Sorry guys, Microsoft invent the office, you will have to invent someting other.
You have got to be kidding! Microsoft is a company built on the premise of taking other people's ideas and running with them, for better or for worse. If the history of computing has taught us anything it's that sometimes a better mousetrap can revolutionize everything--that the old version of something doesn't have to be the be-all end-all, and that today's king of the hill can be tomorrow's peasant in the street.
I don't know what, and it must be different, nearly more than half of OSS community try to re create windows desktop and they do but people still uses microsoft.
Given that Windows itself is yet another idea copied from someone else you undermine your own point of view with that rather appropriate example.
Good for you! You have a great attitude. It's far more important to know how to learn and how to put your knowledge to use than to do what most people do which is to get in to college, squirm their way through it and then get out with the degree and hope for a cushy job to fall in their lap. Part of college is learning how to teach yourself and learning how to think critically.
On that point, you're light-years ahead of many of the "better educated" around you.
I sometimes worry that we rely too much on higher ed achievement to judge people in the job market. When I was in college, I saw an overwhelming number of kids there who were only there going through the motions because it's what mom and dad wanted them to do. I saw lots of working toward a good grade, but little in terms of real hunger of knowledge and exporations of creativity and critical thinking. I think the more we rely on university degrees as the measure by which we open doors for people, the more we're going to hurt as a society. I mean, it's valid of course, but it's not the be-all end-all. I see so many jobs with the educational requirements and I wonder how many brilliant drop-outs were rejecting as a society for that.
It's known that geniuses, by their nature, simply do not fit in. I wonder how someone like Einstein would do in today's invironment.
I doubt it will happen. Your posts highlights one of the primary differences in expectations between Mac users and PC users. Mac users expect the whole package to work together beautifully and Apple caters to that expectation. Apple isn't going to release OS X on non-Apple computers for that reason. They are in the business to (as Jobs has put it) provide the whole widget.
I just checked. We're both right to some extent. At least, according to the script, she only refers to him as "the emperor" in her dialogue. However, doing a search for "palpatine" on the script itself reveals that Ian McDiarmid is credited as "Emperor Palpatine" in the cast list. I'll have to watch the credits next time I watch Jedi and see if he's really listed that way.
I would still say that most casual fans and younger viewers aren't going to catch that especially since the full cast list doesn't start scrolling until midway through the ending credits. I've watched Jedi over 40 times at this point and never once caught that myself.
I *do* very carefully monitor her TV viewing and limit it to no more than a couple hours a day at most (less than that or none at all, if possible.) Given the utter load of shit that TV has become nowadays, I don't consider that being overprotective... just being a good parent.
That connection is never made by name in the films. The original trilogy does not contain the name Palpatine. Also, I don't think most casual viewers would realize that the Emperor in Jedi and the guy in Phantom Menace are the same actor due to the change in his looks.
It's repeatedly hinted at in the prequels that the dark side is clouding the Jedi's vision (thus, they sense the 'phantom menace' but don't know what it is.) Palpatine is using some kind of dark side power to hide from them in plain sight, to disguise who he is, including real appearance. That's why, during the intense battle with Mace Windu, his real face emerges. He's pouring so much energy into the battle that he can't maintain the facade.
I would agree with that to some extent, but I would say that Ewan MacGregor (and to some extent, Ian McDiarmid) carried that task in the prequels, managing to glue things together despite some of the acting lapses in those around them.
Consider the theater scene in Sith where Hayden's bland acting is helped considerably by McDiarmid sitting there giving that somewhat chilling recount of the Sith powers and legends.
That served much of the same purpose that Harrison Ford did in the originals.
* How do you know it took the whole 18 years to build?
* How do you know that the second Death Star wasn't already under construction prior to the destruction of the first?
* Why wouldn't it be quicker to build something if you've already been through the process once before (as if we haven't witnessed that with computers in our own lifetimes)?
* They DID consider small fighters a problem which is why they were building an improved Death Star in secret so it wouldn't be attacked before it was completed. That was a main plot point in Jedi, that the rebels had discovered what the Empire was doing.
I'm currently introducing my nine-year-old daughter to Star Wars and am showing her them in release order, not numeric order. We watched A New Hope last weekend and she was blown away. She loved every minute of it and I can't see any benefit to showing her the prequels first.
To me, one of the greatest thing about Star Wars is the Big Revelation in Empire. Why spoil that? I will be watching Empire tomorrow night with my daughter and I can't wait to see her jaw hit the floor just as the jaws of the collective audience in 1980 hit the floor. If any of you out there have children coming of age and want to show them these films, PLEASE show them in release order. They don't need the prequels to appreciate the original trilogy
Don't get me wrong. I am one of the few who think the prequels kick ass from start to finish, but why spoil one of the greatest surprises in movie history just to give a lot of back story that doesn't matter much until you've see the originals anyway?
Besides, for a new viewer, the prequels still contain the surprise of Palpatine being the Emperor so it's just fine to end your viewing of the films with Sith. Palpatine isn't referred to by name in Jedi so there is still a satisfying build-up and climax in the prequels with that revelation (most of us hardcore fans might not realize that because we already knew who he was. New, younger viewers won't.)
Now watch all the Apple zealots mod me down with flamebait and what not. It's noit a flamebait, it's my honest opinion.
I hope you do get modded as flamebait, that preemptive comment notwithstanding. Just because you're expressing an honest opinion doesn't mean it can't be flamebait. What makes it flamebait is the harsh and argumentative way you express it. You could have expressed that without words like "bullshit," "bacteria," "ugly," "insignificant," and "zealot." It makes it look like you're posting just to get angry responses, and that is the very definition of "flamebait." The sad part is that when someone correctly mods you as flamebait, you'll just write it off as pro-Mac zealotry instead of understanding why, thus re-enforcing an already skewed perception.
You and millions of others out there sieve the world and your experiences through a narrow, biased view, always imposing so predetermined explanation on it all. It seems that it's the rare few out there who can (or even want to) avoid that trap.
Thankfully, he doesn't gloat about having called this one correctly,
He has no reason to gloat, no matter what he wrote.
Dvorak, along with a lot of other tech writer know-nothings, have been pulling this Mac-on-Intel fantasy out of their collective asses for the last 5+ years, even before the Apple-IBM alliance from two years ago. Just because the switch to Intel finally happened doesn't mean Dvorak and his ilk are privy to any insider secrets or deep insights. It just means that you throw enough crap on the wall, some of it will eventually stick. The most honest thing a horribly inept tech writer like Dvorak can do is resist crowing as he knows that he was just blowing hot air the whole time.
Really. Look over the rest of his writing. He's consistently so far off-base that I'm surprised he's still in print. I'm surprised he ever gets mentioned on Slashdot especially where most of us know better than to take what he writes too seriously.
As a long time Mac user, I seriously couldn't care less what chip is running the show, as long as I have OS X instead of Windows. The only bad thing about Apple's announcement is that it gives guys like Dvorak a chance to do an I-told-ya-so and boost their credibility for absolutely no valid reason whatsoever.
Actually, I work in an environment that brings me into professional contact with designers, advertisers, marketing people, writers, editors, photographers and people from all across the spectrum of the publishing industry--and because of my line of work in particular, I can also count web developers and programmers in that list too. And I see Macs in use both professionally and in personal lives. However, if imagining that I'm some kind of janitor helps you maintain your delusions, by all means... don't let me stand in your way.
You know, your style of reasoning demonstrates that you lack a lot of the critical thinking skills that most people acquire by high school. I know teenagers who understand the problems inherent in using anecdotal evidence to support an assumption. Why you don't understand that is puzzling.
SIXTEEN PERCENT???? I know. I'm just as confused as you are. That number is way too low. My anecdotal evidence proves it should be closer to 50%. Those stats are so bogus, dude! And you know, anecdotal evidence wins every time over research and market studies.
Ok were talking %16 percent here, and I as well as many others can hardly name a single person who's ever owned one?
You're missing the point. You say you don't know anyone who owns one. That's doubtful, but for the sake of argument, let's assume that's true. About half the people I know who own computers use Macs. So, how do you get to the point where you can assume that anecdotal evidence like that means anything? It's too subjective to mean anything. Graphic designers think everyone runs Macs. Gamers think everyone runs PCs. It's all in who you choose as colleagues and friends and that's hardly something to base an analysis of statistics on.
My point was I know computers, what people own what computers, and that I hardly have come across anyone who uses a mac in my lifetime.
I "know computers" too and I come across people who own Macs constantly. In fact, I've watched numerous people I've worked with switch or consider seriously switching to Macs. I've watched the number of Mac retailers in my town double and the number of places selling Macs increase considerably. However, you don't see me extrapolating that out into the real world.
I dislike repeating myself, so here's something I posted earlier. Like many people here, you're citing anecdotal evidence which is meaningless beyond perhaps revealing a deeply held bias. You should carefully consider why you think such "evidence" is worth mentioning in this context.
There are people who respond to this article who keep referring to a Blue Screen Of Death.
Yeah, you're right. My XP box at work doesn't ever show a BSOD. No, instead it just starts spazzing out every few days and requires a reboot otherwise it's nearly unusable. Sometimes, applications refuse to launch. Sometimes they refuse to stay running. Sometimes the video starts doing some freaky things. Sometimes, things slow to an unbearable crawl.
So you're right. No BSOD. XP is pure heaven on earth.
You're either trolling or totally clueless. Either a) get a girlfriend or b) do your homework.
How do these so-called "viruses" spread themselves the way a Windows virus does? And if you'll notice, all of these require the user to activate them explicitly unlike most Windows viruses which can do that on their own while using your machine to spread themselves around to others.
Writing a script to wipe out all the files in your user directory is NOT a virus. In fact, OS X requires admin authentication for an application or script to do anything outside the bounds of a user's home directory--unlike Windows.
Don't know why I'm bothering. You're probably one of those anti-Mac zealots who wants to believe the rampant viruses on Windows is perfectly normal and refuse to hear anything that Lord Gates doesn't hand down to you from on high.
So because you own a Mac then you're an expert in these kinds of statistics?
I own a Mac too and it's been long known that Apple's market share numbers do not accurately reflect its installed user base. That's part of what's frustrating as a Mac user, having people treat you as a second-class citizen as part of the "1.8%" in computing when the reality isn't nearly so bad. Remember, market share is only the cut of the pie a computer company gets. I know PC users who have bought 3-4 PCs in the time that I own one Mac. Macs DO tend to have a longer life-span and better quality components so they get replaced less often. Macs are also not the darlings of the geek crowd who buys lots and lots of hardware to tinker with. That translates to PCs having a larger market share, but that doesn't mean the user base can be accurately assumed to be the same. It's not. You can't tell me Apple has the kind of influence they have on the industry with 1.8% user base. That's ludicrous.
It never ceases to amaze me when I hear people make that assumption.
Not a one of them has a mac. I personally do not even know anyone who owns a mac.
And we all know that anecdotal evidence translates into perfect, unassailable statistical numbers. You would have to consider your line of work and the sort of activities that draws the group of people around you and if there are any overall reasons why they might prefer one platform to another.
I work in publishing and am in contact with creative types in both graphic design, photography and writing, and if we were to extrapolate my personal experiences to reality, then over 50% of computer users in the world are Mac users and most people don't even know what Linux is.
But aren't these guys aware of the important and certainly not-at-all-made-up story that Art Bell has been trying to tell everyone for years now? We have to stop this before it's too late. We don't want to loose the demons of hell on the earth to destroy the human race and bring...
That number is actually wrong (closer to 3.5%) but it doesn't matter what the number is as market share doesn't mean anything in the context you're using it, and it doesn't necessarily mean anything in terms of profit. What matters is whether or not Apple is profitable and they are, have been for some time now even during periods where other PC makers with larger market shares were not.
Slashdot Mirror
You have got to be kidding! Microsoft is a company built on the premise of taking other people's ideas and running with them, for better or for worse. If the history of computing has taught us anything it's that sometimes a better mousetrap can revolutionize everything--that the old version of something doesn't have to be the be-all end-all, and that today's king of the hill can be tomorrow's peasant in the street.
I don't know what, and it must be different, nearly more than half of OSS community try to re create windows desktop and they do but people still uses microsoft.
Given that Windows itself is yet another idea copied from someone else you undermine your own point of view with that rather appropriate example.
On that point, you're light-years ahead of many of the "better educated" around you.
It's known that geniuses, by their nature, simply do not fit in. I wonder how someone like Einstein would do in today's invironment.
I would still say that most casual fans and younger viewers aren't going to catch that especially since the full cast list doesn't start scrolling until midway through the ending credits. I've watched Jedi over 40 times at this point and never once caught that myself.
Consider the theater scene in Sith where Hayden's bland acting is helped considerably by McDiarmid sitting there giving that somewhat chilling recount of the Sith powers and legends.
That served much of the same purpose that Harrison Ford did in the originals.
Obi-Wan: "I don't seem to recall ever owning a droid."
Ahem... perhaps you forgot about Grievous? :^)
Definitely owned.
* How do you know it took the whole 18 years to build?
* How do you know that the second Death Star wasn't already under construction prior to the destruction of the first?
* Why wouldn't it be quicker to build something if you've already been through the process once before (as if we haven't witnessed that with computers in our own lifetimes)?
* They DID consider small fighters a problem which is why they were building an improved Death Star in secret so it wouldn't be attacked before it was completed. That was a main plot point in Jedi, that the rebels had discovered what the Empire was doing.
To me, one of the greatest thing about Star Wars is the Big Revelation in Empire. Why spoil that? I will be watching Empire tomorrow night with my daughter and I can't wait to see her jaw hit the floor just as the jaws of the collective audience in 1980 hit the floor. If any of you out there have children coming of age and want to show them these films, PLEASE show them in release order. They don't need the prequels to appreciate the original trilogy
Don't get me wrong. I am one of the few who think the prequels kick ass from start to finish, but why spoil one of the greatest surprises in movie history just to give a lot of back story that doesn't matter much until you've see the originals anyway?
Besides, for a new viewer, the prequels still contain the surprise of Palpatine being the Emperor so it's just fine to end your viewing of the films with Sith. Palpatine isn't referred to by name in Jedi so there is still a satisfying build-up and climax in the prequels with that revelation (most of us hardcore fans might not realize that because we already knew who he was. New, younger viewers won't.)
I hope you do get modded as flamebait, that preemptive comment notwithstanding. Just because you're expressing an honest opinion doesn't mean it can't be flamebait. What makes it flamebait is the harsh and argumentative way you express it. You could have expressed that without words like "bullshit," "bacteria," "ugly," "insignificant," and "zealot." It makes it look like you're posting just to get angry responses, and that is the very definition of "flamebait." The sad part is that when someone correctly mods you as flamebait, you'll just write it off as pro-Mac zealotry instead of understanding why, thus re-enforcing an already skewed perception.
You and millions of others out there sieve the world and your experiences through a narrow, biased view, always imposing so predetermined explanation on it all. It seems that it's the rare few out there who can (or even want to) avoid that trap.
He has no reason to gloat, no matter what he wrote.
Dvorak, along with a lot of other tech writer know-nothings, have been pulling this Mac-on-Intel fantasy out of their collective asses for the last 5+ years, even before the Apple-IBM alliance from two years ago. Just because the switch to Intel finally happened doesn't mean Dvorak and his ilk are privy to any insider secrets or deep insights. It just means that you throw enough crap on the wall, some of it will eventually stick. The most honest thing a horribly inept tech writer like Dvorak can do is resist crowing as he knows that he was just blowing hot air the whole time.
Really. Look over the rest of his writing. He's consistently so far off-base that I'm surprised he's still in print. I'm surprised he ever gets mentioned on Slashdot especially where most of us know better than to take what he writes too seriously.
As a long time Mac user, I seriously couldn't care less what chip is running the show, as long as I have OS X instead of Windows. The only bad thing about Apple's announcement is that it gives guys like Dvorak a chance to do an I-told-ya-so and boost their credibility for absolutely no valid reason whatsoever.
You know, your style of reasoning demonstrates that you lack a lot of the critical thinking skills that most people acquire by high school. I know teenagers who understand the problems inherent in using anecdotal evidence to support an assumption. Why you don't understand that is puzzling.
Sigh...
Why do I bother?
You're missing the point. You say you don't know anyone who owns one. That's doubtful, but for the sake of argument, let's assume that's true. About half the people I know who own computers use Macs. So, how do you get to the point where you can assume that anecdotal evidence like that means anything? It's too subjective to mean anything. Graphic designers think everyone runs Macs. Gamers think everyone runs PCs. It's all in who you choose as colleagues and friends and that's hardly something to base an analysis of statistics on.
I "know computers" too and I come across people who own Macs constantly. In fact, I've watched numerous people I've worked with switch or consider seriously switching to Macs. I've watched the number of Mac retailers in my town double and the number of places selling Macs increase considerably. However, you don't see me extrapolating that out into the real world.
I dislike repeating myself, so here's something I posted earlier. Like many people here, you're citing anecdotal evidence which is meaningless beyond perhaps revealing a deeply held bias. You should carefully consider why you think such "evidence" is worth mentioning in this context.
Good god, that's too funny. I'm going to print that out and put it on my fridge.
Do you realize what you're saying?
Precisely what we Mac users have been saying for years...
Precisely what my PC-using friends have been proving to me for years...
Precisely what Consumer Reports says in their annual report on computers...
...that Macs require considerable less "fixing" than their PC counterparts.
But yeah, go ahead and believe that your anecdotal evidence in patching up second-rate PCs is the same as reality.
Yeah, you're right. My XP box at work doesn't ever show a BSOD. No, instead it just starts spazzing out every few days and requires a reboot otherwise it's nearly unusable. Sometimes, applications refuse to launch. Sometimes they refuse to stay running. Sometimes the video starts doing some freaky things. Sometimes, things slow to an unbearable crawl.
So you're right. No BSOD. XP is pure heaven on earth.
How do these so-called "viruses" spread themselves the way a Windows virus does? And if you'll notice, all of these require the user to activate them explicitly unlike most Windows viruses which can do that on their own while using your machine to spread themselves around to others.
Writing a script to wipe out all the files in your user directory is NOT a virus. In fact, OS X requires admin authentication for an application or script to do anything outside the bounds of a user's home directory--unlike Windows.
Don't know why I'm bothering. You're probably one of those anti-Mac zealots who wants to believe the rampant viruses on Windows is perfectly normal and refuse to hear anything that Lord Gates doesn't hand down to you from on high.
I own a Mac too and it's been long known that Apple's market share numbers do not accurately reflect its installed user base. That's part of what's frustrating as a Mac user, having people treat you as a second-class citizen as part of the "1.8%" in computing when the reality isn't nearly so bad. Remember, market share is only the cut of the pie a computer company gets. I know PC users who have bought 3-4 PCs in the time that I own one Mac. Macs DO tend to have a longer life-span and better quality components so they get replaced less often. Macs are also not the darlings of the geek crowd who buys lots and lots of hardware to tinker with. That translates to PCs having a larger market share, but that doesn't mean the user base can be accurately assumed to be the same. It's not. You can't tell me Apple has the kind of influence they have on the industry with 1.8% user base. That's ludicrous.
It never ceases to amaze me when I hear people make that assumption.
And we all know that anecdotal evidence translates into perfect, unassailable statistical numbers. You would have to consider your line of work and the sort of activities that draws the group of people around you and if there are any overall reasons why they might prefer one platform to another.
I work in publishing and am in contact with creative types in both graphic design, photography and writing, and if we were to extrapolate my personal experiences to reality, then over 50% of computer users in the world are Mac users and most people don't even know what Linux is.
Sounds real accurate, huh?
Just about as accurate as your speculation.
(notices Paris Hilton on CNN)
... on second thought. Bring 'em on.
That number is actually wrong (closer to 3.5%) but it doesn't matter what the number is as market share doesn't mean anything in the context you're using it, and it doesn't necessarily mean anything in terms of profit. What matters is whether or not Apple is profitable and they are, have been for some time now even during periods where other PC makers with larger market shares were not.