Does this mean if Microsoft charged you $10,000 per desktop for Windows Next, that it would be the best operating system around?
I doubt it, and so do you. But that's exactly what you just said.
but I think the savings becomes apparent when the hardware dosen't have to be upgraded as often
Oh here we're talking about saving money now. So which is it?
And while we're on the subject of hardware not needing to be upgraded, what about Apple's entire platform shift to Intel starting next year. That hardly promises a long and happy life for your PPC based Macs.
Isn't that ironic? Our web based applications won't run in another web browser. Hell, they won't run on Windows XP SP2!
I would have to say then that your web applications are sincerely broken. And I would say exactly the same thing if you had told me that they only ran on any other single browser.
Web applications should be standards compliant -- not browser compliant!
Windows comes included with my Dell/HP/IBM/Gateway/other new system. OSX comes included with your Apple new system.
I upgrade to XP Pro. Apple systems cost more to start with. It's about a wash the first year, and I don't get another $129 hit each successive year for the latest, greatest, faster, more complete OSX.
And as far as speed goes, Apple on Intel appears to be corked anyway. It was recently revealed that OSX for PPC is compiled with the optimize-for-size option. With falling memory prices, next year Apple can release an Intel version optimized for speed on a system with double the standard memory for the same price, and then use that to claim that they made the right choice going to Intel hardware because look how much faster it runs. What a crock!
just converted my primary machine from Windows to Mac.
What would have made more sense would have been to wait for the Apple-Intel boxes, and then be able to run both operating systems as needed on the same hardware. This is not the moment I would be inventing in PPC-based Macs, much as I love the chip.
Being able to run this OS on the most abundant and popular hardware* in the next year or so is going to really be awesome for OS X.
You're right about blowing smoke. Your OSX next year is only going to run on Apple Intel hardware. You're not going to be buying cheap boxen from Dell for it.
But on the upside, you'll be able to run Windows Longhorn on your shiney new Apple-Intel tower -- if it ever ships, that is.
Is it perhaps that in those businesses, 17% and 21% had people using Macs?
I read that a bit differently. As I first read it, it seemed to say that in a given individual business, there were this percentage of Mac users, with the rest presumably being PC users. Not that the stated percentage of businesses were exclusively Mac.
One place Windows beats out OSX is that I'm still running Windows 2K. Ongoing support has been provided for it until just a couple weeks ago. It runs everything in the Windows world that I throw at it, and is preferable to XP.
But most of all, I haven't had to spend $129 a year keeping it updated.
Overall I don't like Microsoft, but there are things I don't like about Apple either -- usually different things.
'Companies that were considering Linux are now buying Mac OS X instead.
Here all along I thought one of the main reasons for using Linux was its availability for the low low price of FREE! This along with the fact that it doesn't require closed hardware supplied only by a single vendor. Boy was I wrong.
If you think this is bad, then you should plan on being very scared of IPv6 since that will have the ability to give every device a permanent non-NATted IP address that will uniquely identify you. No need for cookies on your machine. Just a central site where everyone in the sharing of information pool can go to see what user 111.111.111.111.111.111.111.111.111.111.111.111.11 1.111.111.111 has done recently, and what we should serve him up next.
And depending on how they're assigned, they may well know your actual address as well, just from the number.
The reason for yes is because you are advocating sane uses for cookies. The marketers complaining about the loss of their cookies aren't complaining because they can't tweak their site as easily. They're complaining because they feel -- rightly or wrongly -- that they are more effective when they can track customers regardless of how the customers themselves feel about it!
The customers are voting with their feet, or in this case their Cookie Cutters. 40% are already so annoyed at how the Internet treats them that they delete their cookies at least once a month in the hope that this will reduce the insulting behavior at least a bit. And if 40% are actually doing it, you can bet that more would if they knew effectively how to do so.
So yes you are evil for advocating the keeping of a tool that is being misused to annoy many customers while seeking out gulible ones to take advantage of. It has got to be an low-numbered rule of business that you don't succeed by annoying your customers so much that they attempt to change their behavior to avoid further such annoyances.
that Internet marketers are worried about the decreasing persistence of cookies.
And this is a good thing, make no mistake! I don't exist simply to be prey for marketers, regardles of how they may want to feel about it! Anything that disrupts them is good.
but here my landline number is hidden (ie, it doesn't show up on any lists, the yellow pages, etc...)
Some telemarketers just call the numbers in sequence for a given area, e.g.:
Amendment to Do Not Call Legislation: For the purposes of Do Not Call lists, a business relationship is NOT established with any second company simply because they have purchased any loan, contract, or other outstanding debt from a first company with such a relationship to the customer. A business relationship may only be established with the second company if the Customer Opts-In by returning a pre-paid, single mailing, signed postcard, or selects an opt-in option on the acquiring company's web-site using a PIN number mailed to them. Punishment for pretending otherwise is severe!
The Linksys NSLU2 has already been hacked so you can run your own applications on it.
So why doesn't Linksys admit the obvious and start selling a Linux Appliance sans WiFi hardware? They could increase volume, lower costs, and expand into a new area.
Late last week, he began circulating plans to loosen rules so neither phone nor cable companies will be required to share their Internet connections with competitors like America Online
And how does this increase broadband penetration? If I were an AOL customer (I'm not), I'd want to buy my broadband from AOL, not from my local cable or telco.
If he wants to increase broadband -- and not just profits from broadband to the two regulated monopolies -- he'd tell them that for the next 5 years that 20% of every remaining non-broadband enabled customer must be converted to have the broadband option on their cable or telephone line. And that this broadband be used to connect said customer to their desired ISP at the same flat rate that covers installation and servicing, plus whatever premium said ISP wishes to charge for their services. In short, broadband charges are broken down into the cost of the transport + the cost of the ISP services.
That would increase broadband.
In the mean time, time to call my broker and buy some more Comcast. This is the only way I'll see any benefit from this FCC ruling.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe it's "Xing".
Oh, sorry, that's an MP3 encoder.
RIAA Alert
Tor
KILL
KILL
KILL
Does this mean if Microsoft charged you $10,000 per desktop for Windows Next, that it would be the best operating system around?
I doubt it, and so do you. But that's exactly what you just said.
but I think the savings becomes apparent when the hardware dosen't have to be upgraded as often
Oh here we're talking about saving money now. So which is it?
And while we're on the subject of hardware not needing to be upgraded, what about Apple's entire platform shift to Intel starting next year. That hardly promises a long and happy life for your PPC based Macs.
I guess I just find your logic fuzzy, at best.
I would have to say then that your web applications are sincerely broken. And I would say exactly the same thing if you had told me that they only ran on any other single browser.
Web applications should be standards compliant -- not browser compliant!
Can I safely translate your comments to: Apple, it just doesn't works.
Let's see if I understand your point.
Windows comes included with my Dell/HP/IBM/Gateway/other new system. OSX comes included with your Apple new system.
I upgrade to XP Pro. Apple systems cost more to start with. It's about a wash the first year, and I don't get another $129 hit each successive year for the latest, greatest, faster, more complete OSX.
And as far as speed goes, Apple on Intel appears to be corked anyway. It was recently revealed that OSX for PPC is compiled with the optimize-for-size option. With falling memory prices, next year Apple can release an Intel version optimized for speed on a system with double the standard memory for the same price, and then use that to claim that they made the right choice going to Intel hardware because look how much faster it runs. What a crock!
What would have made more sense would have been to wait for the Apple-Intel boxes, and then be able to run both operating systems as needed on the same hardware. This is not the moment I would be inventing in PPC-based Macs, much as I love the chip.
You're right about blowing smoke. Your OSX next year is only going to run on Apple Intel hardware. You're not going to be buying cheap boxen from Dell for it.
But on the upside, you'll be able to run Windows Longhorn on your shiney new Apple-Intel tower -- if it ever ships, that is.
I read that a bit differently. As I first read it, it seemed to say that in a given individual business, there were this percentage of Mac users, with the rest presumably being PC users. Not that the stated percentage of businesses were exclusively Mac.
But most of all, I haven't had to spend $129 a year keeping it updated.
Overall I don't like Microsoft, but there are things I don't like about Apple either -- usually different things.
Here all along I thought one of the main reasons for using Linux was its availability for the low low price of FREE! This along with the fact that it doesn't require closed hardware supplied only by a single vendor. Boy was I wrong.
And depending on how they're assigned, they may well know your actual address as well, just from the number.
Yes.
The reason for yes is because you are advocating sane uses for cookies. The marketers complaining about the loss of their cookies aren't complaining because they can't tweak their site as easily. They're complaining because they feel -- rightly or wrongly -- that they are more effective when they can track customers regardless of how the customers themselves feel about it!
The customers are voting with their feet, or in this case their Cookie Cutters. 40% are already so annoyed at how the Internet treats them that they delete their cookies at least once a month in the hope that this will reduce the insulting behavior at least a bit. And if 40% are actually doing it, you can bet that more would if they knew effectively how to do so.
So yes you are evil for advocating the keeping of a tool that is being misused to annoy many customers while seeking out gulible ones to take advantage of. It has got to be an low-numbered rule of business that you don't succeed by annoying your customers so much that they attempt to change their behavior to avoid further such annoyances.
You got your answer.
And this is a good thing, make no mistake! I don't exist simply to be prey for marketers, regardles of how they may want to feel about it! Anything that disrupts them is good.
111-0000
111-0001
111-0002
You may not be as safe as you think.
Hey, suing is easy. Doesn't mean he won. Otherwise telephone calls into any noisy environment would be targets afterwards.
Amendment to Do Not Call Legislation: For the purposes of Do Not Call lists, a business relationship is NOT established with any second company simply because they have purchased any loan, contract, or other outstanding debt from a first company with such a relationship to the customer. A business relationship may only be established with the second company if the Customer Opts-In by returning a pre-paid, single mailing, signed postcard, or selects an opt-in option on the acquiring company's web-site using a PIN number mailed to them. Punishment for pretending otherwise is severe!
So why doesn't Linksys admit the obvious and start selling a Linux Appliance sans WiFi hardware? They could increase volume, lower costs, and expand into a new area.
And be served with an RIAA lawsuit!
This was funny the first time.
And how does this increase broadband penetration? If I were an AOL customer (I'm not), I'd want to buy my broadband from AOL, not from my local cable or telco.
If he wants to increase broadband -- and not just profits from broadband to the two regulated monopolies -- he'd tell them that for the next 5 years that 20% of every remaining non-broadband enabled customer must be converted to have the broadband option on their cable or telephone line. And that this broadband be used to connect said customer to their desired ISP at the same flat rate that covers installation and servicing, plus whatever premium said ISP wishes to charge for their services. In short, broadband charges are broken down into the cost of the transport + the cost of the ISP services.
That would increase broadband.
In the mean time, time to call my broker and buy some more Comcast. This is the only way I'll see any benefit from this FCC ruling.
Are you saying that IBM doesn't own OS/2 outright? That doesn't sound like IBM at all.
Competition!
Reports I've seen are that these are all teathered downloads. Of course, you have your 4 years there to figure out how to break the DRM teather.
That's the Finger-Out button.