Cocaine (a non physiologically addicting substance...
Uh, you're kidding me right? It most certainly is physiologically addictive. Rats addicted to it will forgo sex, sleep, food, water, caring for their young...all to get the next fix. It's not so odd that people will do the same thing. Because it's addictive! Yes, "physiologically"!
BTW, I want to go on record as saying that this guy was messed UP and Sony is in no way responsible. These types of things are fueled by a nation of people who fear the Internet and technology that they don't understand.
Nope, I don't know anyone "too stupid to use *nix." Not since this hit the street.
And by the way the sentiment that you're expressing is a huge problem for Linux. It will never - not ever - become a widely used desktop operating system until elitists like yourself realize that there is a lot of genuine value in software that is easy to learn and use. Until and unless that happens Linux will remain a geek toy and a server OS. But maybe that's what you types really want.
"...advertising the Mac as being 2x faster than PCs. Though they dont technically lie, the way they present their data is the same thing..."
No argument there. Although this is didn't used to be such a "lie," in the last couple of years it really became one.
"For some reason people see Apple as being a good corperation, not like the evil variety such as MS..."
People see them that way because that's what they are: a good company. They sell fine products at prices that people are willing to pay and that people are highly satisfied with. They don't kick puppies and they don't pinch babies. Not that I've heard anyway.
This really should be on the front page of Slashdot.
Anyhow, it's nice to see anyone outside of Mac users discussing Apple products without a sneer (let alone the uber-geek *NIX crowd!). "Refreshing" doesn't even begin to cover how it strikes me.
Does anyone know how to make a "smug" face in ASCII?
First off, surely you see how ""Not that I love Media Player, but it sure beats that crappy Real Player or that irritating nagware that is Quicktime" doesn't constitute a claim that WMP is superior video quality to Quicktime. His comment about Quicktime was the registration nag, not the quality. What does he say about WMP? He doesn't "love it," that much we can tell.
And by the way, Quicktime "won" in the quality category according to the article. WMP didn't. Therefore, the article says that Quicktime is superior quality to WMP.
The tone of your posts here make me wonder where you learned your manners. Give it a rest. Geez.
He just said he feels WMP is of higher quality than Real Player or Quicktime
No, actually he didn't say that at all. Furthermore, both I and the article agree that WMP is inferior in quality to Quicktime. Re-read the article for details.
it covers 99% of the marketplace by being on Windows and Macs
True. What you may not realize, however, is that the WMP for Macintosh is truly awful and damned near unusable. Try it sometime. I fully expect that it will get better - it has to. But at present it's a big loser.
And just out of curiosity I'd like to know what your big complaint about the Quicktime Player is? Don't bother telling me if you can't do it without insults though.
Actually I think there is a way for it to appear on the main slashdot page. Nobody really does it, that I'm aware, but you can collapse all the "sections" (bsd.slashdot.org, apache.slashdot.org, apple.slashdot.org, etc) that you see on the left there into one main page.
I totally agree with you. There is a sacred principle that is being forgotten in the handheld market today - "Less Is More." That, after all, is what made Palm the first sucessful handheld manufacturer. They knew that features like large color screens, full handwriting recognition, etc were too much. They went with small grey screens and developed grafiti. The rest is history.
It's certainly true that battery technology has improved since the first days of the Palm. This would allow you to put more of those things in the device. But some things don't change. The size of your hand doesn't change, nor does the size of your pocket, nor does the distance you want to travel from your charger, etc. A handheld developed by engineers who have forgotten these things is going to suck.
This is the primary reason why I think the direction Compaq is going with the iPaq is wrong. They're putting more and more into the thing and doing it too quickly. Pretty soon it'll be half the size of a laptop and get 1 hour of use between charges. Who in heck would want such a thing?
Keep it small, keep it simple. Observe the limitations of the battery technology. Observe the inherent size limitations of a "handheld." Then and only then are you even in the game.
Try being a Mac-using Slashdotter. You'll start noticing that almost all submissions relating to your platform contain a snide remark. I remember one case in which the comment was "lame." That was for the iPod which is now incredibly successful and still being talked about in these forums.
Try getting a "lame" out of a submitter on a Linux distro. Or software for Linux. Or hardware that runs Linux. Fat freakin' chance.
But hey, submitters are submitters. Private people with their own opinions. I don't see any "advertisements" going on in them.
I don't see where using an operating system designed for large screen use is going to be very efficient on that tiny thing. Neither do I see where you're going to get more than 4 seconds of battery life out of that thing just judging by the hardware components and the size/weight remaining for actual battery.
I think it's neat, don't get me wrong. I just don't think it's practical. Not by a longshot.
I must also sieze this opportunity to point out something that nags me about slashdot. I've said it before and I'll say it again - this site and it's readers are looking through Linux-colored glasses at the world. This gets annoying to the readers who don't actually use it. Case in point - the submitter doesn't say what OS the device uses, but he does say that it can run Linux. Frankly I rather doubt we'd even be discussing it here if it didn't. "Slashdot: We like Linux. Not much else" would be a more accurate tag-line to appear at the top of each page.
What the Great Eared One fails to mention is the fact that Apple has made several important concessions to the music industry in the design of their products.
First, there is the hard-to-miss "Don't Steal Music" warnings that one finds in Apple's materials. Second, much to the annoyance of consumers, Apple has designed the iPod/iTunes product in order to minimize the opportunity for piracy - it only synchs one way. Yeah there are ways around that but not with Apple software tools.
Incidentally Jobs has already issued a response that is quite interesting.
Why on earth would you want to use Appletalk at all? Add the printer by entering the IP address for goodness sakes. And if the HP drivers make your job choke try using the generic drivers.
The truth is, the crap that we have on TV, radio and print...the crappy politicians we have in Washington DC...all of it...it's all there because it's what most people WANT.
If the majority of people truly didn't like it..changed the channel, voted for someone else, bought another product...then pretty soon we wouldn't have crap like that. You can take that straight to the bank.
There's always the argument that peple are "told" what to like by the peddlers of said "crap." There is some truth to this, I won't deny. Demand can be "made" to a certain extent. But I think the hard-to-face and very underrated truth is that if you are unhapppy because idiots hold political power or that television shows are stupid or that radio is lame...don't call up washington/TV station/radio station...ring up your neighbors.
I ask the same question. The only things I can come up with are:
1. For use on older hardware that doesn't run OS X (or runs it poorly)
2. It tickles one's political fancy to run a "rebel" free operating system.
3. You're some kind of freaky super-geek that actually needs something found only in Linux.
The only reason I myself would use any Linux distribution on a Macintosh would be reason number one stated above. Number two doesn't appeal to me enough to do it. Number three is definetly not me and I suspect that 99.999% of the rest of the world would join me in that regard.
I think it's interesting that OS X actually delivers a great deal of the Linux benefits already. UNIX command line, rock-solid stability...hell, the core of the OS is even open source! There are areas where OS X doesn't deliver what Linux does - but I think those are small prices to pay for a great GUI and the tons of commercial quality applications that come from being a mainstream platform.
a) MS makes good money from software developed in their Mac Business Unit.
b) Apple needs Offfice to thrive, possibly even to survive at this point.
c) The demand for Office is "relatively inelastic," as my old econ prof used to say.
Thus, MS will continue to make Office for the Macintosh. Apple will continue to strike deals if neccessary to keep it that way. Because the agreement is over, however, and because the deamand is inelastic, MS is under no obligation to make quality, timely releases at fair prices with feature pairity with Windows. They can offer crap and we'll buy it. So it'll be there, but MS may be more free now to give us lower quality.
Slashdot Mirror
Dang it. I just got my MAMP (MacOSX, Apache, MySQL, PHP) box going in my living room! I should probably shut off Netjuke at the very least, now.
Cocaine (a non physiologically addicting substance...
Uh, you're kidding me right? It most certainly is physiologically addictive. Rats addicted to it will forgo sex, sleep, food, water, caring for their young...all to get the next fix. It's not so odd that people will do the same thing. Because it's addictive! Yes, "physiologically"!
BTW, I want to go on record as saying that this guy was messed UP and Sony is in no way responsible. These types of things are fueled by a nation of people who fear the Internet and technology that they don't understand.
It's a far, far better last name than "Coward," which is a name you certainly seem to be living up to :)
I'm not kidding at all.
And with that, ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case.
Nope, I don't know anyone "too stupid to use *nix." Not since this hit the street.
And by the way the sentiment that you're expressing is a huge problem for Linux. It will never - not ever - become a widely used desktop operating system until elitists like yourself realize that there is a lot of genuine value in software that is easy to learn and use. Until and unless that happens Linux will remain a geek toy and a server OS. But maybe that's what you types really want.
That may be the most offensive comment I've ever read here on Slashdot. And if you're a regular reader you know that that's saying something.
"...advertising the Mac as being 2x faster than PCs. Though they dont technically lie, the way they present their data is the same thing..."
;)
No argument there. Although this is didn't used to be such a "lie," in the last couple of years it really became one.
"For some reason people see Apple as being a good corperation, not like the evil variety such as MS..."
People see them that way because that's what they are: a good company. They sell fine products at prices that people are willing to pay and that people are highly satisfied with. They don't kick puppies and they don't pinch babies. Not that I've heard anyway.
Now Microsoft, on the other hand...
This really should be on the front page of Slashdot.
Anyhow, it's nice to see anyone outside of Mac users discussing Apple products without a sneer (let alone the uber-geek *NIX crowd!). "Refreshing" doesn't even begin to cover how it strikes me.
Does anyone know how to make a "smug" face in ASCII?
Heh. I have one guy repeatedly calling me "stupid" and yet I am the one modded down. Now I wish you did have those mod points right now! :)
Slashdot folks. Go figure.
First off, surely you see how ""Not that I love Media Player, but it sure beats that crappy Real Player or that irritating nagware that is Quicktime" doesn't constitute a claim that WMP is superior video quality to Quicktime. His comment about Quicktime was the registration nag, not the quality. What does he say about WMP? He doesn't "love it," that much we can tell.
And by the way, Quicktime "won" in the quality category according to the article. WMP didn't. Therefore, the article says that Quicktime is superior quality to WMP.
The tone of your posts here make me wonder where you learned your manners. Give it a rest. Geez.
Re-read his post...
I just did.
stupid.
Insulting me isn't helping your point. So stop.
He just said he feels WMP is of higher quality than Real Player or Quicktime
No, actually he didn't say that at all. Furthermore, both I and the article agree that WMP is inferior in quality to Quicktime. Re-read the article for details.
it covers 99% of the marketplace by being on Windows and Macs
True. What you may not realize, however, is that the WMP for Macintosh is truly awful and damned near unusable. Try it sometime. I fully expect that it will get better - it has to. But at present it's a big loser.
And just out of curiosity I'd like to know what your big complaint about the Quicktime Player is? Don't bother telling me if you can't do it without insults though.
You, sir, are the reason that crappy technology so often beats out the good stuff in the marketplace.
"To heck with open source, to heck with cross-platform issues, to heck with quality. Make mine WMP!"
Quicktime isn't a compression codec. You're free to use whatever compression pleases your ear.
Actually I think there is a way for it to appear on the main slashdot page. Nobody really does it, that I'm aware, but you can collapse all the "sections" (bsd.slashdot.org, apache.slashdot.org, apple.slashdot.org, etc) that you see on the left there into one main page.
I totally agree with you. There is a sacred principle that is being forgotten in the handheld market today - "Less Is More." That, after all, is what made Palm the first sucessful handheld manufacturer. They knew that features like large color screens, full handwriting recognition, etc were too much. They went with small grey screens and developed grafiti. The rest is history.
It's certainly true that battery technology has improved since the first days of the Palm. This would allow you to put more of those things in the device. But some things don't change. The size of your hand doesn't change, nor does the size of your pocket, nor does the distance you want to travel from your charger, etc. A handheld developed by engineers who have forgotten these things is going to suck.
This is the primary reason why I think the direction Compaq is going with the iPaq is wrong. They're putting more and more into the thing and doing it too quickly. Pretty soon it'll be half the size of a laptop and get 1 hour of use between charges. Who in heck would want such a thing?
Keep it small, keep it simple. Observe the limitations of the battery technology. Observe the inherent size limitations of a "handheld." Then and only then are you even in the game.
Try being a Mac-using Slashdotter. You'll start noticing that almost all submissions relating to your platform contain a snide remark. I remember one case in which the comment was "lame." That was for the iPod which is now incredibly successful and still being talked about in these forums.
Try getting a "lame" out of a submitter on a Linux distro. Or software for Linux. Or hardware that runs Linux. Fat freakin' chance.
But hey, submitters are submitters. Private people with their own opinions. I don't see any "advertisements" going on in them.
I don't see where using an operating system designed for large screen use is going to be very efficient on that tiny thing. Neither do I see where you're going to get more than 4 seconds of battery life out of that thing just judging by the hardware components and the size/weight remaining for actual battery.
:P
I think it's neat, don't get me wrong. I just don't think it's practical. Not by a longshot.
I must also sieze this opportunity to point out something that nags me about slashdot. I've said it before and I'll say it again - this site and it's readers are looking through Linux-colored glasses at the world. This gets annoying to the readers who don't actually use it. Case in point - the submitter doesn't say what OS the device uses, but he does say that it can run Linux. Frankly I rather doubt we'd even be discussing it here if it didn't. "Slashdot: We like Linux. Not much else" would be a more accurate tag-line to appear at the top of each page.
And yet I love you guys anyhow.
One important difference:
CD burning technology can be used safely and legally by anyone.
Alcohol can only be used legally and safely by adults (or so most folks deem).
What the Great Eared One fails to mention is the fact that Apple has made several important concessions to the music industry in the design of their products.
First, there is the hard-to-miss "Don't Steal Music" warnings that one finds in Apple's materials. Second, much to the annoyance of consumers, Apple has designed the iPod/iTunes product in order to minimize the opportunity for piracy - it only synchs one way. Yeah there are ways around that but not with Apple software tools.
Incidentally Jobs has already issued a response that is quite interesting.
Why on earth would you want to use Appletalk at all? Add the printer by entering the IP address for goodness sakes. And if the HP drivers make your job choke try using the generic drivers.
Best of luck.
The truth is, the crap that we have on TV, radio and print...the crappy politicians we have in Washington DC...all of it...it's all there because it's what most people WANT.
If the majority of people truly didn't like it..changed the channel, voted for someone else, bought another product...then pretty soon we wouldn't have crap like that. You can take that straight to the bank.
There's always the argument that peple are "told" what to like by the peddlers of said "crap." There is some truth to this, I won't deny. Demand can be "made" to a certain extent. But I think the hard-to-face and very underrated truth is that if you are unhapppy because idiots hold political power or that television shows are stupid or that radio is lame...don't call up washington/TV station/radio station...ring up your neighbors.
I ask the same question. The only things I can come up with are:
1. For use on older hardware that doesn't run OS X (or runs it poorly)
2. It tickles one's political fancy to run a "rebel" free operating system.
3. You're some kind of freaky super-geek that actually needs something found only in Linux.
The only reason I myself would use any Linux distribution on a Macintosh would be reason number one stated above. Number two doesn't appeal to me enough to do it. Number three is definetly not me and I suspect that 99.999% of the rest of the world would join me in that regard.
I think it's interesting that OS X actually delivers a great deal of the Linux benefits already. UNIX command line, rock-solid stability...hell, the core of the OS is even open source! There are areas where OS X doesn't deliver what Linux does - but I think those are small prices to pay for a great GUI and the tons of commercial quality applications that come from being a mainstream platform.
My $0.02
Givens:
a) MS makes good money from software developed in their Mac Business Unit.
b) Apple needs Offfice to thrive, possibly even to survive at this point.
c) The demand for Office is "relatively inelastic," as my old econ prof used to say.
Thus, MS will continue to make Office for the Macintosh. Apple will continue to strike deals if neccessary to keep it that way. Because the agreement is over, however, and because the deamand is inelastic, MS is under no obligation to make quality, timely releases at fair prices with feature pairity with Windows. They can offer crap and we'll buy it. So it'll be there, but MS may be more free now to give us lower quality.
While that was true in the past, I find that the current 9 and X CDs will work in all Macs that can take the OS
:)
I hadn't realized. I guess that explains my experience with the iMac OS X CD the other day. Thanks for the heads up