This was the first thing I thought of too. When I use KDE I still prefer Firefox as a browser, yet, telling KDE this, it seems to reluctantly give up control of URLs because they seem to have their own URL syntax for things. I typically delete parts of KDE I don't want to mysteriously get launched, but Konqueror (as a file browser) is not one of the things I want to do without.
Never underestimate Microsoft's ability to blow a lead. Their reputation (deserved) of constantly grinding their competition into insignificance isn't based on any sudden jumping out into the lead technically. In fact when you look back at all their fallen foe you see that they all had PLENTY of time to react, but failed to do so for one reason or another, typically the reason is cash flow problems. Microsoft wins by outlasting the competition because they have a much larger war chest. The only exception to this I can think of is IBM and OS/2 who unilaterally surrendered by not marketing their own product, even though they had the money to run behind Windows almost indefinitely.
Sony has certainly lost momentum in the past year. The DRM fiasco will probably cost them as much or more than the lateness of the PS3. But Sony will have to exit the game business to lose this contest. Everyone knows by now that as Microsoft wins a new battle it eats its allies for lunch the next day. With gaming, Microsoft is going to build a huge infrastructure that will end up costing them more to run than they can make on it. I've said for some time that Sony is playing Microsoft just as Microsoft has played their own competitors over the years: let them run out ahead and make mistakes, come along after with good name recognition and established user base. make your opponents run at a loss while you run either at a profit or at least with a smaller loss. Rinse and repeat until your opponent starves itself to death.
Not since the struggle with IBM has Microsoft faced an opponent who had other significant income streams and could actually match them blow for blow in a war of attrition. It couldn't happen to two "nicer" companies.
What remains to be seen, and I think a distinct possibility, is whether these new game consoles can completely derail our thinking on what a PC is. Current PCs have long since passed any business needs in terms of speed, memory, and disk capacity. Competition is now almost exclusively in the game market, or the closely related "media center" area. The fact that Microsoft is placing such a large bet on something that contains no Intel hardware I think is telling, and particularly ironic, considering Apples recent moves.
"What kind of moron would use this service on company files, or on documents with information you need kept secure? "
Believe me, the typical user of Microsoft Office is even DUMBER! They carry around important documents on floppy disks and laptops, frequently misplacing both and sometime losing them. They e-mail their freaking Word and Excel files to each other anyway, up to the point where the files are so big they bounce. Finally they are often at the mercy of network administrators who don't give a rat's ass about their company secrets.
Much better in fact to do business with an online company that promises to keep your documents safe and secure. If Google, or anyone else provides such a service, and takes it beyond a beta for personal use I'm quite sure there will be grounds to sue said company if their products fail.
Last time I checked nobody had successfully sued Microsoft for putting out crap. But while they say "no one ever gets fired for using Microsoft" such people DO get fired, they just put other reasons on the form.
"Just goes to show, the media is to blame. Apple did no hyping whatsoever - they sent out invitations to the event to a few relavent people and nothing more. The media took those invitations and plastered them over the internet and made wild declarations of what's the latest gadget that'll be coming out of Cupertino."
Just goes to show that nothing has changed with respect to Slashdot posters not reading the articles and still getting modded up. Article said:
"In the cold light of day, it's hard to decipher exactly who was at fault here. Did Apple over-hype the event by veiling these launches in secrecy, or did we, the press, speculate with such furious ambition that Apple never had a chance of meeting expectations?"
Which, of course, wasn't quite refleced in the article summary.
The other thing that I think the Apple marketing people have figured out is that Apple no longer has a monopoly on upscale "fashion statement" laptops. Consider these for example:
Long ago Apple actually MADE computer systems, but economics drove them to spec them out to China (mainland, Taiwan, Singapore, etc). Those same economics are squeezing them out of the design business as well, and ultimately (or maybe already) Apples involvement will be no more than as a shopper for what is available wholesale over there, and THAT, my fellow Apple loving friends is what is more behind this move than anything else. At any given time there are hundreds of ready made designs (almost exclusively Intel compatible of course) available that the manufactures will customize only insofar as the external appearance (and only then to a limited extent).
Apple wants to "simplify" its profit making to nothing more than a commissioned sales rep with their own logo. Bye bye firewire or anything else that makes an Apple computer truly unique.
Apple is positioning itself as three more and more independent profit centers: hardware, OS and related software, iTunes (media). As far as I know, each leg of this stool is profitable. But each leg also has foreseeable problems that could make them money losers.
Clearly they are preparing themselves to jettison whichever profit center goes negative first. They have given up on the synergistic effects of the Apple product suite, and are now quite happy to have iTunes run on Windows, OS X to run on non-Apple equipment or Windows run on Apple equipment. This flexibility is a good thing in a way, but can also be a very bad thing which can get rapidly worse as this synergy breaks down.
I just ordered a gig of memory for my PB 1.5 G. This will be my computer for everyday use for another few years I expect. When Apple support for the PowerPC starts to get weak (which I'm afraid could happen really quickly as it becomes a second class citizen) I'll switch over to Linux and get an immediate supercharged effect. In the mean time I'll probably get a fairly fast AMD desktop system for under 1K for gaming, and by the time I'm in the market for another notebook, I'll have my choice of models in fine Corinthian leather graphite, or for all I know, nano-particles.
"My laptop is a 1.5 GHz PB G4. I love using it because the design and ergonomics are perfect. But it's embarrassingly, painfully slow compared with any higher-end Windows book from the last year or so. Once more apps are native and the 64-bit mobile processor (Merom) is here I'll be thrilled to switch."
I like my 1.5 Ghz PB G4 too. But I didn't buy it because it was the fastest laptop at the time (it wasn't). In fact I didn't even care that much that it was a laptop. I just wanted something that was quiet. it still does the job for me, and if Apple had simply gone to current G4s and upped bus and memory speeds people would be happy with them too. But guess what: If I run Linux on my PB it is blindingly fast. My much older iBook runs Linux faster than the PB runs OS X. As much as I like the look and feel of OS X it is in fact the OS that is the pig. Faster hardware (of any kind) simply makes it seem less of a pig.
My next laptop (now that Apple has taken this path) will probably be either an AMD 64 or one of their new dual processor systems. Both AMD technologies are equal or superior to equivalents from Intel (which has frequently failed to meet their "roadmap" promises lately). Look at the stock charts and you will see that both Apple and Intel are looking for PR stunts to revive their suddenly flat performance (in the market). I'd say the stock analysts could teach the Slashdot and Macrumors crowd a thing or two about what is coming up on these companies "roadmaps".
"Because if you benchmark commonly used apps now, it'd be pointless."
As pointless as benchmarking the new machine against something they don't sell any more?
The point in benchmarking is usually to decide which machine to buy. Now that Apple is running Intel, the question for many people is going to be reduced to: "Which OS runs more applications I want to use?" Non-Apple Duo laptops are already hitting the market and they will get feature and speed upgrades a lot faster than Apple is used to issuing them.
The real reason for this switch hasn't been made public, which I say because the reasons that have been given don't hold water, and I give Apple the benefit of doubt that there IS actually a reason that holds water. So fa, from what I've read, Dvorak has as good an expanation as anyone. Apple ultimately giving up on software at least makes SOME sense, as much as I detest it.
I don't think it is unfounded. I've heard it asserted many times, last I checked Scopes hasn't debunked it.
As I understand it:
Gate's father is a partner in a law firm. His parents bugged him about charitable giving for years before he finally set aside some funds and put his father in charge of spending it (almost as if he wanted to just be left alone about it). Only in the last few years has he taken a personal interest, and this, it would seem was at least partially at prompting from his wife.
All that being said, he's giving a lot of money away and regardless of what motivated him, it's a good thing. Let us hope that the money is being spent wisely and not just blown on fad charities.
The comparison with Jobs is silly. They are not in the same league in many respects. While I don't think Gates was ever the programming genius he is made out to be, he DID have hands-on skills that probably served him well when making decisions involving technology of the early Microsoft products. Jobs as I understand it was always just a promoter/showman, not a technician. The notion that he personally made the decision to go with Intel after evaluating the roadmaps of Intel vs IBM makes me laugh out loud (of course I have a feeling it is true too). Both men have had a mixed history of helping and hurting their own companies. Examples: Gates fanatical insistence on running their server infrastructure on Windows before it was ready; getting rid of the command line and scripting (later reversed); merging Windows and applications code into one bulky mess. Jobs: the list of his early mistakes is endless. He makes up for countless small mistakes with occasional spectacular successes. They are both tyrants and would both be spectacular failures were they not surrounded by people who could set things right and make them look good. Neither man has done a good job of preparing their company for their departure, which makes suckers of anyone investing in these companies for the long term. Gates has done far better (still not good enough) than Jobs in this respect however.
They are not in the same league wealth-wise either. Jobs may give less to charity, but I think he lives more modestly too. A turnaround in the fortunes of Apple, Pixar, and Disney (none of which have a monopoly on anything) could reduce him to the status of a mere multi millionaire. Gates on the there hand has milked his monopoly for years and if Microsoft vanished tomorrow he would still be filthy rich. There is just no basis for comparing the two. Why not compare instead Gates to Warren Buffet or the other top tier billionaires.
There. I've done a far better job of comparing the two men than the original Wired article. Maybe this is why I stopped reading Wired years ago.
Obviously you are not the type of CompSci student that I was alluding to. I posted a more general response if you are interested, but briefly: We have created such a HUGE demand for administrators, programmers and management for our highly decentralized computer infrastructure that the overall quality has gone down in the 25 years since I got my degree.
What you describe (given corrections for the 25 years and technology changes) is about what I went through. But be warned, when you get out of school you may find yourself competing with far less qualified people than you who get the job simply because they interviewed well and have several MCSE type tests under their belt. And in fact, my last few years as a government IT consultant (recognizing that government jobs are pretty dumbed down to begin with) I was dealing with people who didn't have a clue, but were supposed to have a clue and claimed to have a clue. I got so tired of seeing things done stupidly that I took an early exit. I'll not be going back unless things change in general or I run into an exceptional situation.
I'm sorry if I insulted you, that was not my intent. I think that the aggregate of CompSci education has gone down (particularly in this country(USA)) simply because we need SO MANY people to keep our systems running (I think this is in fact a flaw in the system). You would get the same effect if you said that next year we need ten times as many doctors as last year and then a few years later ten times as many again. The explosive growth of the field for so many years diluted the quality IMHO, but it is not JUST the number of people, it is the over-compelxity of these systems where, these days, you either have to have a totally locked down system that gives individual PC users almost zero control over what software they are running or a free-for-all where 90 percent of your administration costs are going to the 2 percent of most troublesome users (of all kinds). What more and more organizations are going for is the totally locked down approach, and I think once you get there you have to ask yourself what advantage there is in running 10 thousand copies of the same word processor on relatively expensive machines (and usually these days, forcing all users to deposit their documents on a central file server anyway).
I posted a more general response (as a reespnse to my whole thread) to all the irate comments that you might want to take a look at. In short, there are still, and will always continue to be exceptionally good CompSci programs and students, but the average one you meet in the real-world today are not exceptional (by definition really, but I really mean that they are often disappointing too). If you felt insulted, then you are probably one of the better ones.:)
I have never had so many responses from any of my +5 or +4 posts in the past and I was certainly surprised to get a -2 Troll FOLLOWED by so many visceral reactions. In fact, the last time I did so (poorly or well depending on your point of view) was when I posted something vaguely critical of one of the photoshop sites where disgruntled teens hang out.
But for the benefit of anyone who gets e-mail notifications of responses like I do, or for anyone who just likes to wade through the threads of REALLY old Slashdot articles, here is my response to all of the above.
First of all I am not JUST critical of CompSci majors, I also R one. Or was. I got my degree in '73 before many Slashdot readers were born.
I did not go to one of the upper class schools, in fact I went to a start-up state University in Florida that had the first CompSci degree in the state I think, and one of the few in the country, although that quickly changed.
My post was not intended as a troll, in fact I still think that it is rather spot-on with respect to the original article. But I don't mind the bad ratings that much either. I just happen to think that: With respect to the rest of the world, our CompSci programs have deteriorated in those 25 or so years. That is a combination of ours being dumbed down a bit and those elsewhere having improved, in some cases a lot. There are also some cultural issues, such as work-ethic differences between modern America and formerly third-world countries, etc. In this area, the issue is not restricted to CompSci. We have all heard of medical doctors in other countries taking nursing jobs to get to the US. This phenomena where people will take jobs for which they are overqualified creates a real issue of "job-turbulence" for any profession it happens to, and the computer field is certainly not the first, nor will it be the last.
Like being an auto worker, a field hand at a farm, a telephone operator or a steal worker, the change toward more efficient, that is cheaper, faster, better, etc. ways of doing things was inevitable for the information technology worker and finally it has started to happen. All in all I think this is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. There were, and still are IMHO just TOO MANY people who busy themselves tending to our computerized infrastructure. Over my years, I worked with former policemen, former medical people, former physicists (including rocket scientists) and former lawyers, all who came into the IT workplace because they could make more money by doing less work by making that career switch. These may not have been the best representatives of those professions (in fact that may be why they switched) but in every case that I can remember they did better CompSci than the prevailing CompSci graduates tended to do (averaging over that 25 year period, but particularly toward the end).
That is all rather subjective, and describes what I saw as an aggregate trend, and does not imply that there are not excellent CompSci people out there or that there are not excellent CompSci programs out there. What we need in fact is for the very BEST practitioners of CompSci to hang in there and hopefully for some of those that just do a so-so job of it to consider doing something else maybe. I hear the real-estate business is booming and we always need good teachers.
Finaly, my most important point, which I thought about but didn't really make in my original posting is that I think the PC revolution is ending, and I just wish it had ended a lot sooner. The key to making what IT professionals do do-able with fewer people is to get back to doing it on fewer computers. Forget gaming, lets not even bring that up, but for most other computing activities, the local PC is best thought of as a cacheing device with databases and most of the other services that involve some sort of synchronization done on central servers. What has changed over those 25 years is that the central server have gone from being rooms full of mainframe equipment to rooms full
As far as I know Google Groups doesn't carry binaries of any kind, nor do they carry and of the groups in which you would likely find text porn. They do have technical groups back to the beginning of time though and I've used them more than once for technical research.
Because there IS no easier field than Computer Science (well, OK, excluding Journalism) particularly the way it is practiced today.
Computer Science.ne. Rocket Science
But one good thing about the article, is that it reminds us that a good education prepares us for what we will be doing after we get out of school. I'm afraid standard operating procedures around many American companies will be to have the guys here write up some loose specs that can be refined and implemented over in countries where they learned how to do something more than click "Wizard" commands in Visual Studio.
Everyone at school wanted to intern at Microsoft, but with my grades, sending off the application was just to satisfy my parents that I wasn't goofing off all summer because I'm lazy. Just to be sure, I even bragged to them about how good I thought my chances were of landing that hight-tech starter job.
Nobody was more surprised than I was when I got an offer letter, not an interview appointment but an actual offer letter, complete with starting date. There must be some mistake, but I'd be foolish to not take advantage of it. For the next week my casual bragging about my prospects turned into an almost 24 hour a day orgy of self promotion. Everyone I knew and many I didn't know had to be told that I was now an elite employee of Microsoft, the company that INVENTED computing and was responsible for all modern technological advances, or at least so I thought at the time.
Which of course made it impossible for me to do anything but sign on the dotted line when I arrived at MS HQ to find that I was being employed for the summer as nothing more than a "mail-clerk" for two of the buildings containing the loftiest executives in the organization. Well, I rationalized I could always lie about the nature of the job to my friends and family, who would ever know.
Hard to believe in this day and age there would still be so much physical mail, especially directed at a high-tech company such as Microsoft. But there was. My first few days were just learning the process, and realizing that I'd be working some long hours as the company had no respect for "snail-mail" or those who had to deliver it, so one guy had to do the work of three or more, sorting the mail into bins and in the case of the higher-ups, actually carting it to their offices. At least I got to meet on occasion some famous people, maybe this would come in handy some day.
One odd thing was that there was a particular hallway that seemed to be largely deserted. At the head of the hallway was a locked door with no name on it, but the title "VP: Microsoft Security Technology Unit". Outside the door were stacks of mail, so high they were tumbling into the hallway pretty much blocking it to my cart, but as there were no occupied offices further along the hall it made no difference. Still, I tried to neaten it up a bit for the first few days.
Then it started to get to me. Why didn't this guy read his mail? Or if he was on a long vacation or something, why not have a secretary collect it for him?
I got one of the largest mail sacks we had and collected most of the pile into it, but there was more than it would hold. This stuff must have been collecting for months, years maybe. Finally I tracked down the admin person who might have a key to that office. At least we could pile the sack and remaining mail inside rather than have it clutter up the hall.
I really had surprised myself in that I had started to take some pride in my lowly job. The admin, who was rather cute, and not much older than I was I'd guess wasn't nearly so enthused. Fortunately though her master key was close at hand and she didn't seem to have anything better to do the second time I asked her about cleaning up the mess. After all I was willing to do all the work, I just needed her to open the door. On the way up the elevator she mentioned that she had never heard of the fellow who's name appeared on most of these envelopes and magazines. She had also never heard of the "Security Technology Unit", much less knew that they had a Vice President that went with them. "They must all travel a lot" I quipped, knowing that this was the only empty hall in the building. As we rounded the corner to the hallway she added "For sure", with a look on her face that told me she had never been up here before either to see this locked office or the two dozen empty ones beyond it.
Well it would be nice to have this resolved I was thinking as she opened the door and we both gagged at the odor that wafted o
"Doesn't anyone feel we'll see better Windows emulation on the Mac OS if there is an Intel processor to fall back on?"
Well, yes. In fact on a PPC every instruction needs to be emulated, whereas on the new systems the Windows emulation can just run natively until it does something requiring privileged instructions (such as I/O).
This is, in fact, the ONLY advantage I can see for this switch. Post after post people are wallowing in the mythology of Intel chips being cheaper, faster, cooler and no doubt are perpetual motion machines too.
Of COURSE the new machines are faster. They have slightly faster processors than the previous generation PPCs, they used memory that was twice as fast and there are two processors rather than one. I suspect they are getting favorable pricing from Intel as well for the PR alone. But of course they could have achieved all of this with the newest crop of PPC chips too.
My guess is that the big news of Job's presentation, namely that Microsoft will commit to providing Office for the Mac for another 5 years, will be just about the right amount of time for there to be program level emulation of Windows. Just like OS/2 used to do, instead of running an entirely separate Windows emulation, you can just launch individual Windows programs that will run "transparently" side by side with OS X programs. At that point there will be no need for a special port of Office at all.
Just as OS/2 people thought this was a great convenience feature, Apple users will love it too. But mostly, Microsoft will love it, because it will have the same effect now as it did then. Transparently portable applications will convince even more people to just develop for Windows. There will be no incentive for Apple, or anyone else, to design a truly innovative replacement for Office, and the notion that Windows is "good enough" will gradually work its way into the Apple consciousness. After all, by comparison with Windows of the mid 90s, today's Windows is rock solid, fast, and has pretty icons.
Oh, and the elephant in the closet is that many malware applications now being designed for Windows will run just great on the new Apple equipment too.
Anybody want to place a bet on whether the Linux community will drop support for the old PPC Macs before Apple does? I just ran the update on Linux for my old iBook and it is slicker than ever and runs circles around my much newer Powerbook. Once Apple support starts to wane, which looks like it could be any day now, I'll do my own "switch" and still be using this baby 10 years from now (if the hard drive lasts that long).
"Please point me in the direction of the next technology to become a commodity. That's what I want to start watching."
Which is pretty much my point. Apple is now just selling commodity hardware. Whatever differences exist between its laptops and anyone else's are either irrelevant things (do I really want a camera in my laptop?) or things that the marketplace will address in a month or three (there are already inexpensive laptops that look almost exactly like the Powerbooks and iBooks from last year, be it the all-metal look or the white plastic look).
Now people have already stated that they are really buying Apple for the OS, not the hardware. That's fine too. I am using OS X right now and I really like it. But I also really like current Linux distributions and continue to use them on my non-Apple hardware. Apple has in the past tried to make it clear that they do not want to be just a software company and I think that is a wise decision on their part. The success of Windows and Office is a hard act to follow, and will be a hard act to follow even for Microsoft in the future. The last thing I'd want to see is for Apple to start acting more like Microsoft.
Which is why I am skeptical, very skeptical, of the switch to Intel, which I think will have a host of unexpected consequences, not the least of which will be the temptation to do dead-even side by side comparisons of the hardware and vote for the cheaper box.
"And is also available on many kitchen counter-top fryers. I applaud Apple for applying this safety technology to their products - but let's keep things in perspective."
"Mobile users will love the new power adapter featuring the MagSafe Connector -- a magnetic DC plug that both ensures a tight connection and enables a clean break from the power port when there is undue tension. It prevents the MacBook Pro from being pulled off of a desk when the cord is accidentally tripped over, and it protects the power cord from wear and tear."
Nobody but a careless klutz would ever trip on their power cord and pull the laptop off a desk. Would they?
*whistles as I rock on my heels*
Well, this got my attention. Four times faster?! How can that be? Ohhhh a dual processor and double the clock speed. Well there goes the Apple arguments that clock speed doesn't matter.
But I have to admit they got the price right (i.e. no increase over existing models). Or is it? I seem to remember my Powerbook (which works GREAT!) only started at $1500. Oh, but I got the 12 incher, which isn't available with this "new" processor. Nice trick Apple. Almost fooled me there for a bit. Even the press is saying the prices are the same, except of course, for those of us who would really rather have a smaller box.
My plan to get more or less the same capability is to get a dual core AMD chip in a laptop (these are already available by the way). That way I can be sure it will run Linux on day one. And, of course, the AMD machines start around a grand.
SEE!? Now the price comparisons are much easier. Why buy and Apple when I can get the same or better for less. I'm no longer confused by that old PowerPC mumbo-jumbo. Thanks Stevie!
Slashdot Mirror
This was the first thing I thought of too. When I use KDE I still prefer Firefox as a browser, yet, telling KDE this, it seems to reluctantly give up control of URLs because they seem to have their own URL syntax for things. I typically delete parts of KDE I don't want to mysteriously get launched, but Konqueror (as a file browser) is not one of the things I want to do without.
Doesn't really LOOK like it's free spinning:
1 /2F195698779EFFAQ15P1210L0M1.JPG
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/f/78
Never underestimate Microsoft's ability to blow a lead. Their reputation (deserved) of constantly grinding their competition into insignificance isn't based on any sudden jumping out into the lead technically. In fact when you look back at all their fallen foe you see that they all had PLENTY of time to react, but failed to do so for one reason or another, typically the reason is cash flow problems. Microsoft wins by outlasting the competition because they have a much larger war chest. The only exception to this I can think of is IBM and OS/2 who unilaterally surrendered by not marketing their own product, even though they had the money to run behind Windows almost indefinitely.
Sony has certainly lost momentum in the past year. The DRM fiasco will probably cost them as much or more than the lateness of the PS3. But Sony will have to exit the game business to lose this contest. Everyone knows by now that as Microsoft wins a new battle it eats its allies for lunch the next day. With gaming, Microsoft is going to build a huge infrastructure that will end up costing them more to run than they can make on it. I've said for some time that Sony is playing Microsoft just as Microsoft has played their own competitors over the years: let them run out ahead and make mistakes, come along after with good name recognition and established user base. make your opponents run at a loss while you run either at a profit or at least with a smaller loss. Rinse and repeat until your opponent starves itself to death.
Not since the struggle with IBM has Microsoft faced an opponent who had other significant income streams and could actually match them blow for blow in a war of attrition. It couldn't happen to two "nicer" companies.
What remains to be seen, and I think a distinct possibility, is whether these new game consoles can completely derail our thinking on what a PC is. Current PCs have long since passed any business needs in terms of speed, memory, and disk capacity. Competition is now almost exclusively in the game market, or the closely related "media center" area. The fact that Microsoft is placing such a large bet on something that contains no Intel hardware I think is telling, and particularly ironic, considering Apples recent moves.
"What kind of moron would use this service on company files, or on documents with information you need kept secure? "
Believe me, the typical user of Microsoft Office is even DUMBER! They carry around important documents on floppy disks and laptops, frequently misplacing both and sometime losing them. They e-mail their freaking Word and Excel files to each other anyway, up to the point where the files are so big they bounce. Finally they are often at the mercy of network administrators who don't give a rat's ass about their company secrets.
Much better in fact to do business with an online company that promises to keep your documents safe and secure. If Google, or anyone else provides such a service, and takes it beyond a beta for personal use I'm quite sure there will be grounds to sue said company if their products fail.
Last time I checked nobody had successfully sued Microsoft for putting out crap. But while they say "no one ever gets fired for using Microsoft" such people DO get fired, they just put other reasons on the form.
and I'm quite convinced that their results for "Windows sucks donkey dongs" has been doctored. So I have no use for the thing.
"Just goes to show, the media is to blame. Apple did no hyping whatsoever - they sent out invitations to the event to a few relavent people and nothing more. The media took those invitations and plastered them over the internet and made wild declarations of what's the latest gadget that'll be coming out of Cupertino."
Just goes to show that nothing has changed with respect to Slashdot posters not reading the articles and still getting modded up. Article said:
"In the cold light of day, it's hard to decipher exactly who was at fault here. Did Apple over-hype the event by veiling these launches in secrecy, or did we, the press, speculate with such furious ambition that Apple never had a chance of meeting expectations?"
Which, of course, wasn't quite refleced in the article summary.
"They aren't "made" of gold, but they certainly contain gold... "Gold medals" in Olympics are actually silver medals that are gold plated."
Well, there went any inspiration I had to start an excercise program.
*whew*
PS:
g =ne.gall.pg
The other thing that I think the Apple marketing people have figured out is that Apple no longer has a monopoly on upscale "fashion statement" laptops. Consider these for example:
http://news.com.com/2300-1044_3-6042908-3.html?ta
Long ago Apple actually MADE computer systems, but economics drove them to spec them out to China (mainland, Taiwan, Singapore, etc). Those same economics are squeezing them out of the design business as well, and ultimately (or maybe already) Apples involvement will be no more than as a shopper for what is available wholesale over there, and THAT, my fellow Apple loving friends is what is more behind this move than anything else. At any given time there are hundreds of ready made designs (almost exclusively Intel compatible of course) available that the manufactures will customize only insofar as the external appearance (and only then to a limited extent).
Apple wants to "simplify" its profit making to nothing more than a commissioned sales rep with their own logo. Bye bye firewire or anything else that makes an Apple computer truly unique.
Apple is positioning itself as three more and more independent profit centers: hardware, OS and related software, iTunes (media). As far as I know, each leg of this stool is profitable. But each leg also has foreseeable problems that could make them money losers.
Clearly they are preparing themselves to jettison whichever profit center goes negative first. They have given up on the synergistic effects of the Apple product suite, and are now quite happy to have iTunes run on Windows, OS X to run on non-Apple equipment or Windows run on Apple equipment. This flexibility is a good thing in a way, but can also be a very bad thing which can get rapidly worse as this synergy breaks down.
I just ordered a gig of memory for my PB 1.5 G. This will be my computer for everyday use for another few years I expect. When Apple support for the PowerPC starts to get weak (which I'm afraid could happen really quickly as it becomes a second class citizen) I'll switch over to Linux and get an immediate supercharged effect. In the mean time I'll probably get a fairly fast AMD desktop system for under 1K for gaming, and by the time I'm in the market for another notebook, I'll have my choice of models in fine Corinthian leather graphite, or for all I know, nano-particles.
"My laptop is a 1.5 GHz PB G4. I love using it because the design and ergonomics are perfect. But it's embarrassingly, painfully slow compared with any higher-end Windows book from the last year or so. Once more apps are native and the 64-bit mobile processor (Merom) is here I'll be thrilled to switch."
I like my 1.5 Ghz PB G4 too. But I didn't buy it because it was the fastest laptop at the time (it wasn't). In fact I didn't even care that much that it was a laptop. I just wanted something that was quiet. it still does the job for me, and if Apple had simply gone to current G4s and upped bus and memory speeds people would be happy with them too. But guess what: If I run Linux on my PB it is blindingly fast. My much older iBook runs Linux faster than the PB runs OS X. As much as I like the look and feel of OS X it is in fact the OS that is the pig. Faster hardware (of any kind) simply makes it seem less of a pig.
My next laptop (now that Apple has taken this path) will probably be either an AMD 64 or one of their new dual processor systems. Both AMD technologies are equal or superior to equivalents from Intel (which has frequently failed to meet their "roadmap" promises lately). Look at the stock charts and you will see that both Apple and Intel are looking for PR stunts to revive their suddenly flat performance (in the market). I'd say the stock analysts could teach the Slashdot and Macrumors crowd a thing or two about what is coming up on these companies "roadmaps".
"Because if you benchmark commonly used apps now, it'd be pointless."
As pointless as benchmarking the new machine against something they don't sell any more?
The point in benchmarking is usually to decide which machine to buy. Now that Apple is running Intel, the question for many people is going to be reduced to: "Which OS runs more applications I want to use?" Non-Apple Duo laptops are already hitting the market and they will get feature and speed upgrades a lot faster than Apple is used to issuing them.
The real reason for this switch hasn't been made public, which I say because the reasons that have been given don't hold water, and I give Apple the benefit of doubt that there IS actually a reason that holds water. So fa, from what I've read, Dvorak has as good an expanation as anyone. Apple ultimately giving up on software at least makes SOME sense, as much as I detest it.
They forgot one, I'll be opting for:
Windows Vista No Way in Hell I'm Running This Crap Edition.
I don't think it is unfounded. I've heard it asserted many times, last I checked Scopes hasn't debunked it.
As I understand it:
Gate's father is a partner in a law firm. His parents bugged him about charitable giving for years before he finally set aside some funds and put his father in charge of spending it (almost as if he wanted to just be left alone about it). Only in the last few years has he taken a personal interest, and this, it would seem was at least partially at prompting from his wife.
All that being said, he's giving a lot of money away and regardless of what motivated him, it's a good thing. Let us hope that the money is being spent wisely and not just blown on fad charities.
The comparison with Jobs is silly. They are not in the same league in many respects. While I don't think Gates was ever the programming genius he is made out to be, he DID have hands-on skills that probably served him well when making decisions involving technology of the early Microsoft products. Jobs as I understand it was always just a promoter/showman, not a technician. The notion that he personally made the decision to go with Intel after evaluating the roadmaps of Intel vs IBM makes me laugh out loud (of course I have a feeling it is true too). Both men have had a mixed history of helping and hurting their own companies. Examples: Gates fanatical insistence on running their server infrastructure on Windows before it was ready; getting rid of the command line and scripting (later reversed); merging Windows and applications code into one bulky mess. Jobs: the list of his early mistakes is endless. He makes up for countless small mistakes with occasional spectacular successes. They are both tyrants and would both be spectacular failures were they not surrounded by people who could set things right and make them look good. Neither man has done a good job of preparing their company for their departure, which makes suckers of anyone investing in these companies for the long term. Gates has done far better (still not good enough) than Jobs in this respect however.
They are not in the same league wealth-wise either. Jobs may give less to charity, but I think he lives more modestly too. A turnaround in the fortunes of Apple, Pixar, and Disney (none of which have a monopoly on anything) could reduce him to the status of a mere multi millionaire. Gates on the there hand has milked his monopoly for years and if Microsoft vanished tomorrow he would still be filthy rich. There is just no basis for comparing the two. Why not compare instead Gates to Warren Buffet or the other top tier billionaires.
There. I've done a far better job of comparing the two men than the original Wired article. Maybe this is why I stopped reading Wired years ago.
Oh, wait. I thought this was one of those "Ask Slashdot" things.
Obviously you are not the type of CompSci student that I was alluding to. I posted a more general response if you are interested, but briefly: We have created such a HUGE demand for administrators, programmers and management for our highly decentralized computer infrastructure that the overall quality has gone down in the 25 years since I got my degree.
What you describe (given corrections for the 25 years and technology changes) is about what I went through. But be warned, when you get out of school you may find yourself competing with far less qualified people than you who get the job simply because they interviewed well and have several MCSE type tests under their belt. And in fact, my last few years as a government IT consultant (recognizing that government jobs are pretty dumbed down to begin with) I was dealing with people who didn't have a clue, but were supposed to have a clue and claimed to have a clue. I got so tired of seeing things done stupidly that I took an early exit. I'll not be going back unless things change in general or I run into an exceptional situation.
Thanks for your reply to my "troll".
I'm sorry if I insulted you, that was not my intent. I think that the aggregate of CompSci education has gone down (particularly in this country(USA)) simply because we need SO MANY people to keep our systems running (I think this is in fact a flaw in the system). You would get the same effect if you said that next year we need ten times as many doctors as last year and then a few years later ten times as many again. The explosive growth of the field for so many years diluted the quality IMHO, but it is not JUST the number of people, it is the over-compelxity of these systems where, these days, you either have to have a totally locked down system that gives individual PC users almost zero control over what software they are running or a free-for-all where 90 percent of your administration costs are going to the 2 percent of most troublesome users (of all kinds). What more and more organizations are going for is the totally locked down approach, and I think once you get there you have to ask yourself what advantage there is in running 10 thousand copies of the same word processor on relatively expensive machines (and usually these days, forcing all users to deposit their documents on a central file server anyway).
:)
I posted a more general response (as a reespnse to my whole thread) to all the irate comments that you might want to take a look at. In short, there are still, and will always continue to be exceptionally good CompSci programs and students, but the average one you meet in the real-world today are not exceptional (by definition really, but I really mean that they are often disappointing too). If you felt insulted, then you are probably one of the better ones.
I sort of replied to your message (and the others) in a big long reply to my own posting, if you're interested. You were correct in your assesment.
I have never had so many responses from any of my +5 or +4 posts in the past and I was certainly surprised to get a -2 Troll FOLLOWED by so many visceral reactions. In fact, the last time I did so (poorly or well depending on your point of view) was when I posted something vaguely critical of one of the photoshop sites where disgruntled teens hang out.
But for the benefit of anyone who gets e-mail notifications of responses like I do, or for anyone who just likes to wade through the threads of REALLY old Slashdot articles, here is my response to all of the above.
First of all I am not JUST critical of CompSci majors, I also R one. Or was. I got my degree in '73 before many Slashdot readers were born.
I did not go to one of the upper class schools, in fact I went to a start-up state University in Florida that had the first CompSci degree in the state I think, and one of the few in the country, although that quickly changed.
My post was not intended as a troll, in fact I still think that it is rather spot-on with respect to the original article. But I don't mind the bad ratings that much either. I just happen to think that: With respect to the rest of the world, our CompSci programs have deteriorated in those 25 or so years. That is a combination of ours being dumbed down a bit and those elsewhere having improved, in some cases a lot. There are also some cultural issues, such as work-ethic differences between modern America and formerly third-world countries, etc. In this area, the issue is not restricted to CompSci. We have all heard of medical doctors in other countries taking nursing jobs to get to the US. This phenomena where people will take jobs for which they are overqualified creates a real issue of "job-turbulence" for any profession it happens to, and the computer field is certainly not the first, nor will it be the last.
Like being an auto worker, a field hand at a farm, a telephone operator or a steal worker, the change toward more efficient, that is cheaper, faster, better, etc. ways of doing things was inevitable for the information technology worker and finally it has started to happen. All in all I think this is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. There were, and still are IMHO just TOO MANY people who busy themselves tending to our computerized infrastructure. Over my years, I worked with former policemen, former medical people, former physicists (including rocket scientists) and former lawyers, all who came into the IT workplace because they could make more money by doing less work by making that career switch. These may not have been the best representatives of those professions (in fact that may be why they switched) but in every case that I can remember they did better CompSci than the prevailing CompSci graduates tended to do (averaging over that 25 year period, but particularly toward the end).
That is all rather subjective, and describes what I saw as an aggregate trend, and does not imply that there are not excellent CompSci people out there or that there are not excellent CompSci programs out there. What we need in fact is for the very BEST practitioners of CompSci to hang in there and hopefully for some of those that just do a so-so job of it to consider doing something else maybe. I hear the real-estate business is booming and we always need good teachers.
Finaly, my most important point, which I thought about but didn't really make in my original posting is that I think the PC revolution is ending, and I just wish it had ended a lot sooner. The key to making what IT professionals do do-able with fewer people is to get back to doing it on fewer computers. Forget gaming, lets not even bring that up, but for most other computing activities, the local PC is best thought of as a cacheing device with databases and most of the other services that involve some sort of synchronization done on central servers. What has changed over those 25 years is that the central server have gone from being rooms full of mainframe equipment to rooms full
As far as I know Google Groups doesn't carry binaries of any kind, nor do they carry and of the groups in which you would likely find text porn. They do have technical groups back to the beginning of time though and I've used them more than once for technical research.
Because there IS no easier field than Computer Science (well, OK, excluding Journalism) particularly the way it is practiced today.
.ne. Rocket Science
Computer Science
But one good thing about the article, is that it reminds us that a good education prepares us for what we will be doing after we get out of school. I'm afraid standard operating procedures around many American companies will be to have the guys here write up some loose specs that can be refined and implemented over in countries where they learned how to do something more than click "Wizard" commands in Visual Studio.
Twilight Zone Script Idea:
---
Everyone at school wanted to intern at Microsoft, but with my grades, sending off the application was just to satisfy my parents that I wasn't goofing off all summer because I'm lazy. Just to be sure, I even bragged to them about how good I thought my chances were of landing that hight-tech starter job.
Nobody was more surprised than I was when I got an offer letter, not an interview appointment but an actual offer letter, complete with starting date. There must be some mistake, but I'd be foolish to not take advantage of it. For the next week my casual bragging about my prospects turned into an almost 24 hour a day orgy of self promotion. Everyone I knew and many I didn't know had to be told that I was now an elite employee of Microsoft, the company that INVENTED computing and was responsible for all modern technological advances, or at least so I thought at the time.
Which of course made it impossible for me to do anything but sign on the dotted line when I arrived at MS HQ to find that I was being employed for the summer as nothing more than a "mail-clerk" for two of the buildings containing the loftiest executives in the organization. Well, I rationalized I could always lie about the nature of the job to my friends and family, who would ever know.
Hard to believe in this day and age there would still be so much physical mail, especially directed at a high-tech company such as Microsoft. But there was. My first few days were just learning the process, and realizing that I'd be working some long hours as the company had no respect for "snail-mail" or those who had to deliver it, so one guy had to do the work of three or more, sorting the mail into bins and in the case of the higher-ups, actually carting it to their offices. At least I got to meet on occasion some famous people, maybe this would come in handy some day.
One odd thing was that there was a particular hallway that seemed to be largely deserted. At the head of the hallway was a locked door with no name on it, but the title "VP: Microsoft Security Technology Unit". Outside the door were stacks of mail, so high they were tumbling into the hallway pretty much blocking it to my cart, but as there were no occupied offices further along the hall it made no difference. Still, I tried to neaten it up a bit for the first few days.
Then it started to get to me. Why didn't this guy read his mail? Or if he was on a long vacation or something, why not have a secretary collect it for him?
I got one of the largest mail sacks we had and collected most of the pile into it, but there was more than it would hold. This stuff must have been collecting for months, years maybe. Finally I tracked down the admin person who might have a key to that office. At least we could pile the sack and remaining mail inside rather than have it clutter up the hall.
I really had surprised myself in that I had started to take some pride in my lowly job. The admin, who was rather cute, and not much older than I was I'd guess wasn't nearly so enthused. Fortunately though her master key was close at hand and she didn't seem to have anything better to do the second time I asked her about cleaning up the mess. After all I was willing to do all the work, I just needed her to open the door. On the way up the elevator she mentioned that she had never heard of the fellow who's name appeared on most of these envelopes and magazines. She had also never heard of the "Security Technology Unit", much less knew that they had a Vice President that went with them. "They must all travel a lot" I quipped, knowing that this was the only empty hall in the building. As we rounded the corner to the hallway she added "For sure", with a look on her face that told me she had never been up here before either to see this locked office or the two dozen empty ones beyond it.
Well it would be nice to have this resolved I was thinking as she opened the door and we both gagged at the odor that wafted o
"Doesn't anyone feel we'll see better Windows emulation on the Mac OS if there is an Intel processor to fall back on?"
Well, yes. In fact on a PPC every instruction needs to be emulated, whereas on the new systems the Windows emulation can just run natively until it does something requiring privileged instructions (such as I/O).
This is, in fact, the ONLY advantage I can see for this switch. Post after post people are wallowing in the mythology of Intel chips being cheaper, faster, cooler and no doubt are perpetual motion machines too.
Of COURSE the new machines are faster. They have slightly faster processors than the previous generation PPCs, they used memory that was twice as fast and there are two processors rather than one. I suspect they are getting favorable pricing from Intel as well for the PR alone. But of course they could have achieved all of this with the newest crop of PPC chips too.
My guess is that the big news of Job's presentation, namely that Microsoft will commit to providing Office for the Mac for another 5 years, will be just about the right amount of time for there to be program level emulation of Windows. Just like OS/2 used to do, instead of running an entirely separate Windows emulation, you can just launch individual Windows programs that will run "transparently" side by side with OS X programs. At that point there will be no need for a special port of Office at all.
Just as OS/2 people thought this was a great convenience feature, Apple users will love it too. But mostly, Microsoft will love it, because it will have the same effect now as it did then. Transparently portable applications will convince even more people to just develop for Windows. There will be no incentive for Apple, or anyone else, to design a truly innovative replacement for Office, and the notion that Windows is "good enough" will gradually work its way into the Apple consciousness. After all, by comparison with Windows of the mid 90s, today's Windows is rock solid, fast, and has pretty icons.
Oh, and the elephant in the closet is that many malware applications now being designed for Windows will run just great on the new Apple equipment too.
Anybody want to place a bet on whether the Linux community will drop support for the old PPC Macs before Apple does? I just ran the update on Linux for my old iBook and it is slicker than ever and runs circles around my much newer Powerbook. Once Apple support starts to wane, which looks like it could be any day now, I'll do my own "switch" and still be using this baby 10 years from now (if the hard drive lasts that long).
"Please point me in the direction of the next technology to become a commodity. That's what I want to start watching."
Which is pretty much my point. Apple is now just selling commodity hardware. Whatever differences exist between its laptops and anyone else's are either irrelevant things (do I really want a camera in my laptop?) or things that the marketplace will address in a month or three (there are already inexpensive laptops that look almost exactly like the Powerbooks and iBooks from last year, be it the all-metal look or the white plastic look).
Now people have already stated that they are really buying Apple for the OS, not the hardware. That's fine too. I am using OS X right now and I really like it. But I also really like current Linux distributions and continue to use them on my non-Apple hardware. Apple has in the past tried to make it clear that they do not want to be just a software company and I think that is a wise decision on their part. The success of Windows and Office is a hard act to follow, and will be a hard act to follow even for Microsoft in the future. The last thing I'd want to see is for Apple to start acting more like Microsoft.
Which is why I am skeptical, very skeptical, of the switch to Intel, which I think will have a host of unexpected consequences, not the least of which will be the temptation to do dead-even side by side comparisons of the hardware and vote for the cheaper box.
"And is also available on many kitchen counter-top fryers. I applaud Apple for applying this safety technology to their products - but let's keep things in perspective."
You forget who you're talking to?
Two words:
Duct Tape.
(it even matches the nice metalic case).
"Mobile users will love the new power adapter featuring the MagSafe Connector -- a magnetic DC plug that both ensures a tight connection and enables a clean break from the power port when there is undue tension. It prevents the MacBook Pro from being pulled off of a desk when the cord is accidentally tripped over, and it protects the power cord from wear and tear."
Nobody but a careless klutz would ever trip on their power cord and pull the laptop off a desk. Would they?
*whistles as I rock on my heels*
Well, this got my attention. Four times faster?! How can that be? Ohhhh a dual processor and double the clock speed. Well there goes the Apple arguments that clock speed doesn't matter.
But I have to admit they got the price right (i.e. no increase over existing models). Or is it? I seem to remember my Powerbook (which works GREAT!) only started at $1500. Oh, but I got the 12 incher, which isn't available with this "new" processor. Nice trick Apple. Almost fooled me there for a bit. Even the press is saying the prices are the same, except of course, for those of us who would really rather have a smaller box.
My plan to get more or less the same capability is to get a dual core AMD chip in a laptop (these are already available by the way). That way I can be sure it will run Linux on day one. And, of course, the AMD machines start around a grand.
SEE!? Now the price comparisons are much easier. Why buy and Apple when I can get the same or better for less. I'm no longer confused by that old PowerPC mumbo-jumbo. Thanks Stevie!