1. How many true "geeks" run a system "as it is shipped" Im willing to bet most of us reinstall for one reason or another soon as we get the system. Maybe we want a diffrent partition setup? Maybe we want to make sure there are no Vendor installed CPU wasting crap installed.. For what ever reason most geeks reinstall the OS soon as the computer enters there care.
Maybe I'm not a "true 'geek,'" but I ran my laptop with OS X 10.3 until 10.4 arrived. That's actually one of the things that attracted me: I could run the default OS and settings and be happy.
We have seem the iMac morph twice, the 'football' and the half ball with a scren slung in front of it, and now its just a flat panel on a pedestal. It was obvious what was happening but the PC makers are still selling their boxes.
As my posting history probably indicates, I'm an Apple fan these days, but let's face the facts: most people probably aren't willing to pay more than $1,000 for a computer, including a monitor, accessories and software (if they even buy the software). Given that, it seems unlikely Apple will ever sell enough iMacs to make a serious dent in the way people use computers. The difference in the looks a computer between today and the days of the original iMac is that that today most PC makers sell black boxes instead of beige ones. Because that's the way they can sell the cheapest machines posssible. The mass-market primarily values cheap over all other virtues, so I'm not counting on astonishing design -- at least not any time soon.
There are countless reasons the Xbox did that well and just as many reasons that it didn't do any better, but the general trend seems to be at least what MS expected to happen, if not better.
The main reason the Xbox succeeded, apart from the importance of DirectX that made ports so (relatively) easy, is that Microsoft can afford to subsidize its Xbox group to the tune of $1.2B per year. Sony relies on the PS2 for much of its profit, while MS relies on Windows and Office to float its other efforts.
FWIW, today's WSJ has an article about just this issue in the Marketplace section. The newspaper requires a subscription to read it online.
This may explain in part Apple's silence regarding new products: they can't be accused of vaporware if they don't announce until it's done. Otherwise, the armchair commentators on/. and elsewhere shout for blood if a product isn't instantly available -- this deal with Sun is a good example.
I suppose one could write a novel, or maybe a musical, about the Phantom of DEC, who causes misfortune to befall the new owners of a previously successful venture. When a young and talented coder appears, the Phantom could take the young coder and show his secret underground lair, which can only be reached by water.
Holy shit people. The Gimp rocks, be thankful for that. Yes it doesn't have some of photoshop's features, but most people don't need those features anyway. You can't tell me most people are professional graphic artists or work in a print shop. For those people, get Photoshop, for everyone else, get the Gimp. Would you rather spend 700 bucks, or an extra 5 minutes figuring soemthing out?
I think the important thing to remember is that, even though the GIMP is an excellent resouce for its price, it's far from the be-all, end-all of photo manipulation. Therefore it makes sense for users to offer constructive criticism, and I think it important to distinguish between that and whining. The former helps form a direction for the GIMP developers, and not everyone has the hacking skills or time to make a direct contribution. This is the sort of situations where, while users should be thankful for what they have, they should also look ahead at what they need. Without that second part, there cannot be progress.
Re:Linux (x86) and OS X cornering MS
on
Return of the Mac
·
· Score: 1
If by "Cornering" you mean "Microsoft's profits up to ludicrous heights" last quarter, I'd agree. Obviously, like any large business, MS faces problems, but if the kind of performance they're showing makes them cornered, I can only hope I'm similiarly cornered in the near future.
I lke OS X too -- since this thread is a big Mac love-fest, I'll say that I'm typing this from a PowerBook -- but that doesn't necessarily mean MS is going to dry up and blow away tomorrow.
Or, to put it in Slashdot terms, English is the Borg, devouring all other languages and adding their unique characteristics to its own. Resistance is futile.
I will feel a certain amount of schadenfreud concerning the impending demise of other languages.
If someone can't be bothered to even try to write something properly, why should I bother to read it?
That's not to say I find a mistake and stop reading -- typos happen to everyone, including me, as anyone who looks at my posting history knows -- but rather that those who won't make any effort to communicate effiently aren't going to impinge on my time.
If you're a collector, I imagine that you'd buy CDs because over time you'll be able to encode them to whatever format you desire, and you won't have any of the restrictions associated with DRM'ed songs.
Yes, I know there are ways around the iTunes DRM, but it's a hassle.
Fear of getting bombed doesn't lead to long-term reform, and occupations are never won.
Sometimes fear of getting bombed doesn't and sometimes it does, and sometimes actually get bombed does lead to real, long-term reform. The poster children for this kind of rehabilitation are Japan and Germany, which rose from the rubble they wrought around themselves during WWII to become first-world nations and excellent global citizens. It took millions of lives and an almost unfathomable amount of ordinance, however, to bring them around; and in the post war years, numerous American magazines printed articles asking if we were losing the peace. Look at Life or Time magainze circa 1946 - 1949, and you'll see dozens of examples of articles arguing that we were losing out against the past and failing to win the minds of the people. Those countries were occupied, and although it took a long time, a lot of money and an enormous amount of difficult work, eventually they arrived where they are today.
Since you're referring primarily to Iraq in your post, I assume, I'll say that I'm not convinced that Iraq is going to turn out the same way, but now there is a chance, and that chance didn't exist and couldn't have existed under Saddam's regime. Time is unlikely to render an exact verdict to either side you create, but is likely to see whether Iraq adopts democratic principles and sticks to them. If so, that will mean the occupation is won, as it has been in other places; but it has also been lost in other places, and I suspect those directing American forces are well aware of the historical precedents. The man you dub "the most dangerous" alive knows it and so do his advisers: but they also know that sometimes inaction is far worse than action.
It's popular these days to slam "the most dangerous man alive," but the same people doing that were the same one denigrating Reagan during the Cold War, even though the Cold War ended shortly after his watch. Reagan was right about some things: the Soviet Union was an evil empire, and it deserved to fall, just as in more recent times the Hussein regime was evil and deserved to fall. Time, which you mention, will eventually show whether the United States went about destroying its power the right or wrong way, but whatever arguments come from time are too early to use now to render a verdict.
"The most dangerous man alive," though, does not come from the hand-wringing school of diplomacy, and we have seen where European hand-wringing over the existance of evil has led the world before. Let us hope it does not lead us down an even darker path in the future.
I think that, in the dim, misty future, it's possible that we'll have some kind of "always on" mostly thin-client computing. But that future is *at least* ten years off, and probably further than that. Other posters have been talking about privacy and user incompetance and such, which are all interesting points but I don't think they get at the core of what's wrong with the thin-client idea.
One comment, however, has, and I think it's worthwhile reiterating its point here. The biggest problems with thin-clients is that fully-functional computers these days are so powerful and so inexpensive that it doesn't make sense to have a computer that is a dedicated thin client. When Wal*Mart can sell $200 machines with a 20GB HD, CD drive and acceptably fast processor, who needs a thin client-only machine that costs $190 or $200 and offers fewer features than the Wal*Mart machine? No one does, so I think the desktop model is here to stay -- things like ripping CDs, burning them, or playing DVDs make no sense whatsoever over a network because of the large file sizes they entail. Hell, even eMachines has a complete computer for about $400, while Maybe when everyone has 10GB/sec to the premises the thin-client idea might make sense, but that day is so far off and by then computers will be so powerful that the economics still won't work.
A more likely scenario to my mind is a combination of thin/fat clients -- Google or some other provider will offer e-mail, Ofoto or something like them will offer picture websites (even as a local machine keeps copies of those pictures), and people use the web for data mining, maps, etc. Meanwhlie, the desktop machine remains the primary place to run office apps, games (which people in this thread seem to have forgotten) and other resource-intensive applications. Instead of having a thin-client world, like TFA describes even when it doesn't, we'll have options. I like options, MS probably doesn't like options, and Google is probably wary of options and aware of its precarious position: users are only one click away from its rivals. Of course, that vision may ultimately result in fewer net flamefests over the relative merits of fat/thin-clients, but I think it's the most probable outcome.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe I'm not a "true 'geek,'" but I ran my laptop with OS X 10.3 until 10.4 arrived. That's actually one of the things that attracted me: I could run the default OS and settings and be happy.
As my posting history probably indicates, I'm an Apple fan these days, but let's face the facts: most people probably aren't willing to pay more than $1,000 for a computer, including a monitor, accessories and software (if they even buy the software). Given that, it seems unlikely Apple will ever sell enough iMacs to make a serious dent in the way people use computers. The difference in the looks a computer between today and the days of the original iMac is that that today most PC makers sell black boxes instead of beige ones. Because that's the way they can sell the cheapest machines posssible. The mass-market primarily values cheap over all other virtues, so I'm not counting on astonishing design -- at least not any time soon.
Not even a little bit?
The main reason the Xbox succeeded, apart from the importance of DirectX that made ports so (relatively) easy, is that Microsoft can afford to subsidize its Xbox group to the tune of $1.2B per year. Sony relies on the PS2 for much of its profit, while MS relies on Windows and Office to float its other efforts.
FWIW, today's WSJ has an article about just this issue in the Marketplace section. The newspaper requires a subscription to read it online.
Actually, "It's a trap!" A trap to destroy Linux.
Oh, shit, sorry, wrong website.
I think you mean "any /. user, anywhere, ever." Somewhere, somebody, and maybe even multiple people, probably in fact has a girlfriend. Theoretically.
That's remarkable! Do you produce some kind of servant or cooking robot?
This may explain in part Apple's silence regarding new products: they can't be accused of vaporware if they don't announce until it's done. Otherwise, the armchair commentators on /. and elsewhere shout for blood if a product isn't instantly available -- this deal with Sun is a good example.
Mac OS X also has a Carbon-native Emacs binary. See http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/unix_open_so urce/carbonemacspackage.html.
Wow, you must be fantastic at parties.
I suppose one could write a novel, or maybe a musical, about the Phantom of DEC, who causes misfortune to befall the new owners of a previously successful venture. When a young and talented coder appears, the Phantom could take the young coder and show his secret underground lair, which can only be reached by water.
As other posters have found, it already knows the answer, somehow.
Well, it was England, so maybe the GP bought a ticket, surveyed the scene and realized the mistake.
I think the important thing to remember is that, even though the GIMP is an excellent resouce for its price, it's far from the be-all, end-all of photo manipulation. Therefore it makes sense for users to offer constructive criticism, and I think it important to distinguish between that and whining. The former helps form a direction for the GIMP developers, and not everyone has the hacking skills or time to make a direct contribution. This is the sort of situations where, while users should be thankful for what they have, they should also look ahead at what they need. Without that second part, there cannot be progress.
I lke OS X too -- since this thread is a big Mac love-fest, I'll say that I'm typing this from a PowerBook -- but that doesn't necessarily mean MS is going to dry up and blow away tomorrow.
Would adding spelling/grammar flames to the dupe ones help? Anyone who thinks so should feel free to add them in a reply to this comment.
That depends on whether you're this guy, especially given one of the responses to his post.
I will feel a certain amount of schadenfreud concerning the impending demise of other languages.
That's not to say I find a mistake and stop reading -- typos happen to everyone, including me, as anyone who looks at my posting history knows -- but rather that those who won't make any effort to communicate effiently aren't going to impinge on my time.
Yes, I know there are ways around the iTunes DRM, but it's a hassle.
Sometimes fear of getting bombed doesn't and sometimes it does, and sometimes actually get bombed does lead to real, long-term reform. The poster children for this kind of rehabilitation are Japan and Germany, which rose from the rubble they wrought around themselves during WWII to become first-world nations and excellent global citizens. It took millions of lives and an almost unfathomable amount of ordinance, however, to bring them around; and in the post war years, numerous American magazines printed articles asking if we were losing the peace. Look at Life or Time magainze circa 1946 - 1949, and you'll see dozens of examples of articles arguing that we were losing out against the past and failing to win the minds of the people. Those countries were occupied, and although it took a long time, a lot of money and an enormous amount of difficult work, eventually they arrived where they are today.
Since you're referring primarily to Iraq in your post, I assume, I'll say that I'm not convinced that Iraq is going to turn out the same way, but now there is a chance, and that chance didn't exist and couldn't have existed under Saddam's regime. Time is unlikely to render an exact verdict to either side you create, but is likely to see whether Iraq adopts democratic principles and sticks to them. If so, that will mean the occupation is won, as it has been in other places; but it has also been lost in other places, and I suspect those directing American forces are well aware of the historical precedents. The man you dub "the most dangerous" alive knows it and so do his advisers: but they also know that sometimes inaction is far worse than action.
It's popular these days to slam "the most dangerous man alive," but the same people doing that were the same one denigrating Reagan during the Cold War, even though the Cold War ended shortly after his watch. Reagan was right about some things: the Soviet Union was an evil empire, and it deserved to fall, just as in more recent times the Hussein regime was evil and deserved to fall. Time, which you mention, will eventually show whether the United States went about destroying its power the right or wrong way, but whatever arguments come from time are too early to use now to render a verdict.
"The most dangerous man alive," though, does not come from the hand-wringing school of diplomacy, and we have seen where European hand-wringing over the existance of evil has led the world before. Let us hope it does not lead us down an even darker path in the future.
There are lots of noise sensitive places.
Depending on what one uses it for, I'm not sure the bedroom is one of them.
One comment, however, has, and I think it's worthwhile reiterating its point here. The biggest problems with thin-clients is that fully-functional computers these days are so powerful and so inexpensive that it doesn't make sense to have a computer that is a dedicated thin client. When Wal*Mart can sell $200 machines with a 20GB HD, CD drive and acceptably fast processor, who needs a thin client-only machine that costs $190 or $200 and offers fewer features than the Wal*Mart machine? No one does, so I think the desktop model is here to stay -- things like ripping CDs, burning them, or playing DVDs make no sense whatsoever over a network because of the large file sizes they entail. Hell, even eMachines has a complete computer for about $400, while Maybe when everyone has 10GB/sec to the premises the thin-client idea might make sense, but that day is so far off and by then computers will be so powerful that the economics still won't work.
A more likely scenario to my mind is a combination of thin/fat clients -- Google or some other provider will offer e-mail, Ofoto or something like them will offer picture websites (even as a local machine keeps copies of those pictures), and people use the web for data mining, maps, etc. Meanwhlie, the desktop machine remains the primary place to run office apps, games (which people in this thread seem to have forgotten) and other resource-intensive applications. Instead of having a thin-client world, like TFA describes even when it doesn't, we'll have options. I like options, MS probably doesn't like options, and Google is probably wary of options and aware of its precarious position: users are only one click away from its rivals. Of course, that vision may ultimately result in fewer net flamefests over the relative merits of fat/thin-clients, but I think it's the most probable outcome.
You keep checking slashdot to learn how nerd-joke comments like this end up in a discussion about Apple releasing two-button mice.
I suspect he has an innate "resist girlfriend" ability, so that also depends on whether he makes his saving throw.