Re:I would buy a Mac...
on
Return of the Mac
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I don't know how much you value your time, but mine is worth more than pennies an hour. Given the amount of nit-picking you're doing about $50 worth of hardware, given the far superior software package, security, and visual appeal, you aren't someone who will be swayed.
My god, people will come up with all sorts of excuses. You can pay $500 for something you want that will work as advertised, or paying 80+% of that cost for something that won't.
And sure, I can come up with some freeware crap-fest software to install on a Windows box to make it sorta work if I wanted. But that's just pathetic... I'd spend hours doing it, the software would be anemic, and my OS would be crippled.
You have to love Utah spitting on basic concepts such as freedom of speech and, oh, PARENTING. For a state that, in general, is comprised of Mormons who wail on and on about their tight knit communities, I wonder why an ISP has to do the screening for them? Based on WHAT criteria will an ISP have to black-list a site? How INSANE is this?!
The same result can be made if the parents enabled a firewall or other basic filtering that comes in most any parental control package. If on a PC, Norton comes to mind alnog with a plethora of others. In fact, most PC's probably come with this software. And, if a parent is THAT worried about their children seeing something offensive (it's out there) shouldn't THEY take the time to block it?
I'd love to know if Utah has similar laws preventing people from calling phone sex lines.
The problem I have with legislation like this is the line of thinking that breeds this ignorance. People take the stance that they want you to adhere to their moral code. What's ironic about this in Utah, is that the majority of the state has a religious moral code that they abide by. If they were all following that code then they wouldn't have to have laws like this, would they? In which case, perhaps the problem doesn't lie with the content-- it lies with the culture of enforcing the unenforcable.
I'm not saying that there's horrble shit out there that I wouldn't want my kids to see-- I'm saying it's my own responsibility to take care of it.
You're thinking WAY too logically. People do make purchase decisions based soley on need, as you suggest-- but they also make them based on other factors. Apple products inspire, for lack of better words, lust.
Aside from that simple anecdote, this particular rumors has a practical side:
Today I can buy 2 processors running at 2.5 GHz. In a couple months I can buy 4 processors running at 3.0+ GHz. Unless I _need_ a machine now because I don't already have one, then it's a simple waiting game. Since I already have a dual 1GHz G4, I will wait until these new quad processor G5's are out.
Hope this helps clear up the confusion concerning the wait. As far as the rumor site popularity goes, it's just a matter of community. It gives people a place to talk about Macs, in general, and speculate on the things they love. It's very similar to striking up a conversating about your favorite sport's team or about classic cars.
I own a dock for my Mini and, aside from being moderately easier to drop in the dock instead of connecting the snap-on cable, it's a wash. Anything I can do with the dock I can do with a cable that plugs directly into the iPod instead of the dock.
It's a nice thing to have, but I don't think it's worth the purchase price, in hind sight.
Okay, flaming subject aside... ALL 3 major consoles, and Apple's Macintosh, will be based on PowerPC Architecture.
What does that mean for Intel? It sure as hell doesn't indicate even Microsoft's confidence that their processors perform well in low power/high output environments.
The means the PPE in the CELL @ 4Ghz will not perform as well as a Power5 would could it reach 4Ghz (but since the CELL has 8 SPEs
No, it means it might not. The author suggested his opinion was up to debate. However, it's important to note the different design goals of a Power5, A 970 (G5), and a Cell. They have different needs, and for general purpose computing I think Cell will hold up just fine.
Have you ever tired connecting to the internet with Mac OS X?... because, if you had, you'd know that Mac OS X can be connected to the internet without any firewall or virus protection of any kind without a single problem.
I don't advocate that as a habit, obviously, but Mac people don't have to worry like Windows folks do.
It amazed me, to this day, that people are still pro-Microsoft. All I have to do is LOOK at windows and I know it's ancient. It just looks that way (xp included.) It's a lot better than it used to be, on the surface, but the usability it ATROCIOUS and the security vulnerabilities are rampant.
And, no, OS X is not more secure by obscurity. Let's just stomp that idea into the ground now. It's inherantly more secure. Period.
So the author is correct-- why on Earth do people use windows anymore? Switch. You know you want to.
You can't compare money in the bank to someone's worth. You should see what Gates has in the bank and then consider that for the basis of your calculations. It's vastly shy of $50B. In fact, goin on this premise you should consider your investments including life insurance, and equity in a home and/or major equipment.
I've never thought Gates was a saint-- but giving $750m to charity is good for everyone.
Taking a definition of a word from 10 to 15 years ago and applying it to today's language is, well, ignoring the developments of the past decade. The term RISC simply means that the instructions used are fewer and less complex. It also means that design goals are to be most efficient per clock cycle, as opposed to brute force. In addition, they require fewer transistors, which makes them run cooler and be cheaper to produce. It's not the narrow definition you make it out to be.
I suggest you buy the G5 you've been having dreams about and finally address that itch.
I would like to expand on your thoughts a bit, as I do a lot of interface design for the web and shrink-wrap software.
I read people like Jakob Nielsen and appreciate what they have to say. But, most importantly, I read everything he said with a critical eye. I'm pretty sure he'd like that. Frankly, some of his rules are just incorrect or highly suspect, but most are as true as the sky being blue.
I liken User Interface design to putting on a good outfit. What you're wearing depends on the type of event (your audience), what looks good on you (your subjct matter), and what statement you want to make (what rules you bend.) In my opinion it's the last part, the rules you want to bend, that makes all the difference when designing the visuals. The core funcitonality should really follow most of the rules, but the visuals can play with these elements in a good way based on your target audience and subject matter.
If all interfaces looked like Useit.com we'd be awash in a sea of boring. Nielsen ackwoledges this, and even says in his recommendations that you shouldn't follow ever letter of the "law."
The problem we have is that a lot of decision makers are CHRONIC "WILI" types-- they don't have any practical experience in user interface design and/or a need to care. It's not that all of them are this way, it just seems that people in places like Microsoft ARE. And why is that? It's the corporate climate that nurtures good design practice. If the people at the top don't believe in good design it will filter down to every project manager. Your products will suffer and you will have to rely on the shark-like cunning of your sales force instead of the beautiful simplicity of your user interfaces.
The term macro and micro evolution are usually misrepresented like this. "Macro-evolution" is not under debate no matter how many times you repeat it.
Your lack of understanding is evident as noone that understands the theories and laws behind evolution and natural selection would state that "we don't have proof of bacteria turning into a cat or a reptile into a bird."
Well, I don't know where to start... Birds DID EVOLVE from reptiles. Case in point is a transitional fossil record of Archaeopteryx. See this link:
http://www-biol.paisley.ac.uk/courses/Tatner/bio me dia/units/bird3.htm... and this link...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/in fo.html... which also explains other bird species found recently that support this particular path that evolution took-- Protoarchaeopteryx robusta and Caudipteryx zoui.
So, I would mod the parent DOWN as NOT being insightful.
That is exactly how we should approach things. The teachings of most major religions have core truths abotu how you should treat your fellow man. Their texts tell these through fables and it's very clear that they are stories based on antiquated unerstanding of the universe.
How frickin' easy is this to grasp?!!! I wish there were more people who grew up with this mentality.
ell, we have to be easy on creationsists. Scientists have extensive and prolonged tests to prove a law of science. Creationsists can take someone's word for it.
Evolution is not accepted by a minority in the world. evolution of man kind i shard to swallow by theists, but it's no less true.
And I must retort that science is not a democratic process. More votes doesn't make something more true.
At the time the holy scriptures of most major religions were made, the people who wrote them had the average education of a 6 year old today. That's not that they were dumb people at all-- it's just they didn't have the baisc understandings of science that we have now.
Unless your'e blinded by a literal interpretation of a frickin' BOOK based on heresay and lore, the only conclusion creationsist can come to is that the universe was created by god and not by natural processes. Well, what's the difference? I don't believ in any god, but I'm pretty sure if there was one, it'd give me the faculties to understand myself and my place in the universe through empirical evidence.
And why wouldn't a "god" intend us to evolve into something greater? No matter how you slice it, evolution happens. It's just a matter of how much you want to shut yourself off to logic and give yourslef to "belief."
Sad. I'm glad some people still believe in logic instead of fanatical belief.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know how much you value your time, but mine is worth more than pennies an hour. Given the amount of nit-picking you're doing about $50 worth of hardware, given the far superior software package, security, and visual appeal, you aren't someone who will be swayed.
My god, people will come up with all sorts of excuses. You can pay $500 for something you want that will work as advertised, or paying 80+% of that cost for something that won't.
And sure, I can come up with some freeware crap-fest software to install on a Windows box to make it sorta work if I wanted. But that's just pathetic... I'd spend hours doing it, the software would be anemic, and my OS would be crippled.
Where's the comparison again?
You have a very fundamental misunderstanding of science versus religion. I have 6 words for you:
Empirical evidence supported by repeatable experiment.
It's slightly more compelling that believe preacher Joe who insists there's a definite number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin.
You have to love Utah spitting on basic concepts such as freedom of speech and, oh, PARENTING. For a state that, in general, is comprised of Mormons who wail on and on about their tight knit communities, I wonder why an ISP has to do the screening for them? Based on WHAT criteria will an ISP have to black-list a site? How INSANE is this?!
The same result can be made if the parents enabled a firewall or other basic filtering that comes in most any parental control package. If on a PC, Norton comes to mind alnog with a plethora of others. In fact, most PC's probably come with this software. And, if a parent is THAT worried about their children seeing something offensive (it's out there) shouldn't THEY take the time to block it?
I'd love to know if Utah has similar laws preventing people from calling phone sex lines.
The problem I have with legislation like this is the line of thinking that breeds this ignorance. People take the stance that they want you to adhere to their moral code. What's ironic about this in Utah, is that the majority of the state has a religious moral code that they abide by. If they were all following that code then they wouldn't have to have laws like this, would they? In which case, perhaps the problem doesn't lie with the content-- it lies with the culture of enforcing the unenforcable.
I'm not saying that there's horrble shit out there that I wouldn't want my kids to see-- I'm saying it's my own responsibility to take care of it.
You're thinking WAY too logically. People do make purchase decisions based soley on need, as you suggest-- but they also make them based on other factors. Apple products inspire, for lack of better words, lust.
Aside from that simple anecdote, this particular rumors has a practical side:
Today I can buy 2 processors running at 2.5 GHz. In a couple months I can buy 4 processors running at 3.0+ GHz. Unless I _need_ a machine now because I don't already have one, then it's a simple waiting game. Since I already have a dual 1GHz G4, I will wait until these new quad processor G5's are out.
Hope this helps clear up the confusion concerning the wait. As far as the rumor site popularity goes, it's just a matter of community. It gives people a place to talk about Macs, in general, and speculate on the things they love. It's very similar to striking up a conversating about your favorite sport's team or about classic cars.
You act as if Apple did some real groundbreaking work for mass marketing the next logical step (which has already existed.)
:-)
Um, nope. Don't think anyone implied that. However, judging by your defensive stance, you clearly want one.
Since the Register is rarely correct about anything, and this line of talk has been discounted several times by Apple, I wouldn't believe it.
Apple signed a multi-year deal.
I own a dock for my Mini and, aside from being moderately easier to drop in the dock instead of connecting the snap-on cable, it's a wash. Anything I can do with the dock I can do with a cable that plugs directly into the iPod instead of the dock.
It's a nice thing to have, but I don't think it's worth the purchase price, in hind sight.
Okay, flaming subject aside... ALL 3 major consoles, and Apple's Macintosh, will be based on PowerPC Architecture.
What does that mean for Intel? It sure as hell doesn't indicate even Microsoft's confidence that their processors perform well in low power/high output environments.
This is interesting.
No, it means it might not. The author suggested his opinion was up to debate. However, it's important to note the different design goals of a Power5, A 970 (G5), and a Cell. They have different needs, and for general purpose computing I think Cell will hold up just fine.
This does explain why the middle management at my company was canned over a year and a half ago.
You question begs another:
... because, if you had, you'd know that Mac OS X can be connected to the internet without any firewall or virus protection of any kind without a single problem.
Have you ever tired connecting to the internet with Mac OS X?
I don't advocate that as a habit, obviously, but Mac people don't have to worry like Windows folks do.
I'd easily argue that less that 99% of their machines run fine.
When was the last time you needed 3 full time, over-paid IT employees to look over a Macintosh network of 50 computers? Windows is a joke.
It amazed me, to this day, that people are still pro-Microsoft. All I have to do is LOOK at windows and I know it's ancient. It just looks that way (xp included.) It's a lot better than it used to be, on the surface, but the usability it ATROCIOUS and the security vulnerabilities are rampant.
And, no, OS X is not more secure by obscurity. Let's just stomp that idea into the ground now. It's inherantly more secure. Period.
So the author is correct-- why on Earth do people use windows anymore? Switch. You know you want to.
Wow. The next time someone rags on me for being a Steve Jobs fanboy I'm going to pass the buck to Linus Torvalds, the "Software Hippie."
Sheesh. Maybe Linus and Steve should work together?
You can't compare money in the bank to someone's worth. You should see what Gates has in the bank and then consider that for the basis of your calculations. It's vastly shy of $50B. In fact, goin on this premise you should consider your investments including life insurance, and equity in a home and/or major equipment.
I've never thought Gates was a saint-- but giving $750m to charity is good for everyone.
It's times like these that I ask myself: what would Brian Boytano do?
IBM, you know-- the people that make RISC chips-- would tend to disagree with you:
f /p roducts/PowerPC_970_and_970FX_Microprocessors
r e& q=define:RISC
http://www-306.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.ns
Oh, and Google:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmo
Taking a definition of a word from 10 to 15 years ago and applying it to today's language is, well, ignoring the developments of the past decade. The term RISC simply means that the instructions used are fewer and less complex. It also means that design goals are to be most efficient per clock cycle, as opposed to brute force. In addition, they require fewer transistors, which makes them run cooler and be cheaper to produce. It's not the narrow definition you make it out to be.
I suggest you buy the G5 you've been having dreams about and finally address that itch.
I would like to expand on your thoughts a bit, as I do a lot of interface design for the web and shrink-wrap software.
I read people like Jakob Nielsen and appreciate what they have to say. But, most importantly, I read everything he said with a critical eye. I'm pretty sure he'd like that. Frankly, some of his rules are just incorrect or highly suspect, but most are as true as the sky being blue.
I liken User Interface design to putting on a good outfit. What you're wearing depends on the type of event (your audience), what looks good on you (your subjct matter), and what statement you want to make (what rules you bend.) In my opinion it's the last part, the rules you want to bend, that makes all the difference when designing the visuals. The core funcitonality should really follow most of the rules, but the visuals can play with these elements in a good way based on your target audience and subject matter.
If all interfaces looked like Useit.com we'd be awash in a sea of boring. Nielsen ackwoledges this, and even says in his recommendations that you shouldn't follow ever letter of the "law."
The problem we have is that a lot of decision makers are CHRONIC "WILI" types-- they don't have any practical experience in user interface design and/or a need to care. It's not that all of them are this way, it just seems that people in places like Microsoft ARE. And why is that? It's the corporate climate that nurtures good design practice. If the people at the top don't believe in good design it will filter down to every project manager. Your products will suffer and you will have to rely on the shark-like cunning of your sales force instead of the beautiful simplicity of your user interfaces.
The term macro and micro evolution are usually misrepresented like this. "Macro-evolution" is not under debate no matter how many times you repeat it.
... Birds DID EVOLVE from reptiles. Case in point is a transitional fossil record of Archaeopteryx. See this link:
o me dia/units/bird3.htm ... and this link ...
n fo .html ... which also explains other bird species found recently that support this particular path that evolution took-- Protoarchaeopteryx robusta and Caudipteryx zoui.
Your lack of understanding is evident as noone that understands the theories and laws behind evolution and natural selection would state that "we don't have proof of bacteria turning into a cat or a reptile into a bird."
Well, I don't know where to start
http://www-biol.paisley.ac.uk/courses/Tatner/bi
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/i
So, I would mod the parent DOWN as NOT being insightful.
HOLY SH*T. That's amazingly ignorant. Are these people for real??!
That is exactly how we should approach things. The teachings of most major religions have core truths abotu how you should treat your fellow man. Their texts tell these through fables and it's very clear that they are stories based on antiquated unerstanding of the universe.
How frickin' easy is this to grasp?!!! I wish there were more people who grew up with this mentality.
"One can't use science to "prove" religion any more than one can use religion to disprove science."
Wow. You're not serious, are you?
The 1840's called. They said they wanted their culture back.
ell, we have to be easy on creationsists. Scientists have extensive and prolonged tests to prove a law of science. Creationsists can take someone's word for it.
We're playing against a stacked deck.
LOL.
Evolution is not accepted by a minority in the world. evolution of man kind i shard to swallow by theists, but it's no less true.
And I must retort that science is not a democratic process. More votes doesn't make something more true.
At the time the holy scriptures of most major religions were made, the people who wrote them had the average education of a 6 year old today. That's not that they were dumb people at all-- it's just they didn't have the baisc understandings of science that we have now.
Amen, brother! (Seriously)
Unless your'e blinded by a literal interpretation of a frickin' BOOK based on heresay and lore, the only conclusion creationsist can come to is that the universe was created by god and not by natural processes. Well, what's the difference? I don't believ in any god, but I'm pretty sure if there was one, it'd give me the faculties to understand myself and my place in the universe through empirical evidence.
And why wouldn't a "god" intend us to evolve into something greater? No matter how you slice it, evolution happens. It's just a matter of how much you want to shut yourself off to logic and give yourslef to "belief."
Sad. I'm glad some people still believe in logic instead of fanatical belief.