profit computer company has to balance the attractive value of the modifications they allow against the remaining allowances that would torpedo their business model.
Hence opening everything would not be in their best interest. Beyond that, the serial grousing about the APSL limits is a bit like grousing that your fork isn't on the left. It will still get food to your mouth.
And let's see - that last paragraph pretty much says "that's a nice computer company youse got there - wouldn't want nothin' to happen to it, if you know what I mean - I'm not sayin' anything, I'm just sayin'..."
Please. You're going to stop recommending Apple to grandma and her gamer grandkids who will never EVER need the sort of kernel mods that you are discussing here. Never mind that when they get to the Apple store how much influence do you think the dire warnings of their local Nick Burns (or was that Christopher Moltisanti?) is going to have in the face of great hardware that can run the three major OSs? How soon do you think we'll hear "Sorry, Steve, but Boeing's going to WalMart for Linspire boxes - hey, but you call us when we can totally hack your kernel."
Should realize the value of "innnocent til proven guilty". Or did he forget all that blanket isolation and persecution of gay men as little more than disease vectors.
Proprietary software is for capitalist pigs! It's just the man trying to keep us down! Information wants to be free! That's it. I'm dumping every jpeg and disabling it on my brows....
I was directing a college station in 1979-80 when they kicked us all out of the 10-watt program and bumped us up to >+100, guess they moved power but kept the bands where they were.
That's one interpretation, another is that "That guy" was trying to keep a bunch of people under a thumb - this rhymes with the dire warnings and world-changing consequences of knowledge from Genesis, which just maybe were designed by a clergy to keep people doing what they're told without asking too many questions.
Yes, there are lots of silly ideas, that might not be proved statistsically, that make all sorts of people feel better about their existence. Problem is, that line of reasoning opens the gate to such "basic truths" as Blacks can't swim, Jews are cheap, Chinese are lousy drivers, Mexicans are lazy, Women are weak and those o-rings on the Shuttle will be just fine.
And you're right - as a statistically smart person, I just can't bring myself to believe any of them.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no accounting for taste.
Much of what you cite is personal preference.
It is not borne out by neither the majority nor the trend of users.
Discarding the needs and inputs of several of those in the chain of what-makes-a-good-computer is convenient, but unrealistic.
e.g., Apple techs are likely not clobbering Apple kit when servicing it just becasue the tolerances are tighter.
Price delta stopped being an issue 6 years ago.
Comparing the weight of the two while discarding the tech specs is also meaningless.
Your T23 ran a PIII at 1+ GHZ on a 13 (maybe 14) inch screen with a combo drive (maybe) for (maybe) three hours.
The current MBP runs core2duo at 2+GHz on a 15 inch widescreen with a superdrive for 5 hours.
The T23's also outclassed by a plain MacBook at the weight you wanted.
And that's at only $15 more than a current T60 feature matched.
Apple's market share is increasing largely with their notebooks.
The design has been essentially frozen for 6 years now, so we can remove that variable.
Why then would more and more people be buying them?
You're kidding, right?
My original point was the way apple has found to sell systems against all odds. Cool stuff that works and that people want.
My second point answered the question "museum-worthy?" in that they are in museums. Pretty good ones, too.
Now to your latest question: How does this make them better personal computers?
Depends on your point of view.
Take an iBook G4:
- from the designer's POV: this will sell. To them that's a better PC.
- from the sales dept POV: goodby most dongles. To them that's a better PC.
- from the consumer's POV: this is cool | I want one | super-tough plastic | no snagging | least buttons. To them that's a better PC.
- from the service / support POV: fewer things to snap off. To them that's a better PC.
- from the users' POV: I can lift this thing. To them that's a better PC.
There are a half a dozen pieces of Apple hardware in the permanent collection of the Museum of Modern Art in NYC.
Even the Cube.
They person you talked to has a script in front of him which is badly written.
I'm guessing he dropped back 10 and punted.
So that's at the least a problem of poor communications, but not proven to be a problem of closed source.
Parallels is apparently getting it done with Apple's blessing and cooperation. So there's no problem there.
What - more chair throwing?
(ba-dump-buh!)
Apple's purpose in releasing any of their source is to make sure people can write apps and add-ons that make OSX an uber-amazing OS that runs on museum-worthy hardware and makes people want to buy more of their systems.
You can modify 99% of what happens on a Mac through writing apps and add-ons and tweaking the system through available source.
Apple, and every other for-profit computer company has to balance the attractive value of the modifications they allow against the remaining allowances that would torpedo their business model.
Hence opening everything would not be in their best interest. Beyond that, the serial grousing about the APSL limits is a bit like grousing that your fork isn't on the left. It will still get food to your mouth.
And let's see - that last paragraph pretty much says "that's a nice computer company youse got there - wouldn't want nothin' to happen to it, if you know what I mean - I'm not sayin' anything, I'm just sayin'..."
Please. You're going to stop recommending Apple to grandma and her gamer grandkids who will never EVER need the sort of kernel mods that you are discussing here. Never mind that when they get to the Apple store how much influence do you think the dire warnings of their local Nick Burns (or was that Christopher Moltisanti?) is going to have in the face of great hardware that can run the three major OSs? How soon do you think we'll hear "Sorry, Steve, but Boeing's going to WalMart for Linspire boxes - hey, but you call us when we can totally hack your kernel."
Finally - this can only mean that Halliburton and Bechtel decided to lower the price of photons!
Should realize the value of "innnocent til proven guilty".
Or did he forget all that blanket isolation and persecution of gay men as little more than disease vectors.
Roger Murdock: We have clearance, Clarence.
Captain Oveur: Roger, Roger. What's our vector, Victor?
Tower voice: Tower's radio clearance, over!
Captain Oveur: That's Clarence Oveur. Over.
Tower voice: Over.
Captain Oveur: Roger.
Roger Murdock: Huh?
Tower voice: Roger, over!
Roger Murdock: What?
Captain Oveur: Huh?
Victor Basta: Who?
I live about 6 blocks from the nuke plant - patent away boys, and good luck with that matching search - bwahahahaha!
Proprietary software is for capitalist pigs!
It's just the man trying to keep us down!
Information wants to be free!
That's it. I'm dumping every jpeg and disabling it on my brows....
Huh. Where did everything go?
I was directing a college station in 1979-80 when they kicked us all out of the 10-watt program and bumped us up to >+100, guess they moved power but kept the bands where they were.
Where I listen there's 90.3 and 90.5, and in the Berkshire Hills I believe WAMQ is in the 100s.
"Wow. You should see that that bomb did."
"Was that google-bomb or paypal-bomb?"
as n approaches infinity,
= chindogu.
"That's no cake...."
From Oct 5...
2 2224
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/05/14
"*YOU* buy iTunes songs for *YOUR* iPod for only *YOU* to listen to..."
Maybe someday iTunes / iPod would let you share your music with others over a network... or burn CDs... or re-rip burned CDs... or...
Naaaaah, it'll never happen. Those lousy rats.
is mostly US, so they can mostly prosecute / sue him if deemed necessary.
... then GNU can kick the Linux kernel to the curb.
File Vault is included with ther OS to encrypt your home folder.
If this "death throes" estimate was coming from Dick Cheney, I'd say SGI should have nooooooo problem.
jeez, the things you have to go thru here to crack a simple joke.
That's one interpretation, another is that "That guy" was trying to keep a bunch of people under a thumb - this rhymes with the dire warnings and world-changing consequences of knowledge from Genesis, which just maybe were designed by a clergy to keep people doing what they're told without asking too many questions.
Yes, there are lots of silly ideas, that might not be proved statistsically, that make all sorts of people feel better about their existence. Problem is, that line of reasoning opens the gate to such "basic truths" as Blacks can't swim, Jews are cheap, Chinese are lousy drivers, Mexicans are lazy, Women are weak and those o-rings on the Shuttle will be just fine.
And you're right - as a statistically smart person, I just can't bring myself to believe any of them.
..."correlation does not imply causation."
Or, straight from TFA: "Correlations do not prove causality." (p.14)
Imagine coding as sloppy as therse headlines.