There have already been many replies to this, but here's my two cents anyway.
Every single part of a GUI should be accessible via the keyboard, so that experienced users can be as effective as possible, using these.
I don't accept this blanket statement. While there is a case to be made for full keyboard access to the UI for movement-impaired users (see "Full Keyboard Access" under the keyboard prefs pane), I think the jury is very much out on the subject of whether the keyboard is a good interface at all. There's no question that too much keyboarding is related to repetive stress injury. Being even more dependent on the keyboard than we already are could very well turn out to be a bad thing, not a good thing.
Multiple desktops: it's obviousely an advantage to be able to have multiple workspaces running at once.
You say "obviously an advantage" when what you mean is "I like it." Some people like having multiple workspaces or desktops. Personally, I don't. I prefer overlapping windows, so I can see what I'm doing without having to shuffle things around. So this issue boils down to personal taste.
I don't think "I like it better another way" is a very valid user interface design critique. And before you respond with "they should have given me the option," please remember that a good user interface is not one that gives the user every possible option. Simplicity is a virtue.
Configurable look (themes)
We'll argue about this forever. The bottom line is that lots of people spent a lot of time designing the Aqua user interface. They designed it to be easy to use and visually appealing. What possible motivation would Apple have for implementing an interface that lets little Jason from down the street make all of this windows black and purple and change the "File" menu to read "Zeppelin Rules!"
As a person of strong aesthetic opinions, I consider Apple's refusal to include an API for modifying the interface to be a good deed, worthy of praise.
All the rest of the comments in your post have been responded to elsewhere more or less as I would here, so I'll just skip to the end at this point.
Re:Spielberg annoys to the end
on
Minority Report
·
· Score: 2
The fundamental difference between A.I. and Starship Troopers is that A.I. is a good movie. Starship Troopers isn't, sorry to say.
The novel on which that movie was based has been pretty controversial. It's got strong political themes, and also strong militarist themes. But it's not a simple book; it's got lots of different layers of interpretation. The movie tried to incorporate some of these elements-- the idea that universal franchise is a failure, for instance-- but it ended up being more tongue-in-cheek than anything. It's entertaining and all, but by and large it's a failure.
Re:Spielberg annoys to the end
on
Minority Report
·
· Score: 2
Your interpretation is valid, of course, but I don't think it's the best one. To me the movie seems like a fairly obvious study in contrasts: on one side, the flawed and ultimately selfish humans. On the other side, the innocent and fundamentally good robots. I think it has shades both of Kubrick, and of post-Schindler's List Spielberg, particularly in the ironic and tragic "happy" ending.
Like you said, everybody's entitled to his opinion. But I still think A.I. ranks as one of the most misunderstood films of the 90's.
Re:Charging for content sealed Salon's fate
on
Salon in Dire Straits
·
· Score: 4, Funny
The three sure-fire ways to get your comment moderated as "insightful."
1. Criticize Microsoft in a way that's slightly different from the way everybody else is criticizing them today.
2. Tell the story-- truthful or otherwise-- of how you replaced some proprietary and expensive computer system with one based on Linux.
3. Give moderately detailed instructions on how to find good pr0n.
Re:Spielberg annoys to the end
on
Minority Report
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
If this were A.I., Cruise would have ended up with Agatha, and found his son, who it turns out was really helping the whole time.
I really don't understand why everybody thinks A.I. had a happy ending. At the end of the movie, humanity, repeatedly demonstrated to be arrogant and free of either compassion or a sense of responsibility, has burned itself into extinction. The only true compassion shown in the film is by the ur-robots, when they construct the reunion fantasy for David, and then quietly euthanize him.
The whole theme of the movie is spelled out in the prologue, when the theme question is raised. If we can build a machine that can love, what responsibility do we have to that machine? And the counterpoint: didn't God create Adam to love him? That's the ultimate conflict of the movie: compassion (of robots to one another) versus arrogance (of humans to one another and to robots).
From David's point of view, it looks like a tragic story with a happy ending. I guess I can understand how people can be confused; they must have ended up identifying with David, and adopting his point of view. But the true point of view of the film is the omniscient one, the point of view of the narrator, whose voice opens and closes the movie. From that point of view, it's a remorselessly dark, tragic story.
Obviously, it's one of my favorite movies of recent years.
the author isn't making direct factual errors, but is unintentionally misleading and confusing, especially to outsiders to the industry.
I disagree. Your distinction between the desktop and an application that runs on the desktop is confusing to outsiders to the industry. In this case, "Windows desktop" covers the entire look-and-feel of Windows, including the programs that run on it. While it may be clear to you and me, the distinction between a program and a window manager or desktop manager isn't entirely obvious to the average person.
Re:Failed on the Desktop...
on
Is Linux Dead?
·
· Score: 2
As the Marketing Department at Apple says, "Think Different". "Think Differently" for the grammatically anal.
Okay, way way off-topic, but you're misparsing the slogan. "Different" is the object of the transitive verb "think," not a malformed adverb modifying the intransitive verb. It's an unconventional construction, but not uncommon. If I were to say, "Think Lexus," you'd understand what I mean. The meaning can be clarified by putting the object in quotation marks: "Think 'Lexus.'" Apple means just what they say: "Think 'Different.'"
They don't mean "Think Differently." That's a totally different sentence.
According to him, Evolution is a desktop environment...
Funny. To me it sounds like he knows exactly what Evolution is. "A Linux-based open-source e-mail program called Evolution looks pretty much like a standard Windows desktop."
Isn't Evolution a Linux-based open-source e-mail program? And doesn't it have the same general look-and-feel of the Windows desktop?
I'm not implying any malice here, but you really need to read a bit more closely before opening your yap.
I don't think your criticism is valid. I wouldn't have bothered to point this out, except your comment was moderated up. I don't think it should have been. Here's why.
Open source is always written in quotes: "open source", giving a subtle message that this label isn't completely honest.
The phrase "open source" (note my quotes) is enclosed in quotation marks two times in the article. But it's used five times without quotes, as in, "A Linux-based open-source e-mail program called Evolution..." and "the open source community faces an uphill battle."
It describes Linux developers as a loose confederation of programmers who aren't paid for their work.
It also describes them as "devoted bands of volunteer programmers," a decidely positive connotation.
X11 has been on linux almost from the beginning. I recall installing from a stack of floppies....
Yeah, but there's a big difference between using X to open a bunch of shells in windows, and having a fully graphical user interface. The author of the article was absolutely right. Until recently, users interacted with Linux mostly, or at least in significant fraction, through the command line. Even if that command line happens to be in a window.
Myself, I run X on my Origin 2000 only so I can have multiple terminals open at once. But that's just me.
A patent the only form of IP that's protected by law. Trade secrets are also protected implicitly, and usually explicitly in employment contracts. Even if it's not patented, using your former company's ideas may be breaking the rules of your contract with them, or even the law. YMMV.
If I was comparing Apple to Microsoft, then I would fully agree with you. But I am not, and more importanly, the originaly poster who started this whole thing was not either.
The original poster was an AC who said:
It doesn't make sense for businesses to "switch to Mac" as long as there is a hardware monopoly: just one company with machines running the Mac OS.
These companies are in for a rude shock if they convert to Apple and get screwed with the higher prices, limited availability, and other problems you get when just one company makes the hardware.
So the original poster wasn't comparing Apple to anything at all. He (or she, or it [because no one can tell you're a dog]) just said, without qualification, that Apple has a hardware monopoly. In the sense that the original poster intended, he's right; only Apple makes Apple hardware. But the AC was wrong to use the word "monopoly" to describe this situation. A monopoly isn't a situation in which only one company makes one specific product. It's a situation in which only one company makes an entire class of products.
Let's put Macs into some kind of meaningful class. Let's call 'em "inexpensive single-user computers." I mean "inexpensive" in the relative sense, of course. Say, anything less than $7,500. And I mean "single-user" in the "one person at a time, most of the time" sense, as opposed to large servers that host multiple users most of the time.
Who else makes inexpensive single-user computers? Heck, lots of companies. The local computer store is packed with 'em. You can even buy them at Wal-Mart now.
So clearly no one holds a monopoly on inexpensive single-user computers.
Now, if you try to narrow the class down further-- say, to inexpensive single-user laptop computers that have wide-aspect-ratio screens and titanium cases and that run the Mac OS-- eventually you'll reach a point where only one product or a small group of products is in your class. The fact that these products all come from a single vendor comes as no particular surprise. Applying the word "monopoly" to that situation doesn't really make much sense, because under those terms everything is under the control of a monopoly!
Your working class is "computers that can run the Mac OS." That class is too narrow to be meaningful in this context, because the Macintosh computer is defined as being a computer that runs the Mac OS. You've narrowed your class down to a single product from a single company, making the term "monopoly" meaningless.
I quote blinko: "Monopoly is an Economic term, misusing or over using it distorts your message."
I think the main reason for this is simply that double sided discs don't sell.
As a moderately avid collector of DVDs, I don't think I agree with this. I don't personally care whether my DVDs are one-sided or two-sided, except in cases like Amadeus where the film itself is split across the sides. I don't care for "flippers," and you don't see many of them these days.
I'd imagine the real answer is simpler: it's probably cheaper to manufacture two SS-DL discs than one DS-DL disc.
I have several double-sided DVDs at home. Amadeus has the movie on both sides of the disc; you flip the disc halfway through to watch the whole movie. Other discs have the widescreen movie on one side and the pan-n-scan on the other, or movie on one side and extras on the other. They're everywhere.
I don't know if you can do double-sided double-layer discs, however. That may not be possible at all, hence the recent proliferation of two-disc sets that include two single-sided discs.
Please be so kind as to specify what "layers of meaning" you are talking about and how Soderberg is supposed to have been clever about it. At present, you've just given some explanations where some names might come from in Greek mythology, but you've been utterly silent as to what they mean.
I don't want to talk about any of that stuff until after the movie comes out. Watch it and judge for yourself. We'll have all the time in the world to discuss symbolism after you've seen it.
Changing the name "Harey" for an American film is a no-brainer. A female character named "Harey," to an English-speaking audience, is too snicker-worthy. It would detract from the film.
Pay careful attention to the use of names in the film. "Rheya" is Rhea, one of the Titans of Greek mythology. The name of the space station in the Soderberg version is Prometheus. Soderberg is doing some very deliberate things with names in his screenplay. I'm eager to see whether these layers of meaning play out on the screen the way they do on paper.
I know that opinions are opinions and all that, but when your opinion is this far out of line with the conventional wisdom, have you ever stopped to think that you might just be wrong? Titanic and Fellowship of the Ring aren't the greatest films ever made, but they're actually very good, and I think you're making a mistake if you fail to give credit where it's due.
And Solaris is, in my opinion, one of the best science fiction films ever made. I think of it as a perfect counterpoint to 2001. Take an afternoon sometime and watch both films back to back. I think you'll gain some insight from the way each film treats the theme of what it means to be human when faced with the incomprehensibility of the universe.
You're right; we're not understanding each other. "If you want to buy a Coke, you have to buy it from Coca-Cola. There is no competition for a Coke."
Lots of people make personal computers. They're all different in various ways, but they're all personal computers. They can all be used for the same functions, albeit people inevitably prefer one type of computer over another.
There is no monopoly in personal computers. Period.
Saying there's a monopoly on Macintoshes is just incorrect. If you think that's a correct statement, I'd suggest you clarify your understanding of what "monopoly" means.
I trust that we're getting through to each other now.
But you're getting too specific. If you want a soda, you can buy any number of brands. But if you want a Diet Coke with Lemon, you've got only one choice.
The thing is, you're drawing a distinction between "computer" and "Macintosh." While that distinction makes a lot of sense at the technical level, it's meaningless in economic terms. A Mac and a PC are different, but they can be considered to be equivalent from a certain point of view. At that level, a Mac is just a particular variety of personal computer, of which there are several varieties from several different vendors. So the term "monopoly" doesn't apply there.
There's no question that Apple is the sole provider of Macintosh computers, and that only Macs run Mac software. But let's stop using the word "monopoly" to describe that situation. Call it a single-vendor product, or something. There's a huge difference, in the qualitative sense, between only having one vendor for Macintoshes and living in a neighborhood where AT&T is your only choice for cable television. One of those is a monopoly, and one really isn't.
Re:Well you've got to be kidding me
on
Greenbacks No More
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Right this second, I have a pocketful of Australian and Singaporean money. (Just got back from a trip.) At a glance, I can't tell the Aussie dollars from the Singapore dollars. They're both fairly brightly colored, but they're differently colored in an inconsistent way. In other words, an Aussie $5 bill is easy to distinguish from an Aussie $10 bill, but hard to distinguish-- at a glance-- from a Singapore $5 bill.
So it's two sides of the same coin, ha ha. It'd be a challenge to make the US dollar bills look different from one another while preventing them from looking like the bills of other countries.
It doesn't make sense for businesses to "switch to Mac" as long as there is a hardware monopoly....
The same thing could be said of any non-PC computer vendor. And yet, lots and lots of businesses use Suns and IBMs, to name two. Who makes an AS/400 besides IBM? As far as I know, no one. Does this stop businesses from buying and using them? Of course not.
Businesses have no problem whatsoever signing up for proprietary systems or solutions, as long as those solutions make good financial sense. If it's cheaper to run Macs on the desktop, they'll run Macs. Hardware "monopoly" be damned.
As an aside, I'm getting pretty tired of the widespread misuse of the word "monopoly" by the Slashdot community. It's not really a monopoly, in the strictest sense of the word, when only Apple can make Apple computers. Only Volkswagen can make the Beetle; that's not really a monopoly. You guys may wish that every product or service could be decentralized, but that's just now how the world works.
The upgrade fee won't likely be in excess of $30(I paid $19.95 for the 10.1 upgrade CD which included the Dev Tools and 9.2.2 also, when I originally only ha the 10.0.3 CD).
Just for the record, I picked up a free 10.1 upgrade CD at the Apple Store in my home town, then downloaded the developer's tools from the Apple web site. Zero cost to go from 10.0.4 to 10.1.
Apple may or may not do something similar with Jaguar, but it's safe to say that they've set a precedent.
Out of the box, SGI's IRIX scales very nicely up to 128-256 processors. Beyond that "IRIX XXL" is used (up to 1024 processors, to date).
Do you have any information to back this up? I don't work for SGI, but I work closely with them, and I've never heard the term "IRIX XXL." I've worked on the 768-processor O3000 system in Eagan, and as far as I noticed it was just running stock IRIX 6.5.14 (at that time).
Then again, I've never used a 1-kiloprocessor system, either. So maybe we're both right.
Naming their OS S-UX would be pretty much par for the course for a Japanese company. A few years ago, Sony took some of their videotape library technology and applied to to data storage. The video version was called "TeleFile," I believe. They decided, since the library could hold as much as a petabyte, to call the data version "PetaFile."
Shortly thereafter, Sony started referring to the libraries as "PetaSite" systems instead. Say "PetaFile" out loud, and you'll understand why.
I'd provide a link, but Sony's web site works properly in, like, no known browsers. Pfeh.
Slashdot Mirror
There have already been many replies to this, but here's my two cents anyway.
Every single part of a GUI should be accessible via the keyboard, so that experienced users can be as effective as possible, using these.
I don't accept this blanket statement. While there is a case to be made for full keyboard access to the UI for movement-impaired users (see "Full Keyboard Access" under the keyboard prefs pane), I think the jury is very much out on the subject of whether the keyboard is a good interface at all. There's no question that too much keyboarding is related to repetive stress injury. Being even more dependent on the keyboard than we already are could very well turn out to be a bad thing, not a good thing.
Multiple desktops: it's obviousely an advantage to be able to have multiple workspaces running at once.
You say "obviously an advantage" when what you mean is "I like it." Some people like having multiple workspaces or desktops. Personally, I don't. I prefer overlapping windows, so I can see what I'm doing without having to shuffle things around. So this issue boils down to personal taste.
I don't think "I like it better another way" is a very valid user interface design critique. And before you respond with "they should have given me the option," please remember that a good user interface is not one that gives the user every possible option. Simplicity is a virtue.
Configurable look (themes)
We'll argue about this forever. The bottom line is that lots of people spent a lot of time designing the Aqua user interface. They designed it to be easy to use and visually appealing. What possible motivation would Apple have for implementing an interface that lets little Jason from down the street make all of this windows black and purple and change the "File" menu to read "Zeppelin Rules!"
As a person of strong aesthetic opinions, I consider Apple's refusal to include an API for modifying the interface to be a good deed, worthy of praise.
All the rest of the comments in your post have been responded to elsewhere more or less as I would here, so I'll just skip to the end at this point.
The fundamental difference between A.I. and Starship Troopers is that A.I. is a good movie. Starship Troopers isn't, sorry to say.
The novel on which that movie was based has been pretty controversial. It's got strong political themes, and also strong militarist themes. But it's not a simple book; it's got lots of different layers of interpretation. The movie tried to incorporate some of these elements-- the idea that universal franchise is a failure, for instance-- but it ended up being more tongue-in-cheek than anything. It's entertaining and all, but by and large it's a failure.
Your interpretation is valid, of course, but I don't think it's the best one. To me the movie seems like a fairly obvious study in contrasts: on one side, the flawed and ultimately selfish humans. On the other side, the innocent and fundamentally good robots. I think it has shades both of Kubrick, and of post-Schindler's List Spielberg, particularly in the ironic and tragic "happy" ending.
Like you said, everybody's entitled to his opinion. But I still think A.I. ranks as one of the most misunderstood films of the 90's.
The three sure-fire ways to get your comment moderated as "insightful."
1. Criticize Microsoft in a way that's slightly different from the way everybody else is criticizing them today.
2. Tell the story-- truthful or otherwise-- of how you replaced some proprietary and expensive computer system with one based on Linux.
3. Give moderately detailed instructions on how to find good pr0n.
If this were A.I., Cruise would have ended up with Agatha, and found his son, who it turns out was really helping the whole time.
I really don't understand why everybody thinks A.I. had a happy ending. At the end of the movie, humanity, repeatedly demonstrated to be arrogant and free of either compassion or a sense of responsibility, has burned itself into extinction. The only true compassion shown in the film is by the ur-robots, when they construct the reunion fantasy for David, and then quietly euthanize him.
The whole theme of the movie is spelled out in the prologue, when the theme question is raised. If we can build a machine that can love, what responsibility do we have to that machine? And the counterpoint: didn't God create Adam to love him? That's the ultimate conflict of the movie: compassion (of robots to one another) versus arrogance (of humans to one another and to robots).
From David's point of view, it looks like a tragic story with a happy ending. I guess I can understand how people can be confused; they must have ended up identifying with David, and adopting his point of view. But the true point of view of the film is the omniscient one, the point of view of the narrator, whose voice opens and closes the movie. From that point of view, it's a remorselessly dark, tragic story.
Obviously, it's one of my favorite movies of recent years.
the author isn't making direct factual errors, but is unintentionally misleading and confusing, especially to outsiders to the industry.
I disagree. Your distinction between the desktop and an application that runs on the desktop is confusing to outsiders to the industry. In this case, "Windows desktop" covers the entire look-and-feel of Windows, including the programs that run on it. While it may be clear to you and me, the distinction between a program and a window manager or desktop manager isn't entirely obvious to the average person.
As the Marketing Department at Apple says, "Think Different". "Think Differently" for the grammatically anal.
Okay, way way off-topic, but you're misparsing the slogan. "Different" is the object of the transitive verb "think," not a malformed adverb modifying the intransitive verb. It's an unconventional construction, but not uncommon. If I were to say, "Think Lexus," you'd understand what I mean. The meaning can be clarified by putting the object in quotation marks: "Think 'Lexus.'" Apple means just what they say: "Think 'Different.'"
They don't mean "Think Differently." That's a totally different sentence.
According to him, Evolution is a desktop environment...
Funny. To me it sounds like he knows exactly what Evolution is. "A Linux-based open-source e-mail program called Evolution looks pretty much like a standard Windows desktop."
Isn't Evolution a Linux-based open-source e-mail program? And doesn't it have the same general look-and-feel of the Windows desktop?
I'm not implying any malice here, but you really need to read a bit more closely before opening your yap.
I don't think your criticism is valid. I wouldn't have bothered to point this out, except your comment was moderated up. I don't think it should have been. Here's why.
Open source is always written in quotes: "open source", giving a subtle message that this label isn't completely honest.
The phrase "open source" (note my quotes) is enclosed in quotation marks two times in the article. But it's used five times without quotes, as in, "A Linux-based open-source e-mail program called Evolution..." and "the open source community faces an uphill battle."
It describes Linux developers as a loose confederation of programmers who aren't paid for their work.
It also describes them as "devoted bands of volunteer programmers," a decidely positive connotation.
X11 has been on linux almost from the beginning. I recall installing from a stack of floppies....
Yeah, but there's a big difference between using X to open a bunch of shells in windows, and having a fully graphical user interface. The author of the article was absolutely right. Until recently, users interacted with Linux mostly, or at least in significant fraction, through the command line. Even if that command line happens to be in a window.
Myself, I run X on my Origin 2000 only so I can have multiple terminals open at once. But that's just me.
when he knowingly violates a patent
A patent the only form of IP that's protected by law. Trade secrets are also protected implicitly, and usually explicitly in employment contracts. Even if it's not patented, using your former company's ideas may be breaking the rules of your contract with them, or even the law. YMMV.
If I was comparing Apple to Microsoft, then I would fully agree with you. But I am not, and more importanly, the originaly poster who started this whole thing was not either.
The original poster was an AC who said:
It doesn't make sense for businesses to "switch to Mac" as long as there is a hardware monopoly: just one company with machines running the Mac OS.
These companies are in for a rude shock if they convert to Apple and get screwed with the higher prices, limited availability, and other problems you get when just one company makes the hardware.
So the original poster wasn't comparing Apple to anything at all. He (or she, or it [because no one can tell you're a dog]) just said, without qualification, that Apple has a hardware monopoly. In the sense that the original poster intended, he's right; only Apple makes Apple hardware. But the AC was wrong to use the word "monopoly" to describe this situation. A monopoly isn't a situation in which only one company makes one specific product. It's a situation in which only one company makes an entire class of products.
Let's put Macs into some kind of meaningful class. Let's call 'em "inexpensive single-user computers." I mean "inexpensive" in the relative sense, of course. Say, anything less than $7,500. And I mean "single-user" in the "one person at a time, most of the time" sense, as opposed to large servers that host multiple users most of the time.
Who else makes inexpensive single-user computers? Heck, lots of companies. The local computer store is packed with 'em. You can even buy them at Wal-Mart now.
So clearly no one holds a monopoly on inexpensive single-user computers.
Now, if you try to narrow the class down further-- say, to inexpensive single-user laptop computers that have wide-aspect-ratio screens and titanium cases and that run the Mac OS-- eventually you'll reach a point where only one product or a small group of products is in your class. The fact that these products all come from a single vendor comes as no particular surprise. Applying the word "monopoly" to that situation doesn't really make much sense, because under those terms everything is under the control of a monopoly!
Your working class is "computers that can run the Mac OS." That class is too narrow to be meaningful in this context, because the Macintosh computer is defined as being a computer that runs the Mac OS. You've narrowed your class down to a single product from a single company, making the term "monopoly" meaningless.
I quote blinko: "Monopoly is an Economic term, misusing or over using it distorts your message."
I think the main reason for this is simply that double sided discs don't sell.
As a moderately avid collector of DVDs, I don't think I agree with this. I don't personally care whether my DVDs are one-sided or two-sided, except in cases like Amadeus where the film itself is split across the sides. I don't care for "flippers," and you don't see many of them these days.
I'd imagine the real answer is simpler: it's probably cheaper to manufacture two SS-DL discs than one DS-DL disc.
I have several double-sided DVDs at home. Amadeus has the movie on both sides of the disc; you flip the disc halfway through to watch the whole movie. Other discs have the widescreen movie on one side and the pan-n-scan on the other, or movie on one side and extras on the other. They're everywhere.
I don't know if you can do double-sided double-layer discs, however. That may not be possible at all, hence the recent proliferation of two-disc sets that include two single-sided discs.
Please be so kind as to specify what "layers of meaning" you are talking about and how Soderberg is supposed to have been clever about it. At present, you've just given some explanations where some names might come from in Greek mythology, but you've been utterly silent as to what they mean.
I don't want to talk about any of that stuff until after the movie comes out. Watch it and judge for yourself. We'll have all the time in the world to discuss symbolism after you've seen it.
Changing the name "Harey" for an American film is a no-brainer. A female character named "Harey," to an English-speaking audience, is too snicker-worthy. It would detract from the film.
Pay careful attention to the use of names in the film. "Rheya" is Rhea, one of the Titans of Greek mythology. The name of the space station in the Soderberg version is Prometheus. Soderberg is doing some very deliberate things with names in his screenplay. I'm eager to see whether these layers of meaning play out on the screen the way they do on paper.
I know that opinions are opinions and all that, but when your opinion is this far out of line with the conventional wisdom, have you ever stopped to think that you might just be wrong? Titanic and Fellowship of the Ring aren't the greatest films ever made, but they're actually very good, and I think you're making a mistake if you fail to give credit where it's due.
And Solaris is, in my opinion, one of the best science fiction films ever made. I think of it as a perfect counterpoint to 2001. Take an afternoon sometime and watch both films back to back. I think you'll gain some insight from the way each film treats the theme of what it means to be human when faced with the incomprehensibility of the universe.
You're right; we're not understanding each other. "If you want to buy a Coke, you have to buy it from Coca-Cola. There is no competition for a Coke."
Lots of people make personal computers. They're all different in various ways, but they're all personal computers. They can all be used for the same functions, albeit people inevitably prefer one type of computer over another.
There is no monopoly in personal computers. Period.
Saying there's a monopoly on Macintoshes is just incorrect. If you think that's a correct statement, I'd suggest you clarify your understanding of what "monopoly" means.
I trust that we're getting through to each other now.
But you're getting too specific. If you want a soda, you can buy any number of brands. But if you want a Diet Coke with Lemon, you've got only one choice.
The thing is, you're drawing a distinction between "computer" and "Macintosh." While that distinction makes a lot of sense at the technical level, it's meaningless in economic terms. A Mac and a PC are different, but they can be considered to be equivalent from a certain point of view. At that level, a Mac is just a particular variety of personal computer, of which there are several varieties from several different vendors. So the term "monopoly" doesn't apply there.
There's no question that Apple is the sole provider of Macintosh computers, and that only Macs run Mac software. But let's stop using the word "monopoly" to describe that situation. Call it a single-vendor product, or something. There's a huge difference, in the qualitative sense, between only having one vendor for Macintoshes and living in a neighborhood where AT&T is your only choice for cable television. One of those is a monopoly, and one really isn't.
Right this second, I have a pocketful of Australian and Singaporean money. (Just got back from a trip.) At a glance, I can't tell the Aussie dollars from the Singapore dollars. They're both fairly brightly colored, but they're differently colored in an inconsistent way. In other words, an Aussie $5 bill is easy to distinguish from an Aussie $10 bill, but hard to distinguish-- at a glance-- from a Singapore $5 bill.
So it's two sides of the same coin, ha ha. It'd be a challenge to make the US dollar bills look different from one another while preventing them from looking like the bills of other countries.
It doesn't make sense for businesses to "switch to Mac" as long as there is a hardware monopoly....
The same thing could be said of any non-PC computer vendor. And yet, lots and lots of businesses use Suns and IBMs, to name two. Who makes an AS/400 besides IBM? As far as I know, no one. Does this stop businesses from buying and using them? Of course not.
Businesses have no problem whatsoever signing up for proprietary systems or solutions, as long as those solutions make good financial sense. If it's cheaper to run Macs on the desktop, they'll run Macs. Hardware "monopoly" be damned.
As an aside, I'm getting pretty tired of the widespread misuse of the word "monopoly" by the Slashdot community. It's not really a monopoly, in the strictest sense of the word, when only Apple can make Apple computers. Only Volkswagen can make the Beetle; that's not really a monopoly. You guys may wish that every product or service could be decentralized, but that's just now how the world works.
The upgrade fee won't likely be in excess of $30(I paid $19.95 for the 10.1 upgrade CD which included the Dev Tools and 9.2.2 also, when I originally only ha the 10.0.3 CD).
Just for the record, I picked up a free 10.1 upgrade CD at the Apple Store in my home town, then downloaded the developer's tools from the Apple web site. Zero cost to go from 10.0.4 to 10.1.
Apple may or may not do something similar with Jaguar, but it's safe to say that they've set a precedent.
Out of the box, SGI's IRIX scales very nicely up to 128-256 processors. Beyond that "IRIX XXL" is used (up to 1024 processors, to date).
Do you have any information to back this up? I don't work for SGI, but I work closely with them, and I've never heard the term "IRIX XXL." I've worked on the 768-processor O3000 system in Eagan, and as far as I noticed it was just running stock IRIX 6.5.14 (at that time).
Then again, I've never used a 1-kiloprocessor system, either. So maybe we're both right.
Naming their OS S-UX would be pretty much par for the course for a Japanese company. A few years ago, Sony took some of their videotape library technology and applied to to data storage. The video version was called "TeleFile," I believe. They decided, since the library could hold as much as a petabyte, to call the data version "PetaFile."
Shortly thereafter, Sony started referring to the libraries as "PetaSite" systems instead. Say "PetaFile" out loud, and you'll understand why.
I'd provide a link, but Sony's web site works properly in, like, no known browsers. Pfeh.