After all that Steve has done for the age of the Personal Computer...and all he continues to do... you go ballistic over a little "genius" hyperbole? Switch to decaf already, sheesh. The guy has some pretty serious accomplishments/credentials and merits a comment or two of that nature.
There was no "equivalent device." And if you mean costing somewhat more than a "less-than-inspirational-but-pretty-similar device" then don't say "3 to 4 times more." It's those kind of tired exaggerations that keep folks stuck in the (well-earned) early 90's Anti-Apple mindset.
And if you're going to insist that it isn't an exaggeration show me a device which was on sale within 3 months of the introduction of the iPod, in the same size/weight class, same capacity, same transfer speeds, which also doubled as a hard drive....at less than the iPod price.
Why does this strike me as so typically 'blame Apple for everything'?
The real story as I understand it is quite an old one - Apple is screwed because of the continued dependence on Motorola. You see, the G4 processors made by Motorola can't connect directly to DDR memory, requiring this type of kludgy go-between.
I for one am all for seeing Apple abandon Motorola within the next couple of years...and PPC in general if need be...and move to cheaper comodity CPU parts by Intel or AMD. I suspect we could kiss goodbye the tiny, quiet, cool (temperature) designs...but it probably will be worth it.
If the same thing came out about Sun or Apple, they'd be praised, and there would be no "but" line at the end.
Baloney. I don't follow Sun religiously in these forums but I do read the Apple section daily. I can tell you for a fact that Apple does not by any means get a free (or even fair!) ride in these forums. Far from it. They take more than a fair share of abuse and FUD and just plain ridiculousness. Microsoft isn't the only company that gets dragged through the dirt here, even if (IMO) they do deserve it more than most.
Microsoft didn't support the DMCA, so stop trying to villify them
Maybe not, but aren't they the one's "cooperating" with major content providers to develop and stuff down everyone's throats all that great DRM technology?
I've been seeing you spam discussions here for weeks now and I have only this to say - use your real name. Or are you unwilling to stand behind your comments?
Failing that you should at least endeavor to rise above your current name.
If it had been a story about the latest point release of an open source software project it would have included the word "drool" and concluded with multiple exclamation points.
And nobody would criticise that.
Seriously, tps12 seems to be implying that Apple is getting some kind of free ride in the slashdot forums...anyone who thinks that should have his head examined. Apple takes tons of abuse (deserved and undeserved) in these forums. It's the Linux / open source camp that gets the free ride.
Why would a clone maker have to license the OS necessarily? They could be a white-box Mac maker and ship linux or nothing on the machine. heck they could even sell you a retail boxed copy of OS X along side it if they wanted. I can't imagine that it's OS licensing that's preventing clones.
Your point about reverse engineering is a good one though. But the proprietary widgets can be reverse engineered now can't they? I mean, you could reverse engineer those parts and then buy G4s from Motorola and some off the shelf parts...and preseto, clone Mac. Perhaps your point is that the only real thing stopping them is that as soon as that happend all the reversen engineering would be for naught because Apple would just break it in the next OS patch. The "unauthorized" clone maker would always be spending tons on R&D to reverse engineer...every six months potentially. Isn't that the real reason there are no clones today? Not that the reverse engineering can't be done...but that nobody wants to do it every few months because Apple isn't cooperating?
I see Apple making Mac OS XI for x86 but only allowing it to work on special Apple motherboards.
I think that is exactly right.
Apple won't hype the switch that much. They will instead sell some sort of VMWare-like or dual-boot stuff and market the x86 Macs as being able to run Windows at full speed.
Can't see it. What I do see is that Apple will make the switch when a next-gen Intel or AMD processor comes out - and they will wait for it for two reasons. 1. Presumably one of them will find a way to make their stuff a little smaller and cooler. Apple likes things like TiBooks and fanless iMacs. Can't develop shit like that with brick-sized P4 modules can you? No. 2. Apple won't want to pull a "New Coke" on their market. Mac users are loyal to their brand and to their processors. They won't like seeing a switch to a part that has been touted as inferior for so long. This effect will be lessened when a next-gen part comes out which doesn't have quite the history of being bashed by Apple as the current one's do.
Then someone will hack Mac OS XI to work on any motherboard, or some company will reverse engineer the special Apple motherboards and make their own Mac compatible motherboards, and Apple will call out the lawyers.
Apple would never, ever make such a switch unless they were supremely sure that this couldn't happen. If the ability to sell proprietary hardware for the OS went bye-bye then so would Apple itself and they are fully aware of this. It's not just a dinosaur clinging to the old ways...it really is at the core of Apple being able to innovate the way they do. They have to control the OS and hardware of the platform to do what they do. That is the only reason why Dell or Microsoft can't be an Apple. it's not because Apple is "cooler" or even "smarter." It's because they control the entire platform.
Hell, if I worked at Apple I would want to make damned sure that those crown jewels never got lost. I'd rather run the boxes with hampsters in plastic wheels than risk that.
There is a huge leap between "using Intel processors" and what you're talking about. Using an Intel or AMD processor does not by any means mean that one could make a Macintosh out of off-the-shelf parts. No way, no how.
Apple could quite easily use totally off-the-shelf parts to build their own Macs and yet prevent you from doing it too...by adding one small thing: an additional chip (or chips) to the motherboard. Proprietary ones. One's that you couldn't buy anywhere, who's exact specification was unknown outside of Cupertino.
One's that the Mac OS specifically looked for before booting. Get the picture? No proprietary chip, no booting Mac OS. No build-your-own Mac. Someone feel free to correct me if I"m wrong but isn't that basically the reason why nobody could make Macintosh clones? Because of some proprietary ROMs or something? (Excepting the brief period when some companies were licensed to use them.)
So you see, Apple moving to an Intel processor doesn't mean that one could make a Mac by buying parts at some local white box dealer.
You're kidding me, right? "Isn't much better"?? It's quite obviously inferior to both. Yes, even Windows.
I think this is mainly the case because good UI sometimes means taking away someone's ability to do something. Infinite choice on how to make something happen isn't always condusive to good UI. Linux users and developers (and there's hardly a difference) are not big on taking away someones ability to do something. This is primarily why I predict that when someone does make a distro with a good UI it will be universally hated by the existing Linux community. We'll see in time if I'm right.
"Like, It has windows and menus and everything!" People who are that easily impressed by an operating system aren't the best case studies of the mind-blowing advancements in UI that Linux brings to the world of computing. Heh.
Telling them that they have 8000 USD value software on this disk and show them things like OpenOffice.org, Mozilla, The GIMP, KOffice, the games, they can't utter a sound.
Neither can I after reading the above. Suggesting that those half-dozen pieces of open source software are in some meaningful way "worth $8000" is bordering on the ridiculous. I thin what you mean to say is that they might adequately substitute for $8000 of commercial software. I would be quick to add that more often than not they don't. Hell if more than a few people agreed with you then Adobe, for example, would go out of business for lack of sales in the Photoshop department. Everyone would be downloading GIMP. Follow me? Most people don't find them adequate substitutes.
This kind of breathless Linux advocacy is almost as bad as what one can often find on Macintosh discussion sites. In either case it doesn't do anyone any favors.
That reminds me of one other thing about the original post. "AMAZING." What is amazing? Booting a functional OS off a CD? Shit, I've been doing that for years and years on Macintoshes. I even have 50 little boxes at work that have no hard drives, just boot Linux off the CD and serve as email / browsing stations for students in the university coffee shops. I'm not seeing anything amazing here. "Even the audio works." (insert gasps of amazement here.)
That is such a good point. I don't think it's doing Linux any long-term favors to have Windows-developed games work in it. In fact, it's a dis-incentive for game developers to write for Linux!
Along those same lines I've often thought Linux gaming is doomed from the start simply because almost all Linux hardware is capable of running Windows...and thus all Linux gamers are dual-booting into Windows already. The Game developer has two choices. They can either A) Develop for Linux and sell a million games or B) Not develop for Linux...and sell the same million games to the same people who will just reboot to play it. Sales are the same in either case, development costs are less in scenario A. Is it any wonder that they're choosing option A? At least developing for the Macintosh has the potential to get addition sales that you would not have been able to get otherwise.
Another scenario is the oft-discussed idea that someone should port DirectX to the Macintosh. I think this would be terrible. The Mac platform would forever be at the whim and mercy of Redmond. I can see it now...All game developers abandon more open, standard APIs in favor of "having it work everywhere with DX." Of course not all features are actually available on the Mac, but hey, it's good enough right? Pretty soon other APIs die out, developers have tons invested in DX code...then it starts to happen. DirectX 11 comes out for Windows and the Mac version is at 9.1...When asked when the new version will come out for the Macintosh they say they have no plans at present to bring it there at all because "their customers dont' want it" or some bullshit.
Then the Mac game scene is more screwed than it was in 95. A similar scenario could easily curtail Linux game development before it's really even begun.
I should lighten up. I know it. And I know you're not saying Linux has more games developed for it than the Macintosh...but I so don't find the comment above funny for two reasons.
1. We Mac users have been on the short end of the gaming stick since the mid-90s and although things have improved tremendously and will likely improve even more, we will almost certainly never have complete pairity with the Windows world...and that truth still stings occasionally.
2. I've grown tired of Linux users acting like the latest distro is taking over the world, challenging Redmond for the desktop, gaining marketshare hand over fist, is way more relevant and popular than the Macintosh...so much so that Macintosh influence, relevance and desktop presence is openly ridiculed...when the real story is that while Linux is a phenomenon like no other, it has virtually no desktop presence at all and the development of commercial applications for it is virtually nil. Marketshare in the "NAT box in my coat closet", absolutely. Marketshare for "Web server for my mid-sized company," sure. "Render farm for a movie FX house," yes indeed. CL-based, opensource, free sysadmin widgets developed for it? Tons. But top-shelf games developed for it? Please.
Note: All flames must include 3 URLs of commercial, million-copy-selling games available for Linux and not for the Macintosh. Emulation doesn't count for either camp.
And by the way I've been playing WC3 since the day it came out right on the OS of my choice without rebooting anything. So there.
Admittance to the show floor is cheap or free, as I recall. Well, I think it was under $50 and free admissions abounded, or something like that. It's the user and even more so the professional conference sessions that cost. And actually it wasn't that bad. I think I paid ~$500 for a weeks worth of professional conference sessions. I don't know if PC Expo had any conference sessions other that those that were basically sales pitches given by vendors. Not really sure, though.
God it sucks that the first 3 posts to this article are undeniable trolls. Slowly but surely the Macintosh platform is gaining ground in the nerdier circles including slashdot. I just wish it would happen a little quicker so we can actually discuss things rather than imply that Mac users are gay or that they will be out of business in 6 months if they don't go x86. Shut up already. I heard enough of that shit back in the early 90s.
Now about the Expo...No matter where it ends up it'll beat the hell out of PC Expo which I've been to in Chicago for the last 2 years. I do hope other computer shows are better than that one. What a dog. I didn't see one excited person there. Not even the vendors seemed to be awake. Just a small building filled with small, cheesy, lame booths and a couple of hundred middle-aged tech managers shuffling aimlessly about.
Now, Macworld is a different thing. Don't believe it? Try it. You can get in to the show floor for a song. Go see for yourself. And when you get back keep the Kool-Aid analogies to yourself already. Jeez.
Maybe if Mac hardware weren't so over priced people wouldn't bitch so much.
I suspect that it's people who don't own Macintoshes who are 'bitching" the loudest. I think that's odd - to get so supremely worked up and passionate about a company who's products they don't even use. Perhaps they're jealous of the Macintosh and trying to justify not having bought one. I don't know.
It's not like Apple supports their hardware for very long anyways.
Compared to what? It's easy to point to a couple of nasty examples but I'm willing to bet that Apple is as good in this regard as anyone else if not better. Don't forget that OS X and the migration to it is one of great magnitude. There comes a point at which you have to stop supporting legacy sofftware/hardware in order to leap forward. Not every year, not every five years...but eventually. That kind of leap has only happened, what, half a dozen times in the history of the personal computer? (Count 'em yourself...DOS, Win 3.1, Macintosh, OS-2, Linux, NeXT, WinNT, blah, blah, blah.) The fact that the Macintosh platform just went through one doesn't mean that Apple hasn't adequately supported existing hardware over the last fifteen years - they clearly have.
Still, it's the best operating system you can buy and that's certainly worth something.
Yep. At least $69, which is what I'm paying for it.
There are a lot of ways to answer that, but for me...off the top of my head...
1. Windows file sharing and browsing
2. GUI for the ipfw firewall
3. Sherlock 3
4. Printer sharing (finally)
5. Shareable internet connections including wireless
because the IT staff is horribly under staffed and under funded
I won't deny what you say, however, I think the more salient issue is that university IT departments don't have enough clout relative to other bodies in the organization.
Case in point: A university IT dept identifies a software tool for remote assistance, pushing software / anti-virus updates, software auditing and asset management. After researching products and then selecting one and then spending a ton of cash on it, the Faculty raise a huge stink about it saying "you're going to read my files! what about academic freedom??!?!"
After countless administration meetings where concerns were fully addressed, a vocal minority in the faculty are still raising hell about it. The result? The project is eventually killed.
Hell, we don't even have the authority to deny support to software we didn't install on hardware that we don't own! This is in spite of policies saying otherwise.
So, yeah what you say is true but I think the real issue is that in the corporate world you have scenarios like "use this software and like it, if you download unauthorized software you're fired," etc. "Here is your computer. No you don't get to pick the brand or opt for a CD-RW. Take it and like it." While in academia we basically operate on the whim of the academics.
I work at a university where I have buildings spawled over several blocks and most of them are have doors swinging in the breeze all day and hot data jacks everywhere. It's a different world I guess.
I'm certainly not a security expert by any means, but I wonder what the big deal is exactly? I mean do you really know who/what is plugged into every physical network port in your building right now? I'm thinking "no." And that being the case, it's no more or less secure than any wireless connection, encrypted or not. Or am I missing something? How is a wired connection more trustworthy or secure than a wireless one, given that a port could be used by someone not authorized to do so?
I find it odd that HP isn't getting a bigger knock in the slashdot forums for this. Everyone seems so rational and understanding and matter-of-fact. Usually one would expect "OMG! The MAN is keeping us down!!" and such. Is it because they sell Linux? What gives?
Slashdot Mirror
There's more Mac users who know what it is to not be able to log onto a NetWare server than who know what "virtual desktops" even are
if it weren't for the ever-gullible 4% of the computer buying public who can be fooled all of the time...
Read the above and complete the following. "This guy is..."
A. "...clearly aproaching all things Macintosh in a level-headed and unbiased way and thus your opinion should be given due consideration."
B. "...obviously a knee-jerk Mac basher who knows just enough about the platform to knock it a good one whenever the opportunity arises."
Hm... let me think....
After all that Steve has done for the age of the Personal Computer...and all he continues to do... you go ballistic over a little "genius" hyperbole? Switch to decaf already, sheesh. The guy has some pretty serious accomplishments/credentials and merits a comment or two of that nature.
There was no "equivalent device." And if you mean costing somewhat more than a "less-than-inspirational-but-pretty-similar device" then don't say "3 to 4 times more." It's those kind of tired exaggerations that keep folks stuck in the (well-earned) early 90's Anti-Apple mindset.
And if you're going to insist that it isn't an exaggeration show me a device which was on sale within 3 months of the introduction of the iPod, in the same size/weight class, same capacity, same transfer speeds, which also doubled as a hard drive....at less than the iPod price.
No? Thanks for playing our little game. Next!
Why does this strike me as so typically 'blame Apple for everything'?
The real story as I understand it is quite an old one - Apple is screwed because of the continued dependence on Motorola. You see, the G4 processors made by Motorola can't connect directly to DDR memory, requiring this type of kludgy go-between.
I for one am all for seeing Apple abandon Motorola within the next couple of years...and PPC in general if need be...and move to cheaper comodity CPU parts by Intel or AMD. I suspect we could kiss goodbye the tiny, quiet, cool (temperature) designs...but it probably will be worth it.
learn to co-exist with the rest of the world.
Yeah. I mean after all, they'll need slaves to labor in the mines after they take over, right?
If the same thing came out about Sun or Apple, they'd be praised, and there would be no "but" line at the end.
Baloney. I don't follow Sun religiously in these forums but I do read the Apple section daily. I can tell you for a fact that Apple does not by any means get a free (or even fair!) ride in these forums. Far from it. They take more than a fair share of abuse and FUD and just plain ridiculousness. Microsoft isn't the only company that gets dragged through the dirt here, even if (IMO) they do deserve it more than most.
Microsoft didn't support the DMCA, so stop trying to villify them
Maybe not, but aren't they the one's "cooperating" with major content providers to develop and stuff down everyone's throats all that great DRM technology?
"you are trying to flame troll..."
"...Mac-O-Sux..."
I've been seeing you spam discussions here for weeks now and I have only this to say - use your real name. Or are you unwilling to stand behind your comments?
Failing that you should at least endeavor to rise above your current name.
If it had been a story about the latest point release of an open source software project it would have included the word "drool" and concluded with multiple exclamation points.
And nobody would criticise that.
Seriously, tps12 seems to be implying that Apple is getting some kind of free ride in the slashdot forums...anyone who thinks that should have his head examined. Apple takes tons of abuse (deserved and undeserved) in these forums. It's the Linux / open source camp that gets the free ride.
Why would a clone maker have to license the OS necessarily? They could be a white-box Mac maker and ship linux or nothing on the machine. heck they could even sell you a retail boxed copy of OS X along side it if they wanted. I can't imagine that it's OS licensing that's preventing clones.
Your point about reverse engineering is a good one though. But the proprietary widgets can be reverse engineered now can't they? I mean, you could reverse engineer those parts and then buy G4s from Motorola and some off the shelf parts...and preseto, clone Mac. Perhaps your point is that the only real thing stopping them is that as soon as that happend all the reversen engineering would be for naught because Apple would just break it in the next OS patch. The "unauthorized" clone maker would always be spending tons on R&D to reverse engineer...every six months potentially. Isn't that the real reason there are no clones today? Not that the reverse engineering can't be done...but that nobody wants to do it every few months because Apple isn't cooperating?
I see Apple making Mac OS XI for x86 but only allowing it to work on special Apple motherboards.
I think that is exactly right.
Apple won't hype the switch that much. They will instead sell some sort of VMWare-like or dual-boot stuff and market the x86 Macs as being able to run Windows at full speed.
Can't see it. What I do see is that Apple will make the switch when a next-gen Intel or AMD processor comes out - and they will wait for it for two reasons. 1. Presumably one of them will find a way to make their stuff a little smaller and cooler. Apple likes things like TiBooks and fanless iMacs. Can't develop shit like that with brick-sized P4 modules can you? No. 2. Apple won't want to pull a "New Coke" on their market. Mac users are loyal to their brand and to their processors. They won't like seeing a switch to a part that has been touted as inferior for so long. This effect will be lessened when a next-gen part comes out which doesn't have quite the history of being bashed by Apple as the current one's do.
Then someone will hack Mac OS XI to work on any motherboard, or some company will reverse engineer the special Apple motherboards and make their own Mac compatible motherboards, and Apple will call out the lawyers.
Apple would never, ever make such a switch unless they were supremely sure that this couldn't happen. If the ability to sell proprietary hardware for the OS went bye-bye then so would Apple itself and they are fully aware of this. It's not just a dinosaur clinging to the old ways...it really is at the core of Apple being able to innovate the way they do. They have to control the OS and hardware of the platform to do what they do. That is the only reason why Dell or Microsoft can't be an Apple. it's not because Apple is "cooler" or even "smarter." It's because they control the entire platform.
Hell, if I worked at Apple I would want to make damned sure that those crown jewels never got lost. I'd rather run the boxes with hampsters in plastic wheels than risk that.
If they went to the 'build your own' x86 market
There is a huge leap between "using Intel processors" and what you're talking about. Using an Intel or AMD processor does not by any means mean that one could make a Macintosh out of off-the-shelf parts. No way, no how.
Apple could quite easily use totally off-the-shelf parts to build their own Macs and yet prevent you from doing it too...by adding one small thing: an additional chip (or chips) to the motherboard. Proprietary ones. One's that you couldn't buy anywhere, who's exact specification was unknown outside of Cupertino.
One's that the Mac OS specifically looked for before booting. Get the picture? No proprietary chip, no booting Mac OS. No build-your-own Mac. Someone feel free to correct me if I"m wrong but isn't that basically the reason why nobody could make Macintosh clones? Because of some proprietary ROMs or something? (Excepting the brief period when some companies were licensed to use them.)
So you see, Apple moving to an Intel processor doesn't mean that one could make a Mac by buying parts at some local white box dealer.
I was being sarcastic! :)
the UI isn't much better than windows or a mac
You're kidding me, right? "Isn't much better"?? It's quite obviously inferior to both. Yes, even Windows.
I think this is mainly the case because good UI sometimes means taking away someone's ability to do something. Infinite choice on how to make something happen isn't always condusive to good UI. Linux users and developers (and there's hardly a difference) are not big on taking away someones ability to do something. This is primarily why I predict that when someone does make a distro with a good UI it will be universally hated by the existing Linux community. We'll see in time if I'm right.
they go like "wow! that's Linux?!?!"
"Like, It has windows and menus and everything!" People who are that easily impressed by an operating system aren't the best case studies of the mind-blowing advancements in UI that Linux brings to the world of computing. Heh.
Telling them that they have 8000 USD value software on this disk and show them things like OpenOffice.org, Mozilla, The GIMP, KOffice, the games, they can't utter a sound.
Neither can I after reading the above. Suggesting that those half-dozen pieces of open source software are in some meaningful way "worth $8000" is bordering on the ridiculous. I thin what you mean to say is that they might adequately substitute for $8000 of commercial software. I would be quick to add that more often than not they don't. Hell if more than a few people agreed with you then Adobe, for example, would go out of business for lack of sales in the Photoshop department. Everyone would be downloading GIMP. Follow me? Most people don't find them adequate substitutes.
This kind of breathless Linux advocacy is almost as bad as what one can often find on Macintosh discussion sites. In either case it doesn't do anyone any favors.
That reminds me of one other thing about the original post. "AMAZING." What is amazing? Booting a functional OS off a CD? Shit, I've been doing that for years and years on Macintoshes. I even have 50 little boxes at work that have no hard drives, just boot Linux off the CD and serve as email / browsing stations for students in the university coffee shops. I'm not seeing anything amazing here. "Even the audio works." (insert gasps of amazement here.)
That is such a good point. I don't think it's doing Linux any long-term favors to have Windows-developed games work in it. In fact, it's a dis-incentive for game developers to write for Linux!
Along those same lines I've often thought Linux gaming is doomed from the start simply because almost all Linux hardware is capable of running Windows...and thus all Linux gamers are dual-booting into Windows already. The Game developer has two choices. They can either A) Develop for Linux and sell a million games or B) Not develop for Linux...and sell the same million games to the same people who will just reboot to play it. Sales are the same in either case, development costs are less in scenario A. Is it any wonder that they're choosing option A? At least developing for the Macintosh has the potential to get addition sales that you would not have been able to get otherwise.
Another scenario is the oft-discussed idea that someone should port DirectX to the Macintosh. I think this would be terrible. The Mac platform would forever be at the whim and mercy of Redmond. I can see it now...All game developers abandon more open, standard APIs in favor of "having it work everywhere with DX." Of course not all features are actually available on the Mac, but hey, it's good enough right? Pretty soon other APIs die out, developers have tons invested in DX code...then it starts to happen. DirectX 11 comes out for Windows and the Mac version is at 9.1...When asked when the new version will come out for the Macintosh they say they have no plans at present to bring it there at all because "their customers dont' want it" or some bullshit.
Then the Mac game scene is more screwed than it was in 95. A similar scenario could easily curtail Linux game development before it's really even begun.
I should lighten up. I know it. And I know you're not saying Linux has more games developed for it than the Macintosh...but I so don't find the comment above funny for two reasons.
1. We Mac users have been on the short end of the gaming stick since the mid-90s and although things have improved tremendously and will likely improve even more, we will almost certainly never have complete pairity with the Windows world...and that truth still stings occasionally.
2. I've grown tired of Linux users acting like the latest distro is taking over the world, challenging Redmond for the desktop, gaining marketshare hand over fist, is way more relevant and popular than the Macintosh...so much so that Macintosh influence, relevance and desktop presence is openly ridiculed...when the real story is that while Linux is a phenomenon like no other, it has virtually no desktop presence at all and the development of commercial applications for it is virtually nil. Marketshare in the "NAT box in my coat closet", absolutely. Marketshare for "Web server for my mid-sized company," sure. "Render farm for a movie FX house," yes indeed. CL-based, opensource, free sysadmin widgets developed for it? Tons. But top-shelf games developed for it? Please.
Note: All flames must include 3 URLs of commercial, million-copy-selling games available for Linux and not for the Macintosh. Emulation doesn't count for either camp.
And by the way I've been playing WC3 since the day it came out right on the OS of my choice without rebooting anything. So there.
*whew*
Going to try to relax now.
Admittance to the show floor is cheap or free, as I recall. Well, I think it was under $50 and free admissions abounded, or something like that. It's the user and even more so the professional conference sessions that cost. And actually it wasn't that bad. I think I paid ~$500 for a weeks worth of professional conference sessions. I don't know if PC Expo had any conference sessions other that those that were basically sales pitches given by vendors. Not really sure, though.
God it sucks that the first 3 posts to this article are undeniable trolls. Slowly but surely the Macintosh platform is gaining ground in the nerdier circles including slashdot. I just wish it would happen a little quicker so we can actually discuss things rather than imply that Mac users are gay or that they will be out of business in 6 months if they don't go x86. Shut up already. I heard enough of that shit back in the early 90s.
Now about the Expo...No matter where it ends up it'll beat the hell out of PC Expo which I've been to in Chicago for the last 2 years. I do hope other computer shows are better than that one. What a dog. I didn't see one excited person there. Not even the vendors seemed to be awake. Just a small building filled with small, cheesy, lame booths and a couple of hundred middle-aged tech managers shuffling aimlessly about.
Now, Macworld is a different thing. Don't believe it? Try it. You can get in to the show floor for a song. Go see for yourself. And when you get back keep the Kool-Aid analogies to yourself already. Jeez.
Maybe if Mac hardware weren't so over priced people wouldn't bitch so much.
I suspect that it's people who don't own Macintoshes who are 'bitching" the loudest. I think that's odd - to get so supremely worked up and passionate about a company who's products they don't even use. Perhaps they're jealous of the Macintosh and trying to justify not having bought one. I don't know.
It's not like Apple supports their hardware for very long anyways.
Compared to what? It's easy to point to a couple of nasty examples but I'm willing to bet that Apple is as good in this regard as anyone else if not better. Don't forget that OS X and the migration to it is one of great magnitude. There comes a point at which you have to stop supporting legacy sofftware/hardware in order to leap forward. Not every year, not every five years...but eventually. That kind of leap has only happened, what, half a dozen times in the history of the personal computer? (Count 'em yourself...DOS, Win 3.1, Macintosh, OS-2, Linux, NeXT, WinNT, blah, blah, blah.) The fact that the Macintosh platform just went through one doesn't mean that Apple hasn't adequately supported existing hardware over the last fifteen years - they clearly have.
Still, it's the best operating system you can buy and that's certainly worth something.
Yep. At least $69, which is what I'm paying for it.
what am I getting for $129, an IM client?
...off the top of my head...
There are a lot of ways to answer that, but for me
1. Windows file sharing and browsing
2. GUI for the ipfw firewall
3. Sherlock 3
4. Printer sharing (finally)
5. Shareable internet connections including wireless
because the IT staff is horribly under staffed and under funded
I won't deny what you say, however, I think the more salient issue is that university IT departments don't have enough clout relative to other bodies in the organization.
Case in point: A university IT dept identifies a software tool for remote assistance, pushing software / anti-virus updates, software auditing and asset management. After researching products and then selecting one and then spending a ton of cash on it, the Faculty raise a huge stink about it saying "you're going to read my files! what about academic freedom??!?!"
After countless administration meetings where concerns were fully addressed, a vocal minority in the faculty are still raising hell about it. The result? The project is eventually killed.
Hell, we don't even have the authority to deny support to software we didn't install on hardware that we don't own! This is in spite of policies saying otherwise.
So, yeah what you say is true but I think the real issue is that in the corporate world you have scenarios like "use this software and like it, if you download unauthorized software you're fired," etc. "Here is your computer. No you don't get to pick the brand or opt for a CD-RW. Take it and like it." While in academia we basically operate on the whim of the academics.
I work at a university where I have buildings spawled over several blocks and most of them are have doors swinging in the breeze all day and hot data jacks everywhere. It's a different world I guess.
I'm certainly not a security expert by any means, but I wonder what the big deal is exactly? I mean do you really know who/what is plugged into every physical network port in your building right now? I'm thinking "no." And that being the case, it's no more or less secure than any wireless connection, encrypted or not. Or am I missing something? How is a wired connection more trustworthy or secure than a wireless one, given that a port could be used by someone not authorized to do so?
I find it odd that HP isn't getting a bigger knock in the slashdot forums for this. Everyone seems so rational and understanding and matter-of-fact. Usually one would expect "OMG! The MAN is keeping us down!!" and such. Is it because they sell Linux? What gives?