anecdotal evidence is always just that - anecdotal
I discuss my hardware, the poster describes his hardware. I describe my definitive experience, he states a user experience w/o any detailed description, and concludes that the problem is Vista. If Vista was as bad a many posters here claim, my experience would no doubt be vastly different than it is, and certainly we would hear more about such problems given the number of units that have shipped so far. In fact, I have noticed Vista comments on/. are generally negative and anecdotal, which is disappointing since no valuable information is exchanged as a result. The file copy post today might be the exception, as some details are provided.
In general, however, I have found most/. Vista stories to be negative FUD.
One remimaged to XP (SP2) because office user said Vista (Pro) was slower than crap.
Interesting. I installed Vista Business on box with a 1.5Ghz P4 and 768M RAM. The MB is about six years old. It runs just fine. If your user says Vista is slow on a $1200 new Dell, something must be wrong with the hardware, or maybe the user just decided he or she didn't like it for some reason.
My phone has 1Gb for music, which has been enough for me. I have a 60G iPod, but I never take it anywhere. It's connected to my stereo. At first I thought I would like to have more capacity in my phone for music, but what I realized is that I would much rather have better optics which would allow me to get rid of the digital camera.
I have read that some handset manufacturers are going in this direction. Hopefully sooner rather than later.
I don't have the time to listen to an hour and a half mp3
Crude index:
28:00 Developer teams
36:00 Mouse
50:00 Unix
52:40 Mac
56:00 PARC people
57:00 Mac GUI/Microsoft developers
63:00 Third standard
66:30 Networks
71:50 Lotus/Excel competition
75:00 "World Net"
76:50 Multimedia
79:40 Utility of the CD (Thanks music industry!)
87:00 Learn from competitors
87:50 Hypertext
Actually Gates was quite insightful. He clearly understood what was important for the evolution of the personal computer, but didn't quite manage to have Microsoft dominate all of it, fortunately. When he discussed Unix in one section, and importance of networks in another, he never mentioned anything about security, which is an important element of Unix design. Later he mentions the "World Net", but of course did not anticipate HTTP and browsers. This makes his comments about hypertext all the more interesting; he correctly states massive amounts of typeless links would overwhelm the user. The significance of search, among other things, eluded his thinking at the time. Gates' discussion of a third standard is interesting to ponder in view of OSS, which could be considered the answer to his question about what other approach might gain traction. Overall his prognostications were quite correct. If he is as astute today as he was then with regard to humanitarian issues, his health initiatives should do a lot of good.
What if what they really want is for internet radio to go away?
If they could make the Internet go away, they would do it, IMHO. But let me speculate on the RIAA's side of the argument. They might make the following points:
The major labels spend a lot of money on bands that never break. The popular
bands pay for these.
Limiting the number of outlets for music allows the industry to better expose
new artists by drawing people with the established artist work on a limited
number of channels.
Major labels will be able to draw the best new talent, since new bands might be
interested in being associated with established artists the label has signed.
Small webcasters that play established artists under the percentage of revenue
model really are not paying fair compensation considering what it cost to
promote the established artists at the beginning of their careers.
Small webcasters leverage the major acts to bring listeners, but dilute the
significance of the major acts by playing many other unknown artists. This may
have the effect of fragmenting industry revenues, complicating the economics of
artist promotion.
People have so much music now, the significance of any particular artist is
being diluted. Adding webcasts just makes the problem worse.
The CRB ruling will force webcasters to negotiate license deals with individual
labels. This means the majors will get a fair price for their artists (more
money), the minors will get fair price for theirs. (Less money.)
Is the above the kind of list they discuss in the RIAA cave? I don't know. Most
of the web stations I listen to don't play major acts. It would be a challenge for me
to name most of the artists. Occasionally I will hear something I like, so I go
to iTunes to get a track. I haven't purchased a new CD in years. If the webcasters disappear, will start buying CDs?
The answer is no. Between tracks I already have, music shows I record from FM with the All-In-Wonder card and podcasts, I don't have the need or capacity for new CDs.
My guess is that I will generate less revenue for the industry, since my opportunity to hear new artist tracks I would like to own will diminish. I have plenty of other things to competing for my listening time. I don't know if my perspective is representative or not. The industry is betting that it is not.
On another note, has anyone ever tracked how SoundExchange actually pays artists? Do they issue an annual report of some sort?
Everything the government does should be in open and accessible formats
Which implies the government can not buy or use anything that has a proprietary element. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't know of any published specifications for Oracle, DB2 or SQL Server file formats. Therefore the government should not use any of these products.
we're talking about government agency internal use, which is something that should not be subject to the whims of a few private individuals or a few corporations
The reality is that thousands of corporations and millions of users have decided to use Microsoft Office. Many will say Microsoft abused it's market power to make this happen. I don't believe it. Way back when I thought Borland Sprint was a decent word processor, and Wordstar before that. Then I started using Word on the Mac, then Windows. I never liked Wordperfect, Quattro Pro or 1-2-3, so I used more of the Office suite. I did like Lotus Improv better than Excel, but the macros were broken. Paradox and dBASE were not as good as Access, so I used Access instead.
No doubt lots of people will rant about how Wordperfect, 1-2-3 or whatever were better than the equivalent Microsoft product, but for me they were not. I am glad I had a choice as to what to use. The great danger I see in legislating document formats is the risk that it will ultimately undermine choice and innovation. The argument for open documents is compelling as well, but I don't think it supersedes the risk of government intervention as suggested by the parent.
The tech needs to be spelled out clearly in the law
Which regulatory agency will now be responsible for document formats? Are word processing docs, spreadsheets, slide presentations, and simple desktop databases now to be subjected to government regulation? If so, Congress needs to get in the act to establish consistent regulation for the nation. I would guess these regulations will be managed by the FTC, but I am not sure. It will be interesting to see how it works out.
Given that web browsers are more commonly used than office applications, the same regulatory agency should start mandating browser standards as well. The public interest must be preserved. Anything widely used can not be trusted to private enterprise and choices of the average consumer.
(Which will predominate? +1 Insightful? -1 Troll or -1 Overrated?)
The Vista FUD is rather amazing. I use Macs, XP and Vista desktops on a daily basis. There isn't much about the Mac desktop I like more than the Windows desktops: XP or Vista. There are other features of the Mac that are very nice, but the window manager isn't one of them. I've always disliked the app-centric menu bar on the Mac, I much prefer the menus to be associated with the app window, the way most *nix window managers and Windows do it. Aero does appear to be heavily influenced by the look of the Mac desktop, but that is all cosmetics.
So far the Vista functionality is certainly an improvement over XP in small ways, with the exception of the UAC, which is a meaningful improvement. Sidebar is a nice feature improvement as well. Given all of the Vista bashing going on, I'm wondering if those who criticize Vista so much are running the risk of discrediting themselves once more people start to use it.
From what I understand, the UAC thing comes up all the time
It does not.
I'm rather amazed at the number of posters who criticize Vista without having used it. Many people make good points about the all-or-nothing permission granting of the UAC, but it is better than having people run as Admin. My guess is that the typical user will still run as admin most of the time, since it's convenient. Microsoft should guide people through the simple steps of setting up a user account when the OS first comes up. It's less hassle than typing in the license key. Then again, I don't have a boxed version of Vista, so maybe they say something about that in the retail version.
Microsoft the convicted monopolist is guilty of forcing several large PC vendors to *sell* Windows with their computers
Ask yourself this question: "Which company has a greater market dominance, Microsoft or Intel?" The answer is Intel. Why isn't Intel a convicted monopolist? They settled with the DOJ. Probably the biggest mistake Microsoft made was not doing the same. Did you ever read the Jackson decision? His position was frequently based on absurdities, such as claiming that Microsoft was abusing its market position by including IE, which was unfair to the consumer because of the amount of disk space its components required, among other things.
I hope you are never party to litigation, but if you are, do not expect decisions to be made in a manner in which a technologist might expect. I was party to a situation in which a panel of three judges had their decision overturned by Congress, I kid you not. Judges are fallible. Jackson was telling me I could not by a PC without Windows, when I had been doing it for some time. Yet the monopolist conviction held.
People in these parts love to trot out the "M$ is a monopolist" argument, but get bent by the provisions of the PATRIOT act. There is a contradiction there.
When you say "No one forces anyone to buy an OS with a PC...," the answer is what about the major PC manufacturers?
Don't buy from them. You can get support from a local store, and it's probably going to be better.
I can get the benefit of support for hardware issues, or so I can keep a consistent hardware platform across my company
The major university in my town bought most of their servers and desktops at a local store. Individuals who claim they are forced to buy Windows are just lazy shoppers. An enterprise buyer might have more of an argument, but I doubt it, given that there are enterprise Linux distros.
I expect to go to any computer retailer and be able to buy a computer without Windows pre-installed. That's all I want -- I don't dispute anything you wrote.
I just don't understand this argument. I've been buying whitebox PCs for years. I even bought a whitebox laptop. No one forces anyone to buy an OS with a PC, except for Apple. (BTW, I own an iMac.) Sure, the large vendors may make it tricky to buy a system without Windows, but there is a simple answer: Buy from a whitebox vendor, usually a local PC store.
If you don't like burgers, go to a sushi joint. There may be more burger places than sushi restaurants, but don't claim everyone is forced to eat burgers.
Stop me if I'm wrong, but the "largest enterprise customers" are end users
I have copy of Vista Business, so I installed it on a spare disk. The hardware compatibility test app GPFed, which wasn't a great sign. I went ahead with the install to see what would happen. The installer archived all of the XP files on the disc, then installed Vista without any problems - or so I thought. Turns out there were no Vista drivers for my brand name NIC. Bought one of the few NICs with native drivers, so I was able to connect to the net. But what? No sound? No drivers for my sound card either.
That was as far as I wanted to go at this point. The stark reality about Vista is that driver support is minimal at best. Rather shocking considering XP had drivers for much more hardware. I'm really curious if anyone knows why driver support is so minimal at this time. Does the consumer version have more? If not, all of the people who bought Vista are in for an uncharacteristic surprise.
<tinfoilhat>Is the lack of drivers a conspiracy to get people to upgrade hardware?</tinfoilhat>
Why are the hardware vendors so far behind supplying drivers?
The OS rants are really becoming pointless. Do I like Windows? Sure, it helps me do many things I need to do. Just like a fork at the dinner table. Do I like OSX? Sure, I like spoons, too. Is a spoon better than a fork? A socket wrench better than a crescent wrench? Depends on what you want to do. So I have an iMac and a Windows PC. Some things the are better on the PC, some are better on the Mac. Odd thing is, I've experienced iTunes crashing on the iMac, but never on the PC.
Yes, very cool. But let's see what happens after he drops it on the floor. Given how many times I have dropped my phone, I wonder about the durability of the large screen devices. I wouldn't switch Cingular to get one. Sure does raise the bar!;-)
Sure, the appellate justices prevailed with the definition. But I personally never had a problem loading another OS on a PC, and I was never forced to buy Windows with any of the whitebox PCs I purchased. So my personal experience was counter to the notion that Microsoft was or is a monopoly. If Microsoft is a monopoly, the Google and Intel surely are as well. The difference is that Intel settled with the DOJ when threatened, and Google hasn't been sued, yet. But Microsoft was foolish to battle with the DOJ and lose, since it created the opportunity for all sorts of litigation, including the shakedown by the EU.
Someone once told me that when an industry becomes large enough, it attracts the attention of the political set. Once that happens, strategies have to change from basic market considerations. Back in the early 90s, the PC software business became big enough to attract attention.
When I saw Windows NT at COMDEX, I made one of my better calls and guessed that Microsoft would be sued on anti-trust grounds. Not that I thought they deserved it, but rather that with a 32 bit OS, they would gain enough market share from the fragmented competition that someone would file a complaint. It wasn't hard to predict. Neither is the EU action. They will continue to come up with reasons to extract money (or technology to confer advantage to domestic industries) from Microsoft on all sorts of grounds. That's what governments do and that's what trade agreements are supposed to mitigate. Just check out the examples of agricultural trade sanctions.
You might want to read this before claiming the infallibility of judges. Did you ever read the Jackson findings? From a technical perspective, his findings are completely misguided. This Slate commentary offers a history of the appellate court thinking, which overruled much of his findings. I was once party to some hearings where a panel of distinguished judges had their ruling overturned by an act of Congress because it was so poorly formed. Believe me, judges can make incredible mistakes. Most of the time they don't, but when you have a political body levying fines against a foreign enterprise, there is a huge conflict of interest. This is a money grab by the EU. No doubt about it, unfortunately.
Better have a look at this (scroll down to the part about the Korean War) before making that statement. If he were alive today, no doubt MacArthur would be horrified to see what his miscalculation of the Chinese response created: North Korea in its current form.
Actually this does make sense. The problem with the FM transmitter is that it only provides one way communication. This means the device can't be controlled from the built in steering wheel or console controls. If I could get a player that I could just drop on the seat or in the glove box and have the car control it, I would buy it today.
You are correct that there aren't any car stereos that support WiFi, though. At least I don't know of any. But manufacturers could add that feature easily enough. It would also provide a nice VOIP feature for mobile phone / car integration in the future. I still don't have an music player, though. I just use my cell phone. I don't know if I will ever buy an dedicated music player. The only reason I can think of buying one is for use in the car, since the iPod can be integrated with a number of car stereos. Car makers are now building in iPod integration, but I'm not about to buy a new car just for that. I can burn a lot of CDs for the price of an after market upgrade or the price of a new car.
Look on eBay first. 6' HDMI and Toslink cables are typically $0.99. Shipping is usually $5, so $6 for these cables is a decent price. I bought mine from eBay and have not had any problems.
I can just plug the firewire cable onto my High-Def digital cable box and record that.
Thanks for the tip - I just got a new cable box. I'll have to try this. As for the Mac v. Windows arguments, I think they are relatively pointless. I use both. The iMac for media work, mainly video, and the PC for business apps and general utility. My PC mb is now about 5 years old. I'll upgrade it when Vista shows up, and sell the old one online. (I see a bright Linux future for it.)
I look at PC purchases in terms of the gyrations I have to go through to get a system to do something I need to do. Some tasks are easier on the Mac, others are easier on the PC. For me the economics of the software / time factors for the Mac and PC justify owning both, and probably will for the forseeable future. I suspect others will come to the same conclusion over time.
What I do wonder about is the possibility of airlines saying "No More Laptops On Board", or at a minimum - "No Li* Batteries." There have already been ground fires and inflight fires - fortunately all survived. But it's not hard to imagine airlines restricting batteries in the future. No doubt the Japanese government is concerned about this as well. That's probably why the ministries are beginning their investigations.
Sony seems to be missing on all cylinders lately. The stock can go quite a bit lower, but it would be a good idea to ask your local hedge-fund manager what he or she thinks before shorting it.
As for iMovie, it can be picky at times. But for the price, you still can't beat it.
The same can be said of Windows and Linux.
Please try using your hardware and editing your movie with Windows Movie Maker 2 and get back to us on how much better it is.
I did. That's one reason I have the iMac.
I still think a Mac is a great all around machine.
Here we disagree. I don't think it is given how much it and all of the Apple peripherals cost. Here's another example: Apple mini-DVI to DVI connector - $20. 6' DVI to HDMI cable on eBay - $0.99, $6.00 with shipping. Apple systems are like luxury cars - they do a lot of nice things, but they aren't perfect and they cost too much for for general purposes. I also think the window manager is irritating, but that's just a personal preference.
will the general public (i.e. -- not Apple fanboys) be willing the make the switch at a 30% premium?
Here's my experience: I own PCs and an iMac. I bought the iMac to get the utility of iLife, specifically iMovie and iDVD. I also needed a small form factor box, and the iMac qualifies. I'm quite happy with iMovie and iDVD, and there are a few other things on the system that are fun, too.
But...
I would not recommend an iMac to anyone as a general purpose computer. If all you want to do is browse and email and decent security, get a used PC and put on the system, or have any one of a number of hole-in-the-wall PC stores or user groups do it for you. If someone wants a general purpose PC, I still recommend Windows. Browse w/FF or IE7, put decent AV software on it, and if you download something that jacks your box to get something for free, don't blame Windows.
My experience with the iMac is that "stuff does *not* just work". I bought a USB drive enclosure to back up my work. Stick a new drive in it, plug it into the iMac and... nothing. No sign of it. Plug it into the PC, instantly recognized. I have another device that rips video to DV. Sometimes iMovie recognizes it instantly, other times not. Plug my camera in the iMac, iMovie recognizes it, or might crash. iMovie crashes a lot. I'm actually not that unhappy about it, since the sw is very powerful and does what I want. I just know there are certain things that are high risk, so I have to be careful about backing up my projects and not doing certain things. As for iTunes, what a POS. Search sucks, but what really amazed me was when I discovered my entire shopping cart was emptied after I upgraded to a new version of iTunes. That's not necessarily a problem with iMac specifically, but it certainly impacted my opinion of the Apple mystique. My assessment is that the iMac fulfills a specific purpose very well, but it is no less flakey than any Windows box I have ever used.
Continuing with the theme about expense - the first thing I did was get rid of the mouse. Why Apple continues to design the worst mice in the world is a mystery to me. I use the iMac with a new 802.11 access point. The choice was: Airport for $200, or Linksys for $60? I would like to put a new drive in the thing, but supposedly it has to go back to the store for that, which adds to the cost.
Bottom line: If you want to use iLife, or some sw organic to the Mac, buy one. But if you want computing at reasonable cost and maximum flexibility, go Linux or Windows. The only other reason to by a Mac is if you think of it as something like a piece of jewelry, which is perfectly reasonable as well for people interested in interior design and the like. The Apple line does have a nice appearance.
Slashdot Mirror
anecdotal evidence is always just that - anecdotal
I discuss my hardware, the poster describes his hardware. I describe my definitive experience, he states a user experience w/o any detailed description, and concludes that the problem is Vista. If Vista was as bad a many posters here claim, my experience would no doubt be vastly different than it is, and certainly we would hear more about such problems given the number of units that have shipped so far. In fact, I have noticed Vista comments on /. are generally negative and anecdotal, which is disappointing since no valuable information is exchanged as a result. The file copy post today might be the exception, as some details are provided.
In general, however, I have found most /. Vista stories to be negative FUD.
One remimaged to XP (SP2) because office user said Vista (Pro) was slower than crap.
Interesting. I installed Vista Business on box with a 1.5Ghz P4 and 768M RAM. The MB is about six years old. It runs just fine. If your user says Vista is slow on a $1200 new Dell, something must be wrong with the hardware, or maybe the user just decided he or she didn't like it for some reason.
My phone has 1Gb for music, which has been enough for me. I have a 60G iPod, but I never take it anywhere. It's connected to my stereo. At first I thought I would like to have more capacity in my phone for music, but what I realized is that I would much rather have better optics which would allow me to get rid of the digital camera.
I have read that some handset manufacturers are going in this direction. Hopefully sooner rather than later.
I don't have the time to listen to an hour and a half mp3
Crude index:
Actually Gates was quite insightful. He clearly understood what was important for the evolution of the personal computer, but didn't quite manage to have Microsoft dominate all of it, fortunately. When he discussed Unix in one section, and importance of networks in another, he never mentioned anything about security, which is an important element of Unix design. Later he mentions the "World Net", but of course did not anticipate HTTP and browsers. This makes his comments about hypertext all the more interesting; he correctly states massive amounts of typeless links would overwhelm the user. The significance of search, among other things, eluded his thinking at the time. Gates' discussion of a third standard is interesting to ponder in view of OSS, which could be considered the answer to his question about what other approach might gain traction. Overall his prognostications were quite correct. If he is as astute today as he was then with regard to humanitarian issues, his health initiatives should do a lot of good.
What if what they really want is for internet radio to go away?
If they could make the Internet go away, they would do it, IMHO. But let me speculate on the RIAA's side of the argument. They might make the following points:
Is the above the kind of list they discuss in the RIAA cave? I don't know. Most of the web stations I listen to don't play major acts. It would be a challenge for me to name most of the artists. Occasionally I will hear something I like, so I go to iTunes to get a track. I haven't purchased a new CD in years. If the webcasters disappear, will start buying CDs? The answer is no. Between tracks I already have, music shows I record from FM with the All-In-Wonder card and podcasts, I don't have the need or capacity for new CDs. My guess is that I will generate less revenue for the industry, since my opportunity to hear new artist tracks I would like to own will diminish. I have plenty of other things to competing for my listening time. I don't know if my perspective is representative or not. The industry is betting that it is not.
On another note, has anyone ever tracked how SoundExchange actually pays artists? Do they issue an annual report of some sort?
Everything the government does should be in open and accessible formats
Which implies the government can not buy or use anything that has a proprietary element. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't know of any published specifications for Oracle, DB2 or SQL Server file formats. Therefore the government should not use any of these products.
we're talking about government agency internal use, which is something that should not be subject to the whims of a few private individuals or a few corporations
The reality is that thousands of corporations and millions of users have decided to use Microsoft Office. Many will say Microsoft abused it's market power to make this happen. I don't believe it. Way back when I thought Borland Sprint was a decent word processor, and Wordstar before that. Then I started using Word on the Mac, then Windows. I never liked Wordperfect, Quattro Pro or 1-2-3, so I used more of the Office suite. I did like Lotus Improv better than Excel, but the macros were broken. Paradox and dBASE were not as good as Access, so I used Access instead.
No doubt lots of people will rant about how Wordperfect, 1-2-3 or whatever were better than the equivalent Microsoft product, but for me they were not. I am glad I had a choice as to what to use. The great danger I see in legislating document formats is the risk that it will ultimately undermine choice and innovation. The argument for open documents is compelling as well, but I don't think it supersedes the risk of government intervention as suggested by the parent.
The tech needs to be spelled out clearly in the law
Which regulatory agency will now be responsible for document formats? Are word processing docs, spreadsheets, slide presentations, and simple desktop databases now to be subjected to government regulation? If so, Congress needs to get in the act to establish consistent regulation for the nation. I would guess these regulations will be managed by the FTC, but I am not sure. It will be interesting to see how it works out.
Given that web browsers are more commonly used than office applications, the same regulatory agency should start mandating browser standards as well. The public interest must be preserved. Anything widely used can not be trusted to private enterprise and choices of the average consumer.
(Which will predominate? +1 Insightful? -1 Troll or -1 Overrated?)
The Vista FUD is rather amazing. I use Macs, XP and Vista desktops on a daily basis. There isn't much about the Mac desktop I like more than the Windows desktops: XP or Vista. There are other features of the Mac that are very nice, but the window manager isn't one of them. I've always disliked the app-centric menu bar on the Mac, I much prefer the menus to be associated with the app window, the way most *nix window managers and Windows do it. Aero does appear to be heavily influenced by the look of the Mac desktop, but that is all cosmetics.
So far the Vista functionality is certainly an improvement over XP in small ways, with the exception of the UAC, which is a meaningful improvement. Sidebar is a nice feature improvement as well. Given all of the Vista bashing going on, I'm wondering if those who criticize Vista so much are running the risk of discrediting themselves once more people start to use it.
From what I understand, the UAC thing comes up all the time
It does not.
I'm rather amazed at the number of posters who criticize Vista without having used it. Many people make good points about the all-or-nothing permission granting of the UAC, but it is better than having people run as Admin. My guess is that the typical user will still run as admin most of the time, since it's convenient. Microsoft should guide people through the simple steps of setting up a user account when the OS first comes up. It's less hassle than typing in the license key. Then again, I don't have a boxed version of Vista, so maybe they say something about that in the retail version.
Are you new in these here parts?
Newer than you, Mr. 124661!
Microsoft the convicted monopolist is guilty of forcing several large PC vendors to *sell* Windows with their computers
Ask yourself this question: "Which company has a greater market dominance, Microsoft or Intel?" The answer is Intel. Why isn't Intel a convicted monopolist? They settled with the DOJ. Probably the biggest mistake Microsoft made was not doing the same. Did you ever read the Jackson decision? His position was frequently based on absurdities, such as claiming that Microsoft was abusing its market position by including IE, which was unfair to the consumer because of the amount of disk space its components required, among other things.
I hope you are never party to litigation, but if you are, do not expect decisions to be made in a manner in which a technologist might expect. I was party to a situation in which a panel of three judges had their decision overturned by Congress, I kid you not. Judges are fallible. Jackson was telling me I could not by a PC without Windows, when I had been doing it for some time. Yet the monopolist conviction held.
People in these parts love to trot out the "M$ is a monopolist" argument, but get bent by the provisions of the PATRIOT act. There is a contradiction there.
When you say "No one forces anyone to buy an OS with a PC...," the answer is what about the major PC manufacturers?
Don't buy from them. You can get support from a local store, and it's probably going to be better.
I can get the benefit of support for hardware issues, or so I can keep a consistent hardware platform across my company
The major university in my town bought most of their servers and desktops at a local store. Individuals who claim they are forced to buy Windows are just lazy shoppers. An enterprise buyer might have more of an argument, but I doubt it, given that there are enterprise Linux distros.
I expect to go to any computer retailer and be able to buy a computer without Windows pre-installed. That's all I want -- I don't dispute anything you wrote.
I just don't understand this argument. I've been buying whitebox PCs for years. I even bought a whitebox laptop. No one forces anyone to buy an OS with a PC, except for Apple. (BTW, I own an iMac.) Sure, the large vendors may make it tricky to buy a system without Windows, but there is a simple answer: Buy from a whitebox vendor, usually a local PC store.
If you don't like burgers, go to a sushi joint. There may be more burger places than sushi restaurants, but don't claim everyone is forced to eat burgers.
Stop me if I'm wrong, but the "largest enterprise customers" are end users
I have copy of Vista Business, so I installed it on a spare disk. The hardware compatibility test app GPFed, which wasn't a great sign. I went ahead with the install to see what would happen. The installer archived all of the XP files on the disc, then installed Vista without any problems - or so I thought. Turns out there were no Vista drivers for my brand name NIC. Bought one of the few NICs with native drivers, so I was able to connect to the net. But what? No sound? No drivers for my sound card either.
That was as far as I wanted to go at this point. The stark reality about Vista is that driver support is minimal at best. Rather shocking considering XP had drivers for much more hardware. I'm really curious if anyone knows why driver support is so minimal at this time. Does the consumer version have more? If not, all of the people who bought Vista are in for an uncharacteristic surprise.
<tinfoilhat>Is the lack of drivers a conspiracy to get people to upgrade hardware?</tinfoilhat>
Why are the hardware vendors so far behind supplying drivers?
The OS rants are really becoming pointless. Do I like Windows? Sure, it helps me do many things I need to do. Just like a fork at the dinner table. Do I like OSX? Sure, I like spoons, too. Is a spoon better than a fork? A socket wrench better than a crescent wrench? Depends on what you want to do. So I have an iMac and a Windows PC. Some things the are better on the PC, some are better on the Mac. Odd thing is, I've experienced iTunes crashing on the iMac, but never on the PC.
Yes, very cool. But let's see what happens after he drops it on the floor. Given how many times I have dropped my phone, I wonder about the durability of the large screen devices. I wouldn't switch Cingular to get one. Sure does raise the bar!
Sure, the appellate justices prevailed with the definition. But I personally never had a problem loading another OS on a PC, and I was never forced to buy Windows with any of the whitebox PCs I purchased. So my personal experience was counter to the notion that Microsoft was or is a monopoly. If Microsoft is a monopoly, the Google and Intel surely are as well. The difference is that Intel settled with the DOJ when threatened, and Google hasn't been sued, yet. But Microsoft was foolish to battle with the DOJ and lose, since it created the opportunity for all sorts of litigation, including the shakedown by the EU.
Someone once told me that when an industry becomes large enough, it attracts the attention of the political set. Once that happens, strategies have to change from basic market considerations. Back in the early 90s, the PC software business became big enough to attract attention.
When I saw Windows NT at COMDEX, I made one of my better calls and guessed that Microsoft would be sued on anti-trust grounds. Not that I thought they deserved it, but rather that with a 32 bit OS, they would gain enough market share from the fragmented competition that someone would file a complaint. It wasn't hard to predict. Neither is the EU action. They will continue to come up with reasons to extract money (or technology to confer advantage to domestic industries) from Microsoft on all sorts of grounds. That's what governments do and that's what trade agreements are supposed to mitigate. Just check out the examples of agricultural trade sanctions.
You might want to read this before claiming the infallibility of judges. Did you ever read the Jackson findings? From a technical perspective, his findings are completely misguided. This Slate commentary offers a history of the appellate court thinking, which overruled much of his findings. I was once party to some hearings where a panel of distinguished judges had their ruling overturned by an act of Congress because it was so poorly formed. Believe me, judges can make incredible mistakes. Most of the time they don't, but when you have a political body levying fines against a foreign enterprise, there is a huge conflict of interest. This is a money grab by the EU. No doubt about it, unfortunately.
so I still say now that I will be very surprised if Microsoft still exists by 2015
Dream on. Ballmer won't be CEO that long.
"I TOLD YOU SO!"
Better have a look at this (scroll down to the part about the Korean War) before making that statement. If he were alive today, no doubt MacArthur would be horrified to see what his miscalculation of the Chinese response created: North Korea in its current form.
Actually this does make sense. The problem with the FM transmitter is that it only provides one way communication. This means the device can't be controlled from the built in steering wheel or console controls. If I could get a player that I could just drop on the seat or in the glove box and have the car control it, I would buy it today.
You are correct that there aren't any car stereos that support WiFi, though. At least I don't know of any. But manufacturers could add that feature easily enough. It would also provide a nice VOIP feature for mobile phone / car integration in the future. I still don't have an music player, though. I just use my cell phone. I don't know if I will ever buy an dedicated music player. The only reason I can think of buying one is for use in the car, since the iPod can be integrated with a number of car stereos. Car makers are now building in iPod integration, but I'm not about to buy a new car just for that. I can burn a lot of CDs for the price of an after market upgrade or the price of a new car.
Look on eBay first. 6' HDMI and Toslink cables are typically $0.99. Shipping is usually $5, so $6 for these cables is a decent price. I bought mine from eBay and have not had any problems.
I can just plug the firewire cable onto my High-Def digital cable box and record that.
Thanks for the tip - I just got a new cable box. I'll have to try this. As for the Mac v. Windows arguments, I think they are relatively pointless. I use both. The iMac for media work, mainly video, and the PC for business apps and general utility. My PC mb is now about 5 years old. I'll upgrade it when Vista shows up, and sell the old one online. (I see a bright Linux future for it.)
I look at PC purchases in terms of the gyrations I have to go through to get a system to do something I need to do. Some tasks are easier on the Mac, others are easier on the PC. For me the economics of the software / time factors for the Mac and PC justify owning both, and probably will for the forseeable future. I suspect others will come to the same conclusion over time.
Sony's stock hit a one-month low
Yeah, that's pretty irrelevant.
What I do wonder about is the possibility of airlines saying "No More Laptops On Board", or at a minimum - "No Li* Batteries." There have already been ground fires and inflight fires - fortunately all survived. But it's not hard to imagine airlines restricting batteries in the future. No doubt the Japanese government is concerned about this as well. That's probably why the ministries are beginning their investigations.
Sony seems to be missing on all cylinders lately. The stock can go quite a bit lower, but it would be a good idea to ask your local hedge-fund manager what he or she thinks before shorting it.
As for iMovie, it can be picky at times. But for the price, you still can't beat it.
The same can be said of Windows and Linux.
Please try using your hardware and editing your movie with Windows Movie Maker 2 and get back to us on how much better it is.
I did. That's one reason I have the iMac.
I still think a Mac is a great all around machine.
Here we disagree. I don't think it is given how much it and all of the Apple peripherals cost. Here's another example: Apple mini-DVI to DVI connector - $20. 6' DVI to HDMI cable on eBay - $0.99, $6.00 with shipping. Apple systems are like luxury cars - they do a lot of nice things, but they aren't perfect and they cost too much for for general purposes. I also think the window manager is irritating, but that's just a personal preference.
will the general public (i.e. -- not Apple fanboys) be willing the make the switch at a 30% premium?
Here's my experience: I own PCs and an iMac. I bought the iMac to get the utility of iLife, specifically iMovie and iDVD. I also needed a small form factor box, and the iMac qualifies. I'm quite happy with iMovie and iDVD, and there are a few other things on the system that are fun, too.
But...
I would not recommend an iMac to anyone as a general purpose computer. If all you want to do is browse and email and decent security, get a used PC and put on the system, or have any one of a number of hole-in-the-wall PC stores or user groups do it for you. If someone wants a general purpose PC, I still recommend Windows. Browse w/FF or IE7, put decent AV software on it, and if you download something that jacks your box to get something for free, don't blame Windows.
My experience with the iMac is that "stuff does *not* just work". I bought a USB drive enclosure to back up my work. Stick a new drive in it, plug it into the iMac and ... nothing. No sign of it. Plug it into the PC, instantly recognized. I have another device that rips video to DV. Sometimes iMovie recognizes it instantly, other times not. Plug my camera in the iMac, iMovie recognizes it, or might crash. iMovie crashes a lot. I'm actually not that unhappy about it, since the sw is very powerful and does what I want. I just know there are certain things that are high risk, so I have to be careful about backing up my projects and not doing certain things. As for iTunes, what a POS. Search sucks, but what really amazed me was when I discovered my entire shopping cart was emptied after I upgraded to a new version of iTunes. That's not necessarily a problem with iMac specifically, but it certainly impacted my opinion of the Apple mystique. My assessment is that the iMac fulfills a specific purpose very well, but it is no less flakey than any Windows box I have ever used.
Continuing with the theme about expense - the first thing I did was get rid of the mouse. Why Apple continues to design the worst mice in the world is a mystery to me. I use the iMac with a new 802.11 access point. The choice was: Airport for $200, or Linksys for $60? I would like to put a new drive in the thing, but supposedly it has to go back to the store for that, which adds to the cost.
Bottom line: If you want to use iLife, or some sw organic to the Mac, buy one. But if you want computing at reasonable cost and maximum flexibility, go Linux or Windows. The only other reason to by a Mac is if you think of it as something like a piece of jewelry, which is perfectly reasonable as well for people interested in interior design and the like. The Apple line does have a nice appearance.