We can find it. We just can't see it. That's why it's called "dark" matter. But we even see webs of it forming the patterns that galaxies are bound too. You need to read up on it more. Let me guess; you think the moon landings were a hoax and the Earth is flat?
Nope... SBC bought AT&T in 2005. After this purchase, SBC adopted the AT&T name and brand. SBC did NOT EXIST until after the breakup of AT&T. American Telephone and Telegraph Company was in existence since the 1800's.
"AT&T can trace its origin back to the original Bell Telephone Company founded by Alexander Graham Bell after his invention of the telephone. One of that company's subsidiaries was American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T), established in 1885, which acquired the Bell Company on December 31, 1899 for legal reasons, leaving AT&T as the main company. AT&T established a network of subsidiaries in the United States and Canada that held a government-authorized phone service monopoly, formalized with the Kingsbury Commitment, throughout most of the twentieth century. This monopoly was known as the Bell System, and during this period, AT&T was also known by the nickname Ma Bell. For periods of time, the former AT&T was the world's largest phone company.
In 1982, US regulators broke up the AT&T monopoly, requiring AT&T to divest its regional subsidiaries and turning them each into individual companies. These new companies were known as Regional Bell Operating Companies, or more informally, Baby Bells. AT&T continued to operate long distance services, but as a result of this breakup, faced competition from new competitors such as MCI and Sprint. Southwestern Bell was one of the companies created by the breakup of AT&T. "
"As part of the breakup of the old AT&T during 1984, the telephone operating companies Southern Bell based in Atlanta and South Central Bell based in Birmingham, Alabama combined to operate under the name BellSouth Telecommunications.
...
Toward its end, BellSouth realigned itself in two important areas, wireless and broadband. In 2001, they merged BellSouth Mobility, their wireless enterprise, with SBC's wireless services, and took 40% stake in the resulting company, Cingular Wireless. The new company provided a large percentage of BellSouth's revenue. This joint venture continued after SBC purchased the old AT&T and rebranded as AT&T Inc. "
While Samsung might have shipped more phones this quarter, Apple's net income was $7.8 billion in the fiscal third quarter that ended June 25. So they still made more money.
My iPhone 5 works great... I was going to give it to my 11 year old daughter... then she dropped it and broke the screen. Still works, so I'll probably get it fixed for her. We got her a cheap (free) LG phone. It lasted over two years with me without a scratch! I update about every two years. I'm on a 6 Plus now, and I'll trade that in towards a 7.
I'm sure it could run Linux Mint, good enough. I have a mac at work and my wife has one too. They're ok but my god has the UI become too complicated over the years diverging from the initial simplicity. Just taking a picture of a window to the clipboard takes a lot of keys
What? How long have you been using a Mac? Command-Shift-Control-4 captures the window and copies it to the clipboard. That's the same key combination it always was.
Linux has the worst UI regardless of which desktop environment you use. I run several versions of Linux, as well as Windows 10 and Haiku on my iMac (OpenStep too).
I've been using Macs since the early 90s. The interface isn't all that much different, but you can do a lot more now. But try running System 7.5 for an hour. You'll realize you can't do much on it! (how did I spend so much time on the computer before the Interwebs?)
(With all that investment in Microsoft Research, why does Microsoft copy others, particularly Apple, so much???)
Because MS doesn't really innovate. You can't come up with new ideas when you are mostly concerned with catching up to Apple. They had been #1 for so long that it didn't matter if they did something new, as they were the only game in town for many peolpe. Look at the Zune; same basic form factor as the iPod. Same can be said for most of the smart phones out there, that look just like the iPhone. And now with all the tablet stuff going on, people don't realize that Apple made the iPad before the iPhone, but didn't think there was a market for it yet. And true, Apple didn't invent the tablet or smart phone, but they are good at coming up with great implementations.
"Silicon Valley investor Roger McNamee just delivered a fantastic, wide ranging interview on CNBC about the state of tech."
"We're in a cycle where Windows will become irrelevant. For the first time Windows is below 50% of all internet connected devices, so "we're going to free up $100 billion in revenue over the next few years per year. As Windows goes down, Apple rises, thanks to iPad."
The install base of Macs is likely around 30% in 1st world countries.
Not even half that. Where are at least 50% if not more of the computers? In Offices...and what do 99% of companies use? Windows
Even 10% of install base would be pushing it
But that's like quoting the market share of a Ford Crown Victoria; based on police department use. That's not the "real world." A lot of people have to use a PC at work, but have a Mac at home. My wife falls into that category. I'm lucky that I use Macs in my work. What's being done on those PCs in offices? The computer used at home (or even a laptop) is a better indication of what kind of machines people are using, as it is with cars people drive.
Also, as I mentioned before; in the NYC metro area I see Apple laptops outnumbering Windows Laptops 3 to 1 in my daily commute. And these are work machines with the owners being in suit and tie, etc. I know they are work machines, because I like to peek and see what people are running. The last person that sat next to me was a young guy with a MacBook Pro, and he was writing code. He was also using the terminal for everything, including launching URLs in Google Chrome. That seemed kind of pointless, but hey, he was a fast typist.;)
Give it another 10 years and Apple will be at 50%. Look at what they did with the smartphone, MP3 player, tablet and music store market. They own those. And even if not everyone has an iPhone, look how many other phones are direct copies, right down to the icons and the form factor. I own an LG Rumor because I can't use an iPhone on Virgin. I'm sure I'm not alone.
The only reason every Mac isn't infested with malware is that they're not a big enough chunk of the market for it to be worth the effort. If they ever cross the magic 15% threshold they're in for a very rude awakening.
Like everyone you mix up market share with install base.
Who cares how many "compputers" a company is selling per year? Only investors....
The install base of Macs is likely around 30% in 1st world countries.
The Mac is per definition more secure, despite of your good points, as a user is not running with Admin privileges, the Mail and Web Applications don't auto execute incoming traffic etc. The only way to infiltrate a Mac, that I'm ware off, is via Buffer overflows.
angel'o'sphere
This is a good point. I haven't bought a *new* Mac since 2000. I'm on my second G4, which a friend gave me. My first one lasted 10 years, which is a real accomplishment in the PC world. My wife uses an old iMac, and both her and my son use older iBooks. So we have four Macs in our home, but those wont show up in "market" share based on new computer purchases.
We are getting some newer Intel Macs this year, but still not brand new.
I run all my user accounts with admit privileges, but that still has not shown to be an issue. You still have to use you pass word to anything to be installed, and down loaded files don't execute on their own (unless you have that feature turned on).
Weren't a fair number of them WDEF-based viruses on floppies?
I got my first mac in 1994, a Performa 6115 (PPC). I remember that WDEF virus. I had gotten infected with it twice. Once was from a Zip disk (from someone else's Mac) and the other time it was on the installer CD for InternetPhone. It was annoying, but harmless. Since then I have had zero issues with malware and viruses. On the other hand, every person I know with a PC has problems on a regular basis. A friend gave me a flash-drive to copy a file onto, and it had two infected files. He doesn't even know where they came from. I don't understand why more Windows users don't use anti virus software.
I use Norton Anti-virus just for those reasons, because I have to exchange files with Windows users, and I don't want that stuff to spread. I can't imagine how you would run an exploit on OS X anyway. You would have to run an installer, since it doesn't let just anything get installed on it without a warning or prompt.
Apple has roughly 0% (zero percent) of the enterprise PC market, which is roughly half of the overall PC market...
That's not entirely true. I've been doing freelance work at Sony in NYC, and they have a LOT of Macs. In fact the majority of computers there are Macs. And not just for graphics and stuff, everyone's desk has a recent Mac Pro or iMac on it. Sure, it's an entertainment company, but it's still "enterprise". Also a lot of companies are starting to issue iPhones and iPads, which of course both run a variation of Mac OS X.
As far as market share, in my experience when commuting on the train in the morning from NJ to NYC, I used to see maybe one Apple laptop on the entire train (assuming I was walking from car to car to find a seat). That was like ten years ago. Now I easily see two or three PER CAR. I also see at least two iPads a day, an a zillion iPhones/iPods. Last year Apple's share just reached over 10% (3Q '10) when combining the iPhone with Macs. They went from 9% in 3Q9 to 10.5% in a year. Now with the iPad thrown in, and counted as a computer, that's going to climb. They are currently the 5th largest computer maker.
But I agree... market share has nothing to to do with malware.
And quickly replaced with the iMac product line because by then "PowerMac" had been tarred and feathered by consumers.
Somewhere in my mother-in-laws house is my Wife's Powermac 7100/66. I donated my 7100 to a museum. Literally.
The G5 is still called the "PowerMac G5," as was the G3 and G4's. The iMac was the "internet Mac" and never replaced the PowerMacs, which were considered "pro" machines.
My first Mac was a PowerMac 6100, or more specifically a Performa 6115, with a 60 Mhz PPC601 CPU, 8 MB RAM, and a whopping 500 MB hard drive! Came with a 15" monitor and cost me $2500!
I'm typing this on an "obsolete" Dual 2.7 Ghz G5, with 1.5 GB RAM, with a 250 MB HD, which cost about the same as the 6115!
John Dvorak himself is quite biased against Macs, so how can his opinion be taken seriously?
"The Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a 'mouse.' There is no evidence that people want to use these things."
- JCD in the SF Examiner, 1984
"UNIX is dead, but no one bothered to claim the body."
- JCD, 1985
"Folks, the Mac platform is through -- totally,"
- JCD in PC Mag, 1998
...
I read somewhere that Aqua largely depends on the AltiVec execution unit for the heavy graphical stuff. It's a totally uneducated guess, but I think the Intel based macs - if based on Intels current offering - will have some kind of coprocessor to support 128 bit vectors. This might make it very difficult to run OS-X on non-Apple hardware.
G3s don't have AltiVec though, and they run OS X OK.
For QuartzXTreme you need a graphics card that can handle it.
Apple is advising developers to recode if they depend on AltiVec, to do away with the dependancy.
I also thought they would add a coprocessor, as they did back with the FPU units on some Macs, but it doesn't seem that way.
The dev box they are selling is a plain jane PC.
Accelerate Your Mac has some interesting notes on Apple's Intel development system:
They are using a Pentium 4 660. This is a 3.6 GHz chip. It supports 64 bit extensions, but Apple does not support that *yet*. The 660 is a single core processor. However, the engineers said that this chip would not be used in a shipping product and that we need to look at Intel's roadmap for that time to see what Apple will ship.
It uses DDR-2 RAM at 533 MHz. SATA-2. It is using Intel GMA 900 integrated graphics and it supports Quartz Extreme. The Intel 900 doesn't compare favorably to any shipping card from ATi or nVidia. The Apple engineers says they dev kit will work with regular PC graphics cards, but that you need a driver. Apple does not write ANY graphics drivers. They just submit bug reports to ATi/nVidia. So, when we asked where to get drivers for better cards the engineers said "The ATI guys are here." He's right, they've been in the compatibility lab several times.
It has FireWire 400, but not 800. USB 2 as well. USB 2 booting is supported, FireWire booting is not. NetBoot works.
The machines do not have Open Firmware. They use a Phoenix BIOS. That's right, a Mac with a BIOS. (I asked if the Bios had any tweaks like Memory Timing which is common for many PC motherboards, although Intel OEM motherboards don't usually have any end user tweaks like that.-Mike) They won't tell us how to get in the BIOS. I'm sure we can figure it out when out dev kits arrive.
They run Windows fine. All the chipset is standard Intel stuff, so you can download drivers and run XP on the box.
Actually it's not. First off, Apple had many parts of the Lisa/Macintosh project devised before they went to XEROX, according to Jeff Raskin, who kept dated notes of all the work. The Mac project started in September, and Steve Jobs went to PARC in late December) And the Xerox computers couldn't do things like tile windows. Pulldown menus are also an Apple invention.
Jeff writes: "In his book on Silicon Valley events, Accidental Empires, he has the Mac and Lisa (an Apple computer that didn't make it commercially) projects being created by Steve Jobs after Jobs made the visit to PARC "in 1980" and came back all aglow with inspiration."
"I emailed to Cringely to point out that his book--like those of a number of other authors--was wrong; Jobs had indeed made a visit in December, 1979 but the Mac project was proposed in the spring and was officially started in September, 1979. In other words, the project was well under way before the event that was supposed to have inspired it took place. Cringely was unabashed. He emailed back: 'As for all the business of what project started when, whether Lisa started before or after Steve visited PARC, whether the Mac had already begun or not, well I don't think that it really matters very much. My attempt was to EXPLAIN (I say that at the front of the book), not to be a historian.'"
And that's the version of the history most people quite... and it's wrong... Plus... who ever got to use one of these? Most people's introduction to the GUI was via the Macintosh. The early versions of Windows (up to W95) sure didn't work or look like a Mac!
You just answered your own question. Why would I want all the Photoshop windows to come to the front instead of just the one I want?
You didn't read what I wrote. If I click on the icon in the Dock, then all the window will come to the front. Being that you are a Linux guy, you don't use Photoshop. In order to use Photoshop effectively, you need all the pallets and tool bars and such. So to answer your question, that's why you would want all of its windows to come to the front.
Most people don't have a bunch of Photoshop documents open at once, but if you do, Photoshop neatly cascades them. You can then choose the one you want either by choosing the window by right clicking on PS's icon in the Dock, via the Window menu (Window > Documents), or you can just click on that window frame, and only that window will come to the front.
Most Mac users seem to hate that you can bring just one window to the front, and actually turn that off via some free utilities, so that OS X behaves like OS 9. I like it better than the OS 9 way myself.
Oh yeah.. and as I said several times... use Exposé!
In 1984, the Apple GUI and its desktop metaphor was -- for people who had never used a computer before -- an easier concept to get their head around than a command line UI. Also, the consistant UI across multiple applications made it easier to use apps -- learn the infrastructure of one (command-c to copy, for instance), you've basically learned them all, was the basic idea.
Since then, as users have demaned more functionality, and Apple has sought to provide more functionality, the Apple UI has gotten progressively more complex, and required ever more abstract mental manipulations to fit into a "desktop" metaphor.
Don't get too carried away with the desktop metaphor. You don't keep your trash can on your desktop, right?
It's not meant to be literal... that's why it's a metaphor. Your documents look like paper. You keep them in folders. You have a trash can to get rid of them in. You can place said items on the desktop. That's it.
As far as "users demanding more functionality"... when did that happen? It sounds good to write something like that... same as when people write some drivel like "people voted with their wallets"... People didn't demand anything. Apple continued to add more features, that most people didn't know about until the announcement of "100 new features!" was made.
As far as OS X not being easier to use than XP... my wife was a big time corporate Windows user. She's a real pro at it. After she got the hang of things not being where she was used to on my G4, she simply loves OS X. SHE thinks it's more logical and much easier. She thinks she has to do less steps to get things done. She says she would never use Windows again.
And I have to agree!
XP looks like a toddlers toy. The colors are garish. This might make it look simpler, but it's just dumbed down. And as far as the desktop metaphor.. I see grass and sky and plastic looking things in primary colors. I don't have any of that on my desktop!
Since droves of imaginary people have stormed Cupertino demanding more features, then the original simplicity of the first Mac OS simply wont do. They demanded more!
What you'll be getting is a pretty standard PC, only in addition to the off white case there will either be a special chip or a special BIOS extension that is required by OS X to run...
Firstly, you wont be getting an "off white case"... why on earth would Apple suddenly make their computers look like PCs?
It will most likely be the same G5 case they use now.
Currently the dev box uses Phoenix BIOS. I would have thought Apple would go with OpenFirmware again, but if they are saying you can run Windows on a Mac, then it must be BIOS based.
There has been some speculation that Apple might use some Intel DRM technology... something built right into the CPU. Or else they might have a chip somewhere. Only time will tell.
Weak argument... You've either never used a Mac, or never learned the correct way to use one.
Never mind that the Mac way of doing things breaks the whole desktop metaphor, that windows are magic pieces of paper on your desk - my desk doesn't have a strip at the top that magically changes when I bring a piece of paper to the top of the stack.
Nevermind that the Mac set the metaphor of the desktop... Do your pieces of paper have menu bars on them that control your typewriter or pencil? They are not the appliance that created them. Windows wastes a whole lot of space having a menu bar on each window IMO. IF Windows was document based, then only the Edit and File menu items should be on the document window. The other stuff (like the applications preference settings) is redundant if it's on more than one window.
This makes your document an application, which it is not. Document windows should not be cluttered up with applications specific menus.
The Mac model is better because all needed menus for that application appear only once, and only when you are working in that application on one of that application's documents... assuming the application has documents. Many do not.
If you're someone who only uses one application at a time, the Mac model is fine. (But then, in Windows or Linux you can just always maximize the window you're working on, and have the title bar at the top of the screen.) If you switch back and forth between applications - like shuffling the papers on your desk - the Mac model sucks rocks.
You don't know how to use a Mac. Period. I usually have about seven applications open at once. When I want to switch to that application, I either click on its icon in the Dock, or I Command-Tab. I can also click on one of that application's windows, providing I didn't hide the application, and that will bring that window to the front.
Tell me exactly how the Mac model sucks when switching applications? When I switch to Photoshop, all its windows come to the front. If I then switch back to InDesign, all its windows come to the front. What's the problem here?
Now with Windows, each application covers your desktop with its own application window. And the document windows are stuck in that parent window. You think that's better?
On the Mac, I can work with multiple applications simultaneously without switching between them! This is easy to do since there is no parent/child window behavior. If I want to bring just one Photoshop window to the front, and have it alongside a Illustrator window, or a MS Word window, I can do that, and drag and drop items between them.
I can also switch to any one window using the Application's Dock icon... right-click and there is the list. And it's not clogging up my Dock with a list of windows the way the Task Bar works.
Or let's say I'm surfing the web, and want to save a text clipping from a web site, or a picture. Since I can see and access my desktop, I can just drag and drop the item there, or to a folder. I can also open up a Finder window, to either my desktop, or somewhere else, and drag the file there.
The "Mac model" makes better use of screen space, and window management is a lot better.
"The Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a 'mouse.' There is no evidence that people want to use these things." - JCD in the SF Examiner, 1984
"UNIX is dead, but no one bothered to claim the body." - JCD, 1985
"Folks, the Mac platform is through -- totally," - JCD in PC Mag, 1998 .
Slashdot Mirror
That's HRC, not LHC. And she isn't all that bad. It's mostly all lies.
If this isn't satire I feel bad for you.
We can find it. We just can't see it. That's why it's called "dark" matter. But we even see webs of it forming the patterns that galaxies are bound too. You need to read up on it more. Let me guess; you think the moon landings were a hoax and the Earth is flat?
"AT&T can trace its origin back to the original Bell Telephone Company founded by Alexander Graham Bell after his invention of the telephone. One of that company's subsidiaries was American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T), established in 1885, which acquired the Bell Company on December 31, 1899 for legal reasons, leaving AT&T as the main company. AT&T established a network of subsidiaries in the United States and Canada that held a government-authorized phone service monopoly, formalized with the Kingsbury Commitment, throughout most of the twentieth century. This monopoly was known as the Bell System, and during this period, AT&T was also known by the nickname Ma Bell. For periods of time, the former AT&T was the world's largest phone company.
In 1982, US regulators broke up the AT&T monopoly, requiring AT&T to divest its regional subsidiaries and turning them each into individual companies. These new companies were known as Regional Bell Operating Companies, or more informally, Baby Bells. AT&T continued to operate long distance services, but as a result of this breakup, faced competition from new competitors such as MCI and Sprint. Southwestern Bell was one of the companies created by the breakup of AT&T. "
"As part of the breakup of the old AT&T during 1984, the telephone operating companies Southern Bell based in Atlanta and South Central Bell based in Birmingham, Alabama combined to operate under the name BellSouth Telecommunications.
... Toward its end, BellSouth realigned itself in two important areas, wireless and broadband. In 2001, they merged BellSouth Mobility, their wireless enterprise, with SBC's wireless services, and took 40% stake in the resulting company, Cingular Wireless. The new company provided a large percentage of BellSouth's revenue. This joint venture continued after SBC purchased the old AT&T and rebranded as AT&T Inc. "
Oh, and I use to work for their competitor, ITT.
Well, Apple has Beats. So there.
While Samsung might have shipped more phones this quarter, Apple's net income was $7.8 billion in the fiscal third quarter that ended June 25. So they still made more money.
My iPhone 5 works great... I was going to give it to my 11 year old daughter... then she dropped it and broke the screen. Still works, so I'll probably get it fixed for her. We got her a cheap (free) LG phone. It lasted over two years with me without a scratch! I update about every two years. I'm on a 6 Plus now, and I'll trade that in towards a 7.
I'm sure it could run Linux Mint, good enough. I have a mac at work and my wife has one too. They're ok but my god has the UI become too complicated over the years diverging from the initial simplicity. Just taking a picture of a window to the clipboard takes a lot of keys
What? How long have you been using a Mac? Command-Shift-Control-4 captures the window and copies it to the clipboard. That's the same key combination it always was. Linux has the worst UI regardless of which desktop environment you use. I run several versions of Linux, as well as Windows 10 and Haiku on my iMac (OpenStep too). I've been using Macs since the early 90s. The interface isn't all that much different, but you can do a lot more now. But try running System 7.5 for an hour. You'll realize you can't do much on it! (how did I spend so much time on the computer before the Interwebs?)
Thunderbolt used a Mini DisplayPort connector on the first Macs.
It's cool. You can't really do copy protection on a platform that encourages hacking.
There is no longer any copy protection in iTunes. There hasn't been for a while now.
http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/11/windows-app-store/
(With all that investment in Microsoft Research, why does Microsoft copy others, particularly Apple, so much???)
Because MS doesn't really innovate. You can't come up with new ideas when you are mostly concerned with catching up to Apple. They had been #1 for so long that it didn't matter if they did something new, as they were the only game in town for many peolpe. Look at the Zune; same basic form factor as the iPod. Same can be said for most of the smart phones out there, that look just like the iPhone. And now with all the tablet stuff going on, people don't realize that Apple made the iPad before the iPhone, but didn't think there was a market for it yet. And true, Apple didn't invent the tablet or smart phone, but they are good at coming up with great implementations.
"Silicon Valley investor Roger McNamee just delivered a fantastic, wide ranging interview on CNBC about the state of tech."
http://www.businessinsider.com/roger-mcnamee-on-cnbc-2011-4#ixzz1JYfHqHse
"We're in a cycle where Windows will become irrelevant. For the first time Windows is below 50% of all internet connected devices, so "we're going to free up $100 billion in revenue over the next few years per year. As Windows goes down, Apple rises, thanks to iPad."
The install base of Macs is likely around 30% in 1st world countries.
Not even half that. Where are at least 50% if not more of the computers? In Offices...and what do 99% of companies use? Windows Even 10% of install base would be pushing it
But that's like quoting the market share of a Ford Crown Victoria; based on police department use. That's not the "real world." A lot of people have to use a PC at work, but have a Mac at home. My wife falls into that category. I'm lucky that I use Macs in my work. What's being done on those PCs in offices? The computer used at home (or even a laptop) is a better indication of what kind of machines people are using, as it is with cars people drive.
Also, as I mentioned before; in the NYC metro area I see Apple laptops outnumbering Windows Laptops 3 to 1 in my daily commute. And these are work machines with the owners being in suit and tie, etc. I know they are work machines, because I like to peek and see what people are running. The last person that sat next to me was a young guy with a MacBook Pro, and he was writing code. He was also using the terminal for everything, including launching URLs in Google Chrome. That seemed kind of pointless, but hey, he was a fast typist. ;)
Give it another 10 years and Apple will be at 50%. Look at what they did with the smartphone, MP3 player, tablet and music store market. They own those. And even if not everyone has an iPhone, look how many other phones are direct copies, right down to the icons and the form factor. I own an LG Rumor because I can't use an iPhone on Virgin. I'm sure I'm not alone.
Like everyone you mix up market share with install base. Who cares how many "compputers" a company is selling per year? Only investors ....
The install base of Macs is likely around 30% in 1st world countries.
The Mac is per definition more secure, despite of your good points, as a user is not running with Admin privileges, the Mail and Web Applications don't auto execute incoming traffic etc. The only way to infiltrate a Mac, that I'm ware off, is via Buffer overflows.
angel'o'sphere
This is a good point. I haven't bought a *new* Mac since 2000. I'm on my second G4, which a friend gave me. My first one lasted 10 years, which is a real accomplishment in the PC world. My wife uses an old iMac, and both her and my son use older iBooks. So we have four Macs in our home, but those wont show up in "market" share based on new computer purchases. We are getting some newer Intel Macs this year, but still not brand new. I run all my user accounts with admit privileges, but that still has not shown to be an issue. You still have to use you pass word to anything to be installed, and down loaded files don't execute on their own (unless you have that feature turned on).
Weren't a fair number of them WDEF-based viruses on floppies?
I got my first mac in 1994, a Performa 6115 (PPC). I remember that WDEF virus. I had gotten infected with it twice. Once was from a Zip disk (from someone else's Mac) and the other time it was on the installer CD for InternetPhone. It was annoying, but harmless. Since then I have had zero issues with malware and viruses. On the other hand, every person I know with a PC has problems on a regular basis. A friend gave me a flash-drive to copy a file onto, and it had two infected files. He doesn't even know where they came from. I don't understand why more Windows users don't use anti virus software. I use Norton Anti-virus just for those reasons, because I have to exchange files with Windows users, and I don't want that stuff to spread. I can't imagine how you would run an exploit on OS X anyway. You would have to run an installer, since it doesn't let just anything get installed on it without a warning or prompt.
Apple has roughly 0% (zero percent) of the enterprise PC market, which is roughly half of the overall PC market...
That's not entirely true. I've been doing freelance work at Sony in NYC, and they have a LOT of Macs. In fact the majority of computers there are Macs. And not just for graphics and stuff, everyone's desk has a recent Mac Pro or iMac on it. Sure, it's an entertainment company, but it's still "enterprise". Also a lot of companies are starting to issue iPhones and iPads, which of course both run a variation of Mac OS X. As far as market share, in my experience when commuting on the train in the morning from NJ to NYC, I used to see maybe one Apple laptop on the entire train (assuming I was walking from car to car to find a seat). That was like ten years ago. Now I easily see two or three PER CAR. I also see at least two iPads a day, an a zillion iPhones/iPods. Last year Apple's share just reached over 10% (3Q '10) when combining the iPhone with Macs. They went from 9% in 3Q9 to 10.5% in a year. Now with the iPad thrown in, and counted as a computer, that's going to climb. They are currently the 5th largest computer maker. But I agree... market share has nothing to to do with malware.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/downloa ds/sp1.mspx
So let me get this straight... first you complain that Apple keeps changing things too fast, and then you say the OS needs a major overhaul?
I think that's what they have been doing. Just because Apple wants to use Objective-C, GNUStep, and Cocoa doesn't mean the platform isn't a modern OS.
Apple has no desire for "people to be compatible with it"
It's still the best OS out there.
That should have read 250 GB hard drive... :-\
The G5 is still called the "PowerMac G5," as was the G3 and G4's. The iMac was the "internet Mac" and never replaced the PowerMacs, which were considered "pro" machines.
My first Mac was a PowerMac 6100, or more specifically a Performa 6115, with a 60 Mhz PPC601 CPU, 8 MB RAM, and a whopping 500 MB hard drive! Came with a 15" monitor and cost me $2500!
I'm typing this on an "obsolete" Dual 2.7 Ghz G5, with 1.5 GB RAM, with a 250 MB HD, which cost about the same as the 6115!
"The Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a 'mouse.' There is no evidence that people want to use these things." - JCD in the SF Examiner, 1984
"UNIX is dead, but no one bothered to claim the body." - JCD, 1985
"Folks, the Mac platform is through -- totally," - JCD in PC Mag, 1998
...
G3s don't have AltiVec though, and they run OS X OK.
For QuartzXTreme you need a graphics card that can handle it.
Apple is advising developers to recode if they depend on AltiVec, to do away with the dependancy. I also thought they would add a coprocessor, as they did back with the FPU units on some Macs, but it doesn't seem that way.
The dev box they are selling is a plain jane PC.
Accelerate Your Mac has some interesting notes on Apple's Intel development system:
They are using a Pentium 4 660. This is a 3.6 GHz chip. It supports 64 bit extensions, but Apple does not support that *yet*. The 660 is a single core processor. However, the engineers said that this chip would not be used in a shipping product and that we need to look at Intel's roadmap for that time to see what Apple will ship.
It uses DDR-2 RAM at 533 MHz. SATA-2. It is using Intel GMA 900 integrated graphics and it supports Quartz Extreme. The Intel 900 doesn't compare favorably to any shipping card from ATi or nVidia. The Apple engineers says they dev kit will work with regular PC graphics cards, but that you need a driver. Apple does not write ANY graphics drivers. They just submit bug reports to ATi/nVidia. So, when we asked where to get drivers for better cards the engineers said "The ATI guys are here." He's right, they've been in the compatibility lab several times.
It has FireWire 400, but not 800. USB 2 as well. USB 2 booting is supported, FireWire booting is not. NetBoot works.
The machines do not have Open Firmware. They use a Phoenix BIOS. That's right, a Mac with a BIOS. (I asked if the Bios had any tweaks like Memory Timing which is common for many PC motherboards, although Intel OEM motherboards don't usually have any end user tweaks like that.-Mike) They won't tell us how to get in the BIOS. I'm sure we can figure it out when out dev kits arrive.
They run Windows fine. All the chipset is standard Intel stuff, so you can download drivers and run XP on the box.
Actually it's not. First off, Apple had many parts of the Lisa/Macintosh project devised before they went to XEROX, according to Jeff Raskin, who kept dated notes of all the work. The Mac project started in September, and Steve Jobs went to PARC in late December) And the Xerox computers couldn't do things like tile windows. Pulldown menus are also an Apple invention.
Jeff writes:
"In his book on Silicon Valley events, Accidental Empires, he has the Mac and Lisa (an Apple computer that didn't make it commercially) projects being created by Steve Jobs after Jobs made the visit to PARC "in 1980" and came back all aglow with inspiration."
"I emailed to Cringely to point out that his book--like those of a number of other authors--was wrong; Jobs had indeed made a visit in December, 1979 but the Mac project was proposed in the spring and was officially started in September, 1979. In other words, the project was well under way before the event that was supposed to have inspired it took place. Cringely was unabashed. He emailed back: 'As for all the business of what project started when, whether Lisa started before or after Steve visited PARC, whether the Mac had already begun or not, well I don't think that it really matters very much. My attempt was to EXPLAIN (I say that at the front of the book), not to be a historian.'"
And that's the version of the history most people quite... and it's wrong... Plus... who ever got to use one of these? Most people's introduction to the GUI was via the Macintosh. The early versions of Windows (up to W95) sure didn't work or look like a Mac!
You just answered your own question. Why would I want all the Photoshop windows to come to the front instead of just the one I want?
You didn't read what I wrote. If I click on the icon in the Dock, then all the window will come to the front. Being that you are a Linux guy, you don't use Photoshop. In order to use Photoshop effectively, you need all the pallets and tool bars and such. So to answer your question, that's why you would want all of its windows to come to the front.
Most people don't have a bunch of Photoshop documents open at once, but if you do, Photoshop neatly cascades them. You can then choose the one you want either by choosing the window by right clicking on PS's icon in the Dock, via the Window menu (Window > Documents), or you can just click on that window frame, and only that window will come to the front.
Most Mac users seem to hate that you can bring just one window to the front, and actually turn that off via some free utilities, so that OS X behaves like OS 9. I like it better than the OS 9 way myself.
Oh yeah.. and as I said several times... use Exposé!
See, we have choices. That doesn't suck.
Since then, as users have demaned more functionality, and Apple has sought to provide more functionality, the Apple UI has gotten progressively more complex, and required ever more abstract mental manipulations to fit into a "desktop" metaphor.
Don't get too carried away with the desktop metaphor. You don't keep your trash can on your desktop, right?
It's not meant to be literal... that's why it's a metaphor. Your documents look like paper. You keep them in folders. You have a trash can to get rid of them in. You can place said items on the desktop. That's it.
As far as "users demanding more functionality" ... when did that happen? It sounds good to write something like that... same as when people write some drivel like "people voted with their wallets"... People didn't demand anything. Apple continued to add more features, that most people didn't know about until the announcement of "100 new features!" was made.
As far as OS X not being easier to use than XP... my wife was a big time corporate Windows user. She's a real pro at it. After she got the hang of things not being where she was used to on my G4, she simply loves OS X. SHE thinks it's more logical and much easier. She thinks she has to do less steps to get things done. She says she would never use Windows again.
And I have to agree!
XP looks like a toddlers toy. The colors are garish. This might make it look simpler, but it's just dumbed down. And as far as the desktop metaphor.. I see grass and sky and plastic looking things in primary colors. I don't have any of that on my desktop!
Since droves of imaginary people have stormed Cupertino demanding more features, then the original simplicity of the first Mac OS simply wont do. They demanded more!
And they got it.
Firstly, you wont be getting an "off white case"... why on earth would Apple suddenly make their computers look like PCs?
It will most likely be the same G5 case they use now.
Currently the dev box uses Phoenix BIOS. I would have thought Apple would go with OpenFirmware again, but if they are saying you can run Windows on a Mac, then it must be BIOS based.
There has been some speculation that Apple might use some Intel DRM technology... something built right into the CPU. Or else they might have a chip somewhere. Only time will tell.
Never mind that the Mac way of doing things breaks the whole desktop metaphor, that windows are magic pieces of paper on your desk - my desk doesn't have a strip at the top that magically changes when I bring a piece of paper to the top of the stack.
Nevermind that the Mac set the metaphor of the desktop... Do your pieces of paper have menu bars on them that control your typewriter or pencil? They are not the appliance that created them. Windows wastes a whole lot of space having a menu bar on each window IMO. IF Windows was document based, then only the Edit and File menu items should be on the document window. The other stuff (like the applications preference settings) is redundant if it's on more than one window.
This makes your document an application, which it is not. Document windows should not be cluttered up with applications specific menus.
The Mac model is better because all needed menus for that application appear only once, and only when you are working in that application on one of that application's documents... assuming the application has documents. Many do not.
If you're someone who only uses one application at a time, the Mac model is fine. (But then, in Windows or Linux you can just always maximize the window you're working on, and have the title bar at the top of the screen.) If you switch back and forth between applications - like shuffling the papers on your desk - the Mac model sucks rocks.
You don't know how to use a Mac. Period. I usually have about seven applications open at once. When I want to switch to that application, I either click on its icon in the Dock, or I Command-Tab. I can also click on one of that application's windows, providing I didn't hide the application, and that will bring that window to the front.
Tell me exactly how the Mac model sucks when switching applications? When I switch to Photoshop, all its windows come to the front. If I then switch back to InDesign, all its windows come to the front. What's the problem here?
Now with Windows, each application covers your desktop with its own application window. And the document windows are stuck in that parent window. You think that's better?
On the Mac, I can work with multiple applications simultaneously without switching between them! This is easy to do since there is no parent/child window behavior. If I want to bring just one Photoshop window to the front, and have it alongside a Illustrator window, or a MS Word window, I can do that, and drag and drop items between them.
I can also switch to any one window using the Application's Dock icon... right-click and there is the list. And it's not clogging up my Dock with a list of windows the way the Task Bar works.
Or let's say I'm surfing the web, and want to save a text clipping from a web site, or a picture. Since I can see and access my desktop, I can just drag and drop the item there, or to a folder. I can also open up a Finder window, to either my desktop, or somewhere else, and drag the file there.
The "Mac model" makes better use of screen space, and window management is a lot better.
"The Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a 'mouse.' There is no evidence that people want to use these things."
- JCD in the SF Examiner, 1984
"UNIX is dead, but no one bothered to claim the body."
- JCD, 1985
"Folks, the Mac platform is through -- totally,"
- JCD in PC Mag, 1998
.