Sure, but the whole point of Apple controlling which hardware is supported is so they may support it effectively.
And has that changed with Intel? No it hasn't. Back when Apple used PPC, they didn't make their own CPU's, they used Freescale and IBM. Today they use Intel. Their video-cards were NVIDIA and Ati, just like they are today. The chipsets weren't made by Apple, and they didn't make the MoBo's either.
So you ARE saying that they lasted long because of PPC? Well, this might come as a shock to you but... Hard-drives in PPC-Macs were similar to PC-HD's. Same goes for RAM-chips, video-cards, ports (USB, DVI etc. etc.), optical-drives, displays etc. etc. What has changed? The CPU. And that's about it. Do you REALLY think that since they changed CPU's, their quality is going to suffer? That changing CPU's magically makes their RAM (for example) worse than it was with PPC?
My dear AC, there are numerous reports about Apple's market-share. feel free to use Google to find them. There are also guesstimates regarding Linux'es market-share, again, feel free to Google for them.
My numbers as to their current market-shares are not "uneducated guesses". In fact, they are based on hard data. And my predictions for their future numbers are based on figures regarding Apple's sales-performance, and the number of announced Linux-switches and overall progress Linux has been making recently.
But hey, if you are too much of a moron to use Google, it's not MY problem. It's yours.
On servers, Linux has about... what, 30% share (and growing)? OS X has maybe few %, if that. If they plan to overtake Linux in servers in just few years, they better get cracking! Then we have supercomputers, where Linux has about 70% share in top500. Either Windows and OS X are about to overtake Linux there as well, in just few years, or supercomputers are considered to be "underground". Which one is it? Regardless, I find neither possibility likely.
Client-OS'es are a different matter. OS X has about 3-5% share, and Linux has maybe 2-4%. And I can see both of them going up from there. My guesstimate is that by the end of the decade, Linux has about 4-7% share on the client-side, while OS X has about 5-8%. I really don't see any indication that OS X (or Windows) are going to remove Linux from the desktops. The core-users of Linux are VERY unlikely to stop using it, and as the functionality and ease of use improves, it becomes more and more suitable for "regural" users. OS X is suitable for Joe Sixpack (mostly at least), but it requires Apple-hardware. And Windows is getting too hardware-hungry, and it doesn't really offer any tangible benefits that Linux does not offer. Well, maybe games.
1. Blind spot in watch cameras.
OK, thanks for pointing those out. Now we can board the boats and steal them. Yes, this is an issue, and one that should be fixable, but extra cameras will also affect the systems that digitize and monitor them, as well. Still, this system should be fixed, but it's not a major thing, and now you've just told anybody who's interested (in a bad way) how to take advantage of the flaw. Thanks.
So, you are advocating security through obscurity? Instead of making the system fool-proof, they could leave gaping holes in it, but keep those holes secret? Yeah, that will work!
Macs probably have 1/10th the hardware compatibility that Linux does, but they seem like they "Just Work" because everything is clearly marked.
I went shopping for WLAN-card for my Linux-laptop. I saw one that had a picture of Tux in the corner of the box. I bought it and plugged it it. Boom, it worked.
The problem seems to be that people are buying random pieces of hardware and then complain when they don't work prefectly in their Linux-boxes. Well, they wouldn't work on their Macs either. What Mac-users do is that they buy hardware that specificly mentions "Supports OS X", or which are made by Apple. If people running Linux only bought hardware which clearly support Linux, 98% of the problems would disappear. It might be that Linux-users are spoiled because Linux'es hardware-support is best there is OOB, so they just assume that everything just works.
Thanks for proving why *I* don't recommend Linux to regular old computer users. Without the software base out there, shit just doesn't magically work and that's what people expect.
What software are you looking for exactly? I managed my photos in Linux just fine. I plugged in my camera, it was autodetected, and I was asked if I would like to import the photos. No, I didn't have to configure anything, it just worked. Pray tell: what piece of the puzzle is missing there? The functionality seemed to be identical to what Apple (for example) provides with OS X + iPhoto-combo. Everyone keeps on telling how "Apple got it right", and when Linux does the exact same thing with zero fuzz, people complain that "it just doesn't work". Well, it did for me.
I also managed my iPod with Linux just fine. I'm not sure that did it work OOB, but it didn't take much to make it work. Adding DVD-support was a snap as well.
And before you say "See! You need to do all kinds of manual work to make it work in Linux!". Well, those "other" OS'es are no different either. I have seen people's eyes glaze over when I told them that "You need to make some configuration-changes to XP in order to make this work". I have had people ask me to install their copy of Office for them, because installing software simply goes over their heads. People make it seem like you need to be a software-engineer in order to make Linux work, whereas Windows and OS X "just work". I have used all three, and what I have seen is that
a) For the most part, Linux does "just work" b) For the most part, Windows and OS X also "just work" c) Changing settings and the like in Windows or OS X isn't really any simpler than they are in Linux.
True, few years ago Linux was not there yet. But it is today. Linux can handle the needs of Joe Sixpack (email, web, music, photos) beautifully. Linux can also handle hi-end needs beautifully (3D-modelling, scientific work etc.). It doesn't handle games that well, so there is a blank spot between hi-end and low-end. But OS X doesn't handle games that well either.
The problem that Linux has is that it's DIFFERENT from what people are using today. It's not 1:1 copy of Windows. But here's a shocker: Neither is OS X. My wife couldn't use OS X efficiently, unless I sat down next to her and told her what to do. And it was the same thing with Linux. And I bet it was the same thing with Windows years ago. And when I asked my wife would she like to use Linux (Ubuntu sppecifically) or OS X.... She chose Linux. Unfortunately our PC broke down, so she's currently stuck at OS X on our Mac.
Skinner: Just think what we can buy with that money... History books that know how the Korean War came out. Math books that don't have that base six crap in them! And a state-of-the-art detention hall [holds up a scale model] where children are held in place with magnets.
When those bundled phones, the operators can say that the plan is cheap, because the phone costs X dollars/euros in retail, and the total amount of money you are paying is just x + 20% (for example), the 20% is for the service. Note: I'm pulling these numbers from thin air, but you do get the idea. And lets assume that the plan lasts for two years (that is, you are tied to the service for two years). Well, during that two years, the price of the phone crashes through the floor (they always do), while the services offered also drop in price. But the bundled phone and service does NOT get one cent cheaper. You are still paying as if the phone costs x dollars/euros, when in fact it's current price is X - 50%.
The bundled phone might be cheaper right after the phone has been released. But as time progresses, you could get the exact same phone for less money. And you could get the exact same service for less money. But with those bundled schemes, the price does not change.
How does these schemes help oerators? Well, they don't have to compete on price as much, since they can now tie the consumer to certain price for a long period of time. It also makes it harder for consumers to switch operators, since they have agreed to pay for the service for a set amount of time. If they change operators, they would have to pay for two set of service.
In Finland, competition between operators was (and is) cut-throat. The cost of the services had been crashing down for quite some time, and consumer routinely switched operators, when better and cheaper service became available. And phones were getting cheaper as well. With bundling, the operators can tie the consumer to fixed price for a long period of time, and they can tie the consumer to their service while they are at it. In short: it reduces competition.
"When is the last time you used Windows? 3.1? Applications open where they were last placed."
I just tested this with IE7 and Windows XP. I opened a new IE-window, and it opened on top of the old window, so that just the titlebar of the old window was visible. I moved the new window to another location and closed it. Then I opened a new IE-window. Did it open in the location where I closed the previous window? No. It opened (again) on top of the old window.
Maybe the initial IE-window opens where the previous one was closed. But any new window you open inside IE gets stacked right on top of the old one. Retarded.
You must've seen subsidized phones in Finland. Both Norway and Sweden have those.
Yes, we do have those. But I would say that the default way of purchasing phone & service is the one where the two are not bundled. Then there's the option of buying them bundled. But vast majority of people use unbundled phones.
in return for paying almost nothing for the phone
You do pay for the phone, just not upfront. Hell, it might seem like a great deal to get a "free" phone, and then pay through the subscription for set period of time. But after a while, the price of that phone has crashed through the floor, but you are still paying full price for the phone and the service. And price of the service is going down as well, but in those schemes, the price of the plan remains steady. So if you get a phone worth 300e "for free", in one year time, the phone is worth maybe 150e, while the price of the service has gone down 20% for those who have separated phones and service. But the price you are paying for your "free" phone and service has NOT been reduced.
So in the long run, the consumer ends up paying more, and it makes comparisons between different operators VERY difficult (one offer more SMS-messages, one offer more minutes, while third offer better phone etc. etc.). Hell, it used to be illegal in Finland to bundle phones with service, and it was the operators who begged for the permission to bundle them. Make no mistake: it's the operators who benefit, not the consumers. Luckily most people still get their phones and service separately.
Problem is, I just don't see these taking off. The big boys (Cingular/Verizon/Sprint) aren't going to want something like this on their lineup
Maybe they will sell it in Europe, where the phone-market is less retarded than it is in USA? In Finland (for example), the operators have zero say as to what phone the customer uses. The customer buys a phone, and he subscribes to the cellphone-service separately. The user can change operators at will (and keep his number AND the phone, since it is, after all, his phone), and the phones are 100% uncrippled. Here, this phone (or something else like it) would just appear on store-shelves next to Nokias and the like. User buys it, and puts in his SIM-card and he's all set. No need to beg for the operator to allow him to use some specific phone.
Few years ago Benefon sold a phone which had slots for two SIM-cards, which meant that the user could switch networks at will. And there was nothing the operators could do about it.
To be honest, I find it quite surprising that consumers elsewhere put up with bundling of phones with service. Sure, it might SEEM like a good deal, but you get poor competition, crippled phones and the like in return.
Yes. Almost daily in fact. It's a great way to help out during those boring commutes. Works quite well in fact. I'm using Nokia 9300 Communicator for it, although the Nokia 770 Internet Tablet is better for the task.
"Look at the proposed updates to the iPod. A touch screen? That's a little pointless"
No, it isn't. The point is that if you have touch-screen, you can have a screen almost as large as the device itself, without having to waste space for actual physical controls.
So, you are basing your opinion ("Apples quality is crap!") on statistical sample of one? You do know that Apple sells over one million machines every quarter? And because your machine happened to be crap, it somehow proves that they are ALL crap?
And this whole thing reminds me of that movie. So we are now told that authorities have stopped a major terrorist-attack from taking place. Somehow, when I read this piece of news, I can hear the Chancellors voice from V saying "I want you to remind them (the citizens) just how badly they need us!"
Re:Apple opted for poor quality when they chose In
on
Apple's Growing Pains
·
· Score: 1
Once you enter the realm of x86 PC based hardware, poor quality is the result and there is nothing Apple or anyone else can do about that.
Huh? Are you conveniently forgetting the myriad of problems that PPC-Macs had? Hell, Apple had a laptop in the past (the model escapes me at the moment) that had the tendency to go up in flames. How about all those logic-board problems in the PPC-portables? Poor USB-performance in G5 PowerMacs? Windtunnel MDD-PowerMacs? And some of the problems Apple is having today are not related to the architecture at all. How could the architecture cause discoloration of the case? Swelling batteries? No, the reason for those problems are elsewhere.
Among several annoying minor issues there were tremendous problems with the IDE interface.
The machine with IDE-problems was Ultra 5, and it used SPARC. Sun has used x86. First attempt was so long ago, that it hardly matters anymore. Then we have the current Opteron-machines, and I don't think that you can complain about those.
Spoken like someone that has no idea of how the corporate world works.
You talked about Linux on the desktop. Are you claimin that "corporate world" is the only place where Linux wpould be used on the desktop? Most Linux-desktops I have seen have been used outside of corporations. But I HAVE seen lots of corporate Linux-desktops as well, and they seem getting more popular as well, with or without calendars. And I have seen them using mostly Evolution for their groupware-needs.
Obviously you've never spent time pushing and fighting for open source solutions to be added to your environment
So push something else. IBM has announced that Lotus Notes will run on Linux, so push that instead. It has more groupware-features that you can shake a stick at.
Calendaring *IS* where it's at.
You talked of using Linux on the desktop, period. Calendaring (or lack of it) does NOT prevent you from using Linux on the desktop. I have seen zillion Linux-desktops, all running fine even though they apparently have a huge flaw of not having a decent calendar. Hall, I have seen many companies that don't give a flying fuck about goddamn calendar.
I wonder what "flaw" people will discover next that will kill Linux'es chances on the desktop? Ease of use and the like have been long fixed, so we need something else now. And today, it seemsthat calendars are it.
The year of Linux on the Desktop? No. It's the decade of OS X taking over the desktop.
Yes, you are right. Linux is destined to fail, whereas OS X is destined to rule because (dramatic pause).... OS X has a "better" built-in calendar! Email, web-browsers, myriad of apps? forget that crap! Calendars is where it's at!
Slashdot Mirror
And has that changed with Intel? No it hasn't. Back when Apple used PPC, they didn't make their own CPU's, they used Freescale and IBM. Today they use Intel. Their video-cards were NVIDIA and Ati, just like they are today. The chipsets weren't made by Apple, and they didn't make the MoBo's either.
So what has changed?
So you ARE saying that they lasted long because of PPC? Well, this might come as a shock to you but... Hard-drives in PPC-Macs were similar to PC-HD's. Same goes for RAM-chips, video-cards, ports (USB, DVI etc. etc.), optical-drives, displays etc. etc. What has changed? The CPU. And that's about it. Do you REALLY think that since they changed CPU's, their quality is going to suffer? That changing CPU's magically makes their RAM (for example) worse than it was with PPC?
My dear AC, there are numerous reports about Apple's market-share. feel free to use Google to find them. There are also guesstimates regarding Linux'es market-share, again, feel free to Google for them.
My numbers as to their current market-shares are not "uneducated guesses". In fact, they are based on hard data. And my predictions for their future numbers are based on figures regarding Apple's sales-performance, and the number of announced Linux-switches and overall progress Linux has been making recently.
But hey, if you are too much of a moron to use Google, it's not MY problem. It's yours.
"Plus, now that Apple is using Intel hardware, the whole maintence argument that Apple parts last longer is out the window."
Are you saying that Apple-products lasted long because they used PowerPC? Now that they use Intel, they are more likely to break?
On servers, Linux has about... what, 30% share (and growing)? OS X has maybe few %, if that. If they plan to overtake Linux in servers in just few years, they better get cracking! Then we have supercomputers, where Linux has about 70% share in top500. Either Windows and OS X are about to overtake Linux there as well, in just few years, or supercomputers are considered to be "underground". Which one is it? Regardless, I find neither possibility likely.
Client-OS'es are a different matter. OS X has about 3-5% share, and Linux has maybe 2-4%. And I can see both of them going up from there. My guesstimate is that by the end of the decade, Linux has about 4-7% share on the client-side, while OS X has about 5-8%. I really don't see any indication that OS X (or Windows) are going to remove Linux from the desktops. The core-users of Linux are VERY unlikely to stop using it, and as the functionality and ease of use improves, it becomes more and more suitable for "regural" users. OS X is suitable for Joe Sixpack (mostly at least), but it requires Apple-hardware. And Windows is getting too hardware-hungry, and it doesn't really offer any tangible benefits that Linux does not offer. Well, maybe games.
So, you are advocating security through obscurity? Instead of making the system fool-proof, they could leave gaping holes in it, but keep those holes secret? Yeah, that will work!
this one. I bought it from Stockmann's, the biggest department-store in Finland.
I went shopping for WLAN-card for my Linux-laptop. I saw one that had a picture of Tux in the corner of the box. I bought it and plugged it it. Boom, it worked.
The problem seems to be that people are buying random pieces of hardware and then complain when they don't work prefectly in their Linux-boxes. Well, they wouldn't work on their Macs either. What Mac-users do is that they buy hardware that specificly mentions "Supports OS X", or which are made by Apple. If people running Linux only bought hardware which clearly support Linux, 98% of the problems would disappear. It might be that Linux-users are spoiled because Linux'es hardware-support is best there is OOB, so they just assume that everything just works.
What software are you looking for exactly? I managed my photos in Linux just fine. I plugged in my camera, it was autodetected, and I was asked if I would like to import the photos. No, I didn't have to configure anything, it just worked. Pray tell: what piece of the puzzle is missing there? The functionality seemed to be identical to what Apple (for example) provides with OS X + iPhoto-combo. Everyone keeps on telling how "Apple got it right", and when Linux does the exact same thing with zero fuzz, people complain that "it just doesn't work". Well, it did for me.
I also managed my iPod with Linux just fine. I'm not sure that did it work OOB, but it didn't take much to make it work. Adding DVD-support was a snap as well.
And before you say "See! You need to do all kinds of manual work to make it work in Linux!". Well, those "other" OS'es are no different either. I have seen people's eyes glaze over when I told them that "You need to make some configuration-changes to XP in order to make this work". I have had people ask me to install their copy of Office for them, because installing software simply goes over their heads. People make it seem like you need to be a software-engineer in order to make Linux work, whereas Windows and OS X "just work". I have used all three, and what I have seen is that
a) For the most part, Linux does "just work"
b) For the most part, Windows and OS X also "just work"
c) Changing settings and the like in Windows or OS X isn't really any simpler than they are in Linux.
True, few years ago Linux was not there yet. But it is today. Linux can handle the needs of Joe Sixpack (email, web, music, photos) beautifully. Linux can also handle hi-end needs beautifully (3D-modelling, scientific work etc.). It doesn't handle games that well, so there is a blank spot between hi-end and low-end. But OS X doesn't handle games that well either.
The problem that Linux has is that it's DIFFERENT from what people are using today. It's not 1:1 copy of Windows. But here's a shocker: Neither is OS X. My wife couldn't use OS X efficiently, unless I sat down next to her and told her what to do. And it was the same thing with Linux. And I bet it was the same thing with Windows years ago. And when I asked my wife would she like to use Linux (Ubuntu sppecifically) or OS X.... She chose Linux. Unfortunately our PC broke down, so she's currently stuck at OS X on our Mac.
Skinner: Just think what we can buy with that money... History books that know how the Korean War came out. Math books that don't have that base six crap in them! And a state-of-the-art detention hall [holds up a scale model] where children are held in place with magnets.
Teacher: Magnets. Always with the magnets...
If you don't like Amarok, try out Banshee instead. It even has that GNOME-love you like so much.
When those bundled phones, the operators can say that the plan is cheap, because the phone costs X dollars/euros in retail, and the total amount of money you are paying is just x + 20% (for example), the 20% is for the service. Note: I'm pulling these numbers from thin air, but you do get the idea. And lets assume that the plan lasts for two years (that is, you are tied to the service for two years). Well, during that two years, the price of the phone crashes through the floor (they always do), while the services offered also drop in price. But the bundled phone and service does NOT get one cent cheaper. You are still paying as if the phone costs x dollars/euros, when in fact it's current price is X - 50%.
The bundled phone might be cheaper right after the phone has been released. But as time progresses, you could get the exact same phone for less money. And you could get the exact same service for less money. But with those bundled schemes, the price does not change.
How does these schemes help oerators? Well, they don't have to compete on price as much, since they can now tie the consumer to certain price for a long period of time. It also makes it harder for consumers to switch operators, since they have agreed to pay for the service for a set amount of time. If they change operators, they would have to pay for two set of service.
In Finland, competition between operators was (and is) cut-throat. The cost of the services had been crashing down for quite some time, and consumer routinely switched operators, when better and cheaper service became available. And phones were getting cheaper as well. With bundling, the operators can tie the consumer to fixed price for a long period of time, and they can tie the consumer to their service while they are at it. In short: it reduces competition.
"When is the last time you used Windows? 3.1? Applications open where they were last placed."
I just tested this with IE7 and Windows XP. I opened a new IE-window, and it opened on top of the old window, so that just the titlebar of the old window was visible. I moved the new window to another location and closed it. Then I opened a new IE-window. Did it open in the location where I closed the previous window? No. It opened (again) on top of the old window.
Maybe the initial IE-window opens where the previous one was closed. But any new window you open inside IE gets stacked right on top of the old one. Retarded.
Yep. If we had a total nuclear war that wiped out humans, I bet we would still have about zillion cockroaches running around and thriving.
You do pay for the phone, just not upfront. Hell, it might seem like a great deal to get a "free" phone, and then pay through the subscription for set period of time. But after a while, the price of that phone has crashed through the floor, but you are still paying full price for the phone and the service. And price of the service is going down as well, but in those schemes, the price of the plan remains steady. So if you get a phone worth 300e "for free", in one year time, the phone is worth maybe 150e, while the price of the service has gone down 20% for those who have separated phones and service. But the price you are paying for your "free" phone and service has NOT been reduced.
So in the long run, the consumer ends up paying more, and it makes comparisons between different operators VERY difficult (one offer more SMS-messages, one offer more minutes, while third offer better phone etc. etc.). Hell, it used to be illegal in Finland to bundle phones with service, and it was the operators who begged for the permission to bundle them. Make no mistake: it's the operators who benefit, not the consumers. Luckily most people still get their phones and service separately.
Maybe they will sell it in Europe, where the phone-market is less retarded than it is in USA? In Finland (for example), the operators have zero say as to what phone the customer uses. The customer buys a phone, and he subscribes to the cellphone-service separately. The user can change operators at will (and keep his number AND the phone, since it is, after all, his phone), and the phones are 100% uncrippled. Here, this phone (or something else like it) would just appear on store-shelves next to Nokias and the like. User buys it, and puts in his SIM-card and he's all set. No need to beg for the operator to allow him to use some specific phone.
Few years ago Benefon sold a phone which had slots for two SIM-cards, which meant that the user could switch networks at will. And there was nothing the operators could do about it.
To be honest, I find it quite surprising that consumers elsewhere put up with bundling of phones with service. Sure, it might SEEM like a good deal, but you get poor competition, crippled phones and the like in return.
Yes. Almost daily in fact. It's a great way to help out during those boring commutes. Works quite well in fact. I'm using Nokia 9300 Communicator for it, although the Nokia 770 Internet Tablet is better for the task.
See subject
"He alluded to the growth of Pocket PC"
PocketPC got killed by Symbian and smartphones. If that's their idea os "success", I wonder what do they call a failure?
"Look at the proposed updates to the iPod. A touch screen? That's a little pointless"
No, it isn't. The point is that if you have touch-screen, you can have a screen almost as large as the device itself, without having to waste space for actual physical controls.
So, you are basing your opinion ("Apples quality is crap!") on statistical sample of one? You do know that Apple sells over one million machines every quarter? And because your machine happened to be crap, it somehow proves that they are ALL crap?
And this whole thing reminds me of that movie. So we are now told that authorities have stopped a major terrorist-attack from taking place. Somehow, when I read this piece of news, I can hear the Chancellors voice from V saying "I want you to remind them (the citizens) just how badly they need us!"
Huh? Are you conveniently forgetting the myriad of problems that PPC-Macs had? Hell, Apple had a laptop in the past (the model escapes me at the moment) that had the tendency to go up in flames. How about all those logic-board problems in the PPC-portables? Poor USB-performance in G5 PowerMacs? Windtunnel MDD-PowerMacs? And some of the problems Apple is having today are not related to the architecture at all. How could the architecture cause discoloration of the case? Swelling batteries? No, the reason for those problems are elsewhere.
The machine with IDE-problems was Ultra 5, and it used SPARC. Sun has used x86. First attempt was so long ago, that it hardly matters anymore. Then we have the current Opteron-machines, and I don't think that you can complain about those.
You talked about Linux on the desktop. Are you claimin that "corporate world" is the only place where Linux wpould be used on the desktop? Most Linux-desktops I have seen have been used outside of corporations. But I HAVE seen lots of corporate Linux-desktops as well, and they seem getting more popular as well, with or without calendars. And I have seen them using mostly Evolution for their groupware-needs.
So push something else. IBM has announced that Lotus Notes will run on Linux, so push that instead. It has more groupware-features that you can shake a stick at.
You talked of using Linux on the desktop, period. Calendaring (or lack of it) does NOT prevent you from using Linux on the desktop. I have seen zillion Linux-desktops, all running fine even though they apparently have a huge flaw of not having a decent calendar. Hall, I have seen many companies that don't give a flying fuck about goddamn calendar.
I wonder what "flaw" people will discover next that will kill Linux'es chances on the desktop? Ease of use and the like have been long fixed, so we need something else now. And today, it seemsthat calendars are it.
Yes, you are right. Linux is destined to fail, whereas OS X is destined to rule because (dramatic pause).... OS X has a "better" built-in calendar! Email, web-browsers, myriad of apps? forget that crap! Calendars is where it's at!