I think Mac users just really like using their computers compared to your average PC user.
Actually, I know these types of people, and they don't necessarily like computers anymore than your accountant does. Just in certain industries, in certain cities, the installed base is 99% Macintosh. So that's really all they know and all they need to know.
Just for the Mac users out there, this obcession with having a "clean" Registry is the equivilent of "rebuilding the desktop" or "repairing permissions" -- it might have some psychosomatic effects, but it really doesn't make a bit of difference.
I suspect that that's more to do with the fact the popularity of Macs has increased significantly since the release of OS X, where as the popularity of Windows 98 versus XP was relatively constant. The extra OS X Macs probably weren't people upgrading from MacOS 9.
There's no real truth to this statement. Apple has a much lower marketshare today vs XP than when they were shipping MacOS 9 vs Win98. OS X hasn't lead to a huge sales boom.
Now if you're talking about nerd-cred or something, yes, OS X has a lot of "momentum" that OS 9 never had. But that hasn't translated into any decline in Windows usage.
The main goal of (3.1, 95, 98, ME) was backwards-compatiblity with DOS, not stability. Microsoft has always sold a "stable" OS (first Xenix, then OS/2, then NT) -- the problem was getting customers to buy it!
It's also more of a Big Lie nowdays, as Macs are based on the same Intel chipsets that Dell and every other major PC vendor uses. There's nothing mysterious or exotic about their innards.
When the "leaked betas" of OS X were circulating, people found they had little troubles running OS X stabley on pretty much any Intel PC from the last year or two. Which is only 70% of PCs sold.
The entire argument is a hangover from the 68K/NuBus days, when Apple really did build an exotic machine.
Strange, because I have a Dell Precision with PCI-X.
PCI-X requires a lot of motherboard traces and is therefore expensive and therefore is (was) only intended for high-end workstations or servers. It should be no suprise that Dell didn't ship it "desktop" machines -- nobody else did either.
Yes, Silicon Valley is the most depressing place on earth. Imagine a suburban industrial park that streches for 20 miles in every direction and that's pretty much it.
I think you misunderstand the reason that companies "leak" info -- they are looking for plausible denability as well. If it takes a signed statement from Steve Jobs to leak information about Intel chips to the WSJ, Apple might as well have issued a press-release.
The people doing the fake "leaks" are trying to get you to do something that sounds sketchy, for their benefit
The publisher's goal is to sell papers, not question motives.
The local coffee shop has a had a few "grab and run" incidents. That is, someone is just pretending to read the newspaper or type his TPS reports and then dashes out the door with a much nicer laptop that some idiot left unattended.
I dunno, if I left $1500 in cash on the coffeeshop table while I went to the bathroom, I wouldn't expect it to be there when I got back, even if there's no thugs in sight.
Hell, yeah, Steve Jobs instituted a strict "no leaks" policy when he returned to Apple
(Repress urge to make George Bush Joke)
I mentioned this elsewhere, but Apple leaked the fact they were switching to Intel to the Wall Street Journal. It's almost certain that leak was authorized.
There's been various attempts to pass a law like this in California, but eBay has successfully lobbied against it.
Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets"
on
Apple vs Bloggers
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
One thing to consider is that companies intentionally "leak" information all the time, especially in the computer industry where FUD is a common marketing tactic. Even Apple "leaked" their Intel plans to the WSJ and ZDNet, so they are not exempt to this rule.
So how is a publisher supposed to know if a bit of info is an illicit trade secret, or simply a marketing whisper campaign? At the very least it's plausible denability.
Re:I understand that running Windows on a Mac ...
on
PC Games Go To Boot Camp
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
There's been the argument that Apple is slacking on its OpenGL drivers. So, this is interesting in the very least because people can perform direct A/B tests.
Only problem with this chain of discussion is that software patents isn't exactly a party politics issue -- you'll find proponents and opponents all over the political spectrum -- and in all wings of the US political elite you'll find almost entirely proponents. It's a very unlikely astroturf topic for the GOP, and the accusation shows a over-weighted sense of self-importance from the opponents. (It is a pro-corporatist issue, I will give you that.)
Oh, and if it's being implied that I am a organized right-wing ratfucker because I impinged Perens' consipiracy skills, sorry, just a random left-wing slashtroll.
>You say "treading water", I say "consistently profitable niche".
True, but the key to Capitalism is not profits, it is increasing profits. And how is Apple going to do that? Despite all the nice features, Mac sales aren't increasing any faster than Dells. Their margins are already enormous. And there's only so often they can go back and charge the userbase for new features. So, OS X is good shit -- it won't be "comprimised" -- why not change the rules and expand into new markets that (for compatbility reasons) OS X won't ever get into?
>And they'll get at least that with Boot Camp and Leopard's virtualization
As I said elsewhere, it's currently a geek feature that gets them nothing marketshare-wise.
It wasn't intended to be a philsophical question. The point is that there's much more potential profits for Apple in selling Windows hardware rather than selling OS X software.
>However, the point remains that you're the one who's failing to understand nor appreciate the issues behind the design.
Have you considered that, perhaps, you've failed to understand and appreciate the issues behind the ThinkPad's design, and why it is superior to Apple's?
And I rather liked the IBM Selectric -- if you have to use a typewriter, it's the way to go.
Slashdot Mirror
I think Mac users just really like using their computers compared to your average PC user.
Actually, I know these types of people, and they don't necessarily like computers anymore than your accountant does. Just in certain industries, in certain cities, the installed base is 99% Macintosh. So that's really all they know and all they need to know.
Au contraire. No recent macs use BIOS.
Actually, Apple pushed out a firmware upgrade, and now all Intel Macs have a PC-Compatible BIOS CSM. How would it boot Windows otherwise?
OK, maybe these tools had value under Win98, but Mac users probably will wisely not be running that.
Just for the Mac users out there, this obcession with having a "clean" Registry is the equivilent of "rebuilding the desktop" or "repairing permissions" -- it might have some psychosomatic effects, but it really doesn't make a bit of difference.
Especially if you like Windows apps that follow Mac UI conventions.
Just noticed you're an old school troll. Hopefully you're on a come-back.
I suspect that that's more to do with the fact the popularity of Macs has increased significantly since the release of OS X, where as the popularity of Windows 98 versus XP was relatively constant. The extra OS X Macs probably weren't people upgrading from MacOS 9.
There's no real truth to this statement. Apple has a much lower marketshare today vs XP than when they were shipping MacOS 9 vs Win98. OS X hasn't lead to a huge sales boom.
Now if you're talking about nerd-cred or something, yes, OS X has a lot of "momentum" that OS 9 never had. But that hasn't translated into any decline in Windows usage.
The main goal of (3.1, 95, 98, ME) was backwards-compatiblity with DOS, not stability. Microsoft has always sold a "stable" OS (first Xenix, then OS/2, then NT) -- the problem was getting customers to buy it!
It's also more of a Big Lie nowdays, as Macs are based on the same Intel chipsets that Dell and every other major PC vendor uses. There's nothing mysterious or exotic about their innards.
When the "leaked betas" of OS X were circulating, people found they had little troubles running OS X stabley on pretty much any Intel PC from the last year or two. Which is only 70% of PCs sold.
The entire argument is a hangover from the 68K/NuBus days, when Apple really did build an exotic machine.
Strange, because I have a Dell Precision with PCI-X.
PCI-X requires a lot of motherboard traces and is therefore expensive and therefore is (was) only intended for high-end workstations or servers. It should be no suprise that Dell didn't ship it "desktop" machines -- nobody else did either.
I think if you compare Dell's record of Linux support with HP/Compaq/DEC's, Dell comes up pretty short.
Yes, Silicon Valley is the most depressing place on earth. Imagine a suburban industrial park that streches for 20 miles in every direction and that's pretty much it.
How is this "FUD"? Are you suggesting that the newspaper is trying to supress laptop usage?
Or has the term been completely divorced from it's original meaning and now means something like "bullshit"?
Reading his article, I don't get the impression that he believes he violated any laws at all.
He seems to think that Apple got their hometown judge to rule their way, but it will be overturned on appeal.
I think you misunderstand the reason that companies "leak" info -- they are looking for plausible denability as well. If it takes a signed statement from Steve Jobs to leak information about Intel chips to the WSJ, Apple might as well have issued a press-release.
The people doing the fake "leaks" are trying to get you to do something that sounds sketchy, for their benefit
The publisher's goal is to sell papers, not question motives.
The local coffee shop has a had a few "grab and run" incidents. That is, someone is just pretending to read the newspaper or type his TPS reports and then dashes out the door with a much nicer laptop that some idiot left unattended.
I dunno, if I left $1500 in cash on the coffeeshop table while I went to the bathroom, I wouldn't expect it to be there when I got back, even if there's no thugs in sight.
Hell, yeah, Steve Jobs instituted a strict "no leaks" policy when he returned to Apple
(Repress urge to make George Bush Joke)
I mentioned this elsewhere, but Apple leaked the fact they were switching to Intel to the Wall Street Journal. It's almost certain that leak was authorized.
There's been various attempts to pass a law like this in California, but eBay has successfully lobbied against it.
One thing to consider is that companies intentionally "leak" information all the time, especially in the computer industry where FUD is a common marketing tactic. Even Apple "leaked" their Intel plans to the WSJ and ZDNet, so they are not exempt to this rule.
So how is a publisher supposed to know if a bit of info is an illicit trade secret, or simply a marketing whisper campaign? At the very least it's plausible denability.
There's been the argument that Apple is slacking on its OpenGL drivers. So, this is interesting in the very least because people can perform direct A/B tests.
Only problem with this chain of discussion is that software patents isn't exactly a party politics issue -- you'll find proponents and opponents all over the political spectrum -- and in all wings of the US political elite you'll find almost entirely proponents. It's a very unlikely astroturf topic for the GOP, and the accusation shows a over-weighted sense of self-importance from the opponents. (It is a pro-corporatist issue, I will give you that.)
Oh, and if it's being implied that I am a organized right-wing ratfucker because I impinged Perens' consipiracy skills, sorry, just a random left-wing slashtroll.
>You say "treading water", I say "consistently profitable niche".
True, but the key to Capitalism is not profits, it is increasing profits. And how is Apple going to do that? Despite all the nice features, Mac sales aren't increasing any faster than Dells. Their margins are already enormous. And there's only so often they can go back and charge the userbase for new features. So, OS X is good shit -- it won't be "comprimised" -- why not change the rules and expand into new markets that (for compatbility reasons) OS X won't ever get into?
>And they'll get at least that with Boot Camp and Leopard's virtualization
As I said elsewhere, it's currently a geek feature that gets them nothing marketshare-wise.
I didn't realize I was enabling the "right wing fucktards". Apologies!
It wasn't intended to be a philsophical question. The point is that there's much more potential profits for Apple in selling Windows hardware rather than selling OS X software.
>However, the point remains that you're the one who's failing to understand nor appreciate the issues behind the design.
Have you considered that, perhaps, you've failed to understand and appreciate the issues behind the ThinkPad's design, and why it is superior to Apple's?
And I rather liked the IBM Selectric -- if you have to use a typewriter, it's the way to go.