Do you have any plans to introduce educational programs? Some of today's rampant copying comes from those still in school without an appreciation of IP.
su only effects the current session, and only changes the current user. It doesn't change keychains. It doesn't change network settings. It doesn't log into remote disks automatically. It doesn't even change directories, unless there's a permissions problem. The prior art that relates best is Apple's patented Location Manager, which allows switching of networks settings and other things already.
The degree to which the new version is similar, and yet different from whatever Windows does (I don't actually know, but I don't think it includes network/system settings, etc.) is what the patent will or won't stand on. Not some single-session telnet-short-circuiting command.
Has anyone found a way to manually set when the update will check? If you check manually, it sets itself forward by day/week/month according to your setting but at the current time. The problem is occasionaly I'll be surfing at an odd hour (read: 3AM Saturday), see that an update has been released, and kick off the updater. It then resets itself to check the following Saturday, 3AM. I've looked through various preference files and a couple of sites I thought might have something.
For the record, it is possible to change the time to the current time by changing the Daily/Weekly/Monthly option and changing it back. Unfortunately this resets the counter - I tried it know and even though it last checked 4 days ago it now won't check until next Sunday morning.
So if anyone has found this, or is better at looking, I'm betting I'm not the only one that would like to know. (I tried looking for files that changed today with the time I changed it, but either a) I did my search poorly or b) it's saved in a system file with other preferences that doesn't get updated immediately.) I suppose it's possible it's only saved in PRAM, but I'm not sure how to find that how - maybe someone with more Developer access could ask around.
And yes, changing the current date/time, moving the D/W/M setting, and then resetting the time would work. But that's crazy talk. I can appreciate the logic that Joe User will most likely check the first time at a time they'd normally be on, but not all of our usage schedules are that orderly. It wouldn't have hurt them to give the option of specifying it exactly, so you can check manually occasionally but not reset the automatic scheduling.
I actually do know what the fundamental laws of physics are... and, not to be rude or anything, but they broke most of the laws of aerodynamics to create the stealth bomber.
No wonder they kept it secret. They were worried about the Fundamental Physics Police.
If I had River Raid, and a friend had Pitfall II, we could simply trade cartridges. That's it. No online registration, no serial numbers, no boot-sector tampering. In other words, the concept is not exactly the same. You couldn't copy them, but you could use them with as many different devices as you'd like.
Yes, this is partly because having overly-difficult-too-copy hardware is different from fairly-easy-to-copy CD/DVDs. The problem is when DRM goes too far, and prevents legal use. Want to use your software at a friend's? Sorry. Want to install it on your sister's so she can play when you're not home? Nope. Tired of it, and want to sell it? Uh-uh - you don't own anything to sell.
So really, we didn't have DRM then. There were ways to copy the ROMs (they're all on line, if you want them). It just wasn't easy. Now that it is easy, DRM makes it impossible - removing legal use as well as illegal use.
1) From the question, it was directed at those who have already deployed or are in the process of deploying Linux. The missing plan is 'continue using/deploying Linux'. I don't see why anyone 100% COBOL would bother responding. If they didn't use nor were planning to use Linux, neither answer would be appropriate.
2a) 'solicited' makes it not-random? I'd never run a survey standing on a corner hoping people will tell me their opinion on the topic I'm concerned about. I'm pretty sure I have to 'solicit' answers.
2b) The randomness factor may not be true chaos, but since they did not have a reasonable idea of who would respond it is sufficiently random.
3) This is not a scientific poll, but a survey. Kinda like the 'president popularity' polls. Which are actually worse since they don't report where or who was asked, nor the exact question. This poll was of Linux IT managers on a very specific issue, and specifically said '91% of IT managers polled'. If the extrapolated to ALL IT managers, then they would need an error estimate. Since it is 91% of exactly 2,172, I'm not certain what error factor you're looking for.
The point is: Of IT managers who have Linux projects, have heard about the SCO lawsuit, and respond to InternetWeek polls, 91% have no plans whatsoever to make changes because of it. That's what the poll means. The poll results are directed at: IT managers who read InternetWeek.
The problem with your first response is that you didn't read the question, attempted to force the 9% to mean something it didn't, then accuse all statistics of being meaningless. While survey results can be twisted, the easiest way to do so is to ignore the actual question they concern. Obviously, surveys themselves can be guided by their question, but not in this case.
Before I pick it apart, the whole 'had they known the wing was busted' is a vital part of the decision making. This isn't the first time foam has hit the shuttle, and nothing indicated a severe problem.
Anyway, they wouldn't have sent a second shuttle because it could have happened again, and you'd have two stranded shuttles. Even now that they think they know what happened, they still need to find a way for it not to happen again. To send up another shuttle and crew would have been irresponsible.
And despite the fact that the things practically fly themselves, there currently is no button that says 'get into a synchronous orbit without hitting it, and deliver a couple of spacesuits since they don't have any'.
The main difference between computer tech talk and other tech talk is that computers became part of the common daily life of people before they became truly commoditized (verbing nouns is always fun). When cars first came out, only hobbyists/rich had them and knowing tech set them apart as a club. Once they became cheap enough to become somewhat common (I'm thinking 50's), only the hobbyists really knew what the details meant, most people knew they sounded good. Nowadays even terms like 'overhead cam' are fading, as the public knows that all things considered, a car is a car. What are obvious it's factors: seating, color, looks, convenience. About the only tech most people would still would care about is mileage.
Relative to that, personal-use computers are a young technology. But their usefulness and relative cheapness have spread them through the masses unlike virtually anything before them.* Thus, they are still growing and changing, and the details matter, but they are being used more and more by people who only care about the overall package. A problem that arises is that manufacturers can't easily advertise their usability features since they come from software, so they advertise the internal details. Not to start a war, but the differences between Apple and other ads reflect this. Apple has moved to trying to advertise what the computer will do for you. Other manufacturers have featured their tech lists. They are starting to switch over, like in the Dell commercials with interns, but instead of saying 'Let's you record CDs!' they still say 'Has 52X CD burner!'. Since the only thing that seperates most computers is the internal technology they won't lose it all, but hopefully they will start leaving out more and more.
I don't think it's a bad thing per se. Yes, repeatedly telling my mother 'You don't have 40 GB of RAM!' gets tiring, but I try to keep in mind that what really matters is what she gets out of it, not what she thinks she knows about how it works.
* One counter example of quick pervasiveness of new technology might be the telephone, or later devices based on it, but these never had a real tech-talk associated with them. Sure, marketers tried to introduce one with cordless phones (900Mhz! 2.4 Ghz! Digital, not cellular!), but most people just want a phone with decent features and decent pricing that works, regardless of how. This is probably true of computers as well; there are just few places that would admit 'Well, yes you can check your email and the web with that model' without adding 'but this one is 1.643 times faster with two times the memory for only $350 more!'
Thanks for the insight. Though I'm guessing only having 256MB RAM (one of which may be the 'slow' kind) and a mostly full hard drive will effect my mileage, so to speak.
Not to mention the power on/off problems, small (in today's terms) hard drive, lack of a CD burner, and near-daily hard disk errors. Overall it's been a good computer, but I'm ready for a G5.
I'm sure if there existed any arguments other than SCO saying "We're right. Trust us.", most of us would like to see them. Right now there's what, half a dozen different violations that SCO has alleged that don't overlap, and no hard evidence for any of them.
Sure, we'll all take the "SCO is right because..." arguments with different levels of belief and presumption, but we'd all pretty much like to see what they are.
Was Caldera a loveable shoe-shine boy, when their ultrasonic hearing hear the cries of the stolen, proprietary code, Sweet Polly Purebread? Are they attempting to rescue her from IBM, aka Simon Says? What's that pill in Underdog's ring - oh no! It's a Lawsuit Pill!
Actually, this can be a quasi-good thing. In the last major business product I worked on, there were numerous items that were left out to make the Q/A cutoff, that wouldn't be followed up on until a customer said 'Should this do that?' At which point we'd charge them to do it and then add it to the next version. Also, there were dozens of 'known bugs' that would be brushed off until a customer complained, but that's a different issue.
Part of the problem that led to these areas are the bloatedness of the Q/A department. Sometimes they would defer fixing spelling errors because they wouldn't be able to Q/A a fix. I began to realize that there isn't really any good training in Q/A, so the quality was spotty at best. When someone without a good software development background got in charge, it just compounded the prioritizing problem.
Re:Aw, frickin' crud ...
on
Jaguar is Over
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Dear QUCWAGHAHHBFMLEDQWRDF,
Thank you for noting that our "guys" put a lot of features into this release. Thank you for also noting that our "staff" deserves to get paid for it. However, I'm feel I would be remiss if I didn't point out that we also have to pay the CD manufacturers, box manufacturers, and print houses. Not too mention that our "staff" is probably a good deal larger than you think, and are, as you can imagine, premium people all around.
As to your suggested pricing structure, we will take you advice into consideration. Far be it for us to know the worth and cost of our work so well that an unsolicited suggestion won't completely turn us around.
Also, I am sorry to hear you feel that I am "making" you buy the operating system "over and over and over again". I am sure you will notice that your computer will continue to function with the software you have already purchased and installed. If that is not the case, please contact Apple Support for assistance.
It is not generally my comment on a competitor's product, but rumor has it Longhorn users will pay a heavy price indeed.
Sincerely,
Mr. Jobs
Why they've gone to names
on
Jaguar is Over
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It seems to me that rather than being analagous to 9.0, 9.1, 9.2, etc. OS X's 10.1, 10.2, are more like System 7, System 8, System 9. Each version has entirely new features on top of entirely different underpinnings. Apple is using the cat names as an attempt to shed the 'They're charging for an upgrade!' stigma.
Not that I'm looking forward to the price, mind you. However, they haven't (that I've seen) given a release date, and as I'm looking to buy a new computer it probably will work out for me. Even if I weren't, I don't think my graphite iMac would take it anyway.:(
That's your machines serial number. And I'm pretty sure that it isn't used by iTunes - if you replace your harddrive without deactivating the Mac there are problems reactivating it. You do NOT enter a serial number during installation; I think that was the point the original poster was going for.
And yes, they probably could use this number. However, as a hardware company the ROI for developing a fullproof activation scheme would be low.
(Some might point out the fact they don't allow iDVD on Apple's w/o their records, but I think this has more to do with their licensing codec's and other legal issues, not to mention the whole goal of iDVD was to encourage buyers to upgrade their purchase.)
I just finished the My Question section of the essay when it hit me:
Caldera/SCO has become infested with Vogons!
Well, that's what it seems like. We have a niche company that bought the Unix rights possibly as a lark(Hitchhiker's Guide), bought by another company(Infinidim) and suddenly their entire goal seems to be the destruction of Linux(The Question to Life, the Universe, and Everything) through the most convoluted manner possible(reverse time engineering)!
I was about to hit 'Preview' and I noticed something else - the adds across the top of my window are (in order) "Buy SCO OpenServer 5", "U.S. Legal Forms, Inc.", "SCO Unix and Linux help", and "Non Disclosure Forms"!
Cheech:... And all the time, he was getting stopped and pulled over and asked for his I.D., man. Just everywhere he went he ran into too much recession, man.
Chong: No, man, you mean he ran into too much "repression", man.
Cheech: Ah, repression, recession, man, it's all the same thing, man.
Bart: Gimmie. I want more. [grabs back the tomato and eats it]
Lisa: I thought you said it tasted terrible.
Bart: It does. [grinds out the remains of the first tomato] But
it's smooth and mild. [grabs another] And refreshingly
addictive.
The problem there was with him being held accountable for patented genes getting into his fields, not with genetic engineering itself. If he was not cuplable for the genes getting there, there should have been some relief for destroying the crop.
And why blame just "American justice"? He was Canadian - couldn't Canada become involved that an American company was spreading mutations without permits? (Or whatever - my point is he should have had other options if it wasn't his fault, though I really don't know for sure.)
Our current server is a 750HMz Duron with 256MB of RAM. It handles email (SMPT, POP3, IMAP and webmail), about a hundred individual web sites (not very high traffic, about 15000 requests per day average), Jabber (public server, listed on the jabber.org site), a web-cam and a few other things. Its load average sits at under 0.20. In fact I'm running top on it right now, and the most CPU-intensive thing it's doing is running top. We stopped upgrading it a while back and diverted the funds to new workstations.
While this is true, Apple's problem is with IIS's requirements being so high the people who sign the budgets generally won't think it compares very well at the numbers summary level. They'll assume any benchmarks by Apple or Apple-flavored magazines are biased, if they see/hear them at all.
From experience I know if you tried to do all of that on a 2000 box you could forget it; not to mention that having it all on one box is a recipe for disaster between worms/viruses/crashes/Windoze Update.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have any plans to introduce educational programs? Some of today's rampant copying comes from those still in school without an appreciation of IP.
Are you able to move against overseas mass copying organizations, or are you tied up like the DEA to only prosecuting local infringers?
Followup: Locally, are you going for mass distributors or people who install software on their grandparents' computers?
"One" word: no.
su only effects the current session, and only changes the current user. It doesn't change keychains. It doesn't change network settings. It doesn't log into remote disks automatically. It doesn't even change directories, unless there's a permissions problem. The prior art that relates best is Apple's patented Location Manager, which allows switching of networks settings and other things already.
The degree to which the new version is similar, and yet different from whatever Windows does (I don't actually know, but I don't think it includes network/system settings, etc.) is what the patent will or won't stand on. Not some single-session telnet-short-circuiting command.
Has anyone found a way to manually set when the update will check? If you check manually, it sets itself forward by day/week/month according to your setting but at the current time. The problem is occasionaly I'll be surfing at an odd hour (read: 3AM Saturday), see that an update has been released, and kick off the updater. It then resets itself to check the following Saturday, 3AM. I've looked through various preference files and a couple of sites I thought might have something.
For the record, it is possible to change the time to the current time by changing the Daily/Weekly/Monthly option and changing it back. Unfortunately this resets the counter - I tried it know and even though it last checked 4 days ago it now won't check until next Sunday morning.
So if anyone has found this, or is better at looking, I'm betting I'm not the only one that would like to know. (I tried looking for files that changed today with the time I changed it, but either a) I did my search poorly or b) it's saved in a system file with other preferences that doesn't get updated immediately.) I suppose it's possible it's only saved in PRAM, but I'm not sure how to find that how - maybe someone with more Developer access could ask around.
And yes, changing the current date/time, moving the D/W/M setting, and then resetting the time would work. But that's crazy talk. I can appreciate the logic that Joe User will most likely check the first time at a time they'd normally be on, but not all of our usage schedules are that orderly. It wouldn't have hurt them to give the option of specifying it exactly, so you can check manually occasionally but not reset the automatic scheduling.
I actually do know what the fundamental laws of physics are... and, not to be rude or anything, but they broke most of the laws of aerodynamics to create the stealth bomber.
No wonder they kept it secret. They were worried about the Fundamental Physics Police.
Enron used child labor? Those bastards!
If I had River Raid, and a friend had Pitfall II, we could simply trade cartridges. That's it. No online registration, no serial numbers, no boot-sector tampering. In other words, the concept is not exactly the same. You couldn't copy them, but you could use them with as many different devices as you'd like.
Yes, this is partly because having overly-difficult-too-copy hardware is different from fairly-easy-to-copy CD/DVDs. The problem is when DRM goes too far, and prevents legal use. Want to use your software at a friend's? Sorry. Want to install it on your sister's so she can play when you're not home? Nope. Tired of it, and want to sell it? Uh-uh - you don't own anything to sell.
So really, we didn't have DRM then. There were ways to copy the ROMs (they're all on line, if you want them). It just wasn't easy. Now that it is easy, DRM makes it impossible - removing legal use as well as illegal use.
1) From the question, it was directed at those who have already deployed or are in the process of deploying Linux. The missing plan is 'continue using/deploying Linux'. I don't see why anyone 100% COBOL would bother responding. If they didn't use nor were planning to use Linux, neither answer would be appropriate.
2a) 'solicited' makes it not-random? I'd never run a survey standing on a corner hoping people will tell me their opinion on the topic I'm concerned about. I'm pretty sure I have to 'solicit' answers.
2b) The randomness factor may not be true chaos, but since they did not have a reasonable idea of who would respond it is sufficiently random.
3) This is not a scientific poll, but a survey. Kinda like the 'president popularity' polls. Which are actually worse since they don't report where or who was asked, nor the exact question. This poll was of Linux IT managers on a very specific issue, and specifically said '91% of IT managers polled'. If the extrapolated to ALL IT managers, then they would need an error estimate. Since it is 91% of exactly 2,172, I'm not certain what error factor you're looking for.
The point is: Of IT managers who have Linux projects, have heard about the SCO lawsuit, and respond to InternetWeek polls, 91% have no plans whatsoever to make changes because of it. That's what the poll means. The poll results are directed at: IT managers who read InternetWeek.
The problem with your first response is that you didn't read the question, attempted to force the 9% to mean something it didn't, then accuse all statistics of being meaningless. While survey results can be twisted, the easiest way to do so is to ignore the actual question they concern. Obviously, surveys themselves can be guided by their question, but not in this case.
Before I pick it apart, the whole 'had they known the wing was busted' is a vital part of the decision making. This isn't the first time foam has hit the shuttle, and nothing indicated a severe problem.
Anyway, they wouldn't have sent a second shuttle because it could have happened again, and you'd have two stranded shuttles. Even now that they think they know what happened, they still need to find a way for it not to happen again. To send up another shuttle and crew would have been irresponsible.
And despite the fact that the things practically fly themselves, there currently is no button that says 'get into a synchronous orbit without hitting it, and deliver a couple of spacesuits since they don't have any'.
The main difference between computer tech talk and other tech talk is that computers became part of the common daily life of people before they became truly commoditized (verbing nouns is always fun). When cars first came out, only hobbyists/rich had them and knowing tech set them apart as a club. Once they became cheap enough to become somewhat common (I'm thinking 50's), only the hobbyists really knew what the details meant, most people knew they sounded good. Nowadays even terms like 'overhead cam' are fading, as the public knows that all things considered, a car is a car. What are obvious it's factors: seating, color, looks, convenience. About the only tech most people would still would care about is mileage.
Relative to that, personal-use computers are a young technology. But their usefulness and relative cheapness have spread them through the masses unlike virtually anything before them.* Thus, they are still growing and changing, and the details matter, but they are being used more and more by people who only care about the overall package. A problem that arises is that manufacturers can't easily advertise their usability features since they come from software, so they advertise the internal details. Not to start a war, but the differences between Apple and other ads reflect this. Apple has moved to trying to advertise what the computer will do for you. Other manufacturers have featured their tech lists. They are starting to switch over, like in the Dell commercials with interns, but instead of saying 'Let's you record CDs!' they still say 'Has 52X CD burner!'. Since the only thing that seperates most computers is the internal technology they won't lose it all, but hopefully they will start leaving out more and more.
I don't think it's a bad thing per se. Yes, repeatedly telling my mother 'You don't have 40 GB of RAM!' gets tiring, but I try to keep in mind that what really matters is what she gets out of it, not what she thinks she knows about how it works.
* One counter example of quick pervasiveness of new technology might be the telephone, or later devices based on it, but these never had a real tech-talk associated with them. Sure, marketers tried to introduce one with cordless phones (900Mhz! 2.4 Ghz! Digital, not cellular!), but most people just want a phone with decent features and decent pricing that works, regardless of how. This is probably true of computers as well; there are just few places that would admit 'Well, yes you can check your email and the web with that model' without adding 'but this one is 1.643 times faster with two times the memory for only $350 more!'
I thought I'd give beer a try last St. Patty's day, but I didn't get laid and my teeth still ended up #006666.
From the official rules:
Residents of Vermont, Arizona, Tennessee and Puerto Rico are not eligible to participate in the Contest.
You think you have it tough. Anyone know why these states were excluded?
Mmmm... roasted lame post bellies...
Thanks for the insight. Though I'm guessing only having 256MB RAM (one of which may be the 'slow' kind) and a mostly full hard drive will effect my mileage, so to speak.
Not to mention the power on/off problems, small (in today's terms) hard drive, lack of a CD burner, and near-daily hard disk errors. Overall it's been a good computer, but I'm ready for a G5.
I'm sure if there existed any arguments other than SCO saying "We're right. Trust us.", most of us would like to see them. Right now there's what, half a dozen different violations that SCO has alleged that don't overlap, and no hard evidence for any of them.
..." arguments with different levels of belief and presumption, but we'd all pretty much like to see what they are.
Sure, we'll all take the "SCO is right because
Was Caldera a loveable shoe-shine boy, when their ultrasonic hearing hear the cries of the stolen, proprietary code, Sweet Polly Purebread? Are they attempting to rescue her from IBM, aka Simon Says? What's that pill in Underdog's ring - oh no! It's a Lawsuit Pill!
Actually, this can be a quasi-good thing. In the last major business product I worked on, there were numerous items that were left out to make the Q/A cutoff, that wouldn't be followed up on until a customer said 'Should this do that?' At which point we'd charge them to do it and then add it to the next version. Also, there were dozens of 'known bugs' that would be brushed off until a customer complained, but that's a different issue.
Part of the problem that led to these areas are the bloatedness of the Q/A department. Sometimes they would defer fixing spelling errors because they wouldn't be able to Q/A a fix. I began to realize that there isn't really any good training in Q/A, so the quality was spotty at best. When someone without a good software development background got in charge, it just compounded the prioritizing problem.
Dear QUCWAGHAHHBFMLEDQWRDF,
Thank you for noting that our "guys" put a lot of features into this release. Thank you for also noting that our "staff" deserves to get paid for it. However, I'm feel I would be remiss if I didn't point out that we also have to pay the CD manufacturers, box manufacturers, and print houses. Not too mention that our "staff" is probably a good deal larger than you think, and are, as you can imagine, premium people all around.
As to your suggested pricing structure, we will take you advice into consideration. Far be it for us to know the worth and cost of our work so well that an unsolicited suggestion won't completely turn us around.
Also, I am sorry to hear you feel that I am "making" you buy the operating system "over and over and over again". I am sure you will notice that your computer will continue to function with the software you have already purchased and installed. If that is not the case, please contact Apple Support for assistance.
It is not generally my comment on a competitor's product, but rumor has it Longhorn users will pay a heavy price indeed.
Sincerely,
Mr. Jobs
It seems to me that rather than being analagous to 9.0, 9.1, 9.2, etc. OS X's 10.1, 10.2, are more like System 7, System 8, System 9. Each version has entirely new features on top of entirely different underpinnings. Apple is using the cat names as an attempt to shed the 'They're charging for an upgrade!' stigma.
:(
Not that I'm looking forward to the price, mind you. However, they haven't (that I've seen) given a release date, and as I'm looking to buy a new computer it probably will work out for me. Even if I weren't, I don't think my graphite iMac would take it anyway.
That's your machines serial number. And I'm pretty sure that it isn't used by iTunes - if you replace your harddrive without deactivating the Mac there are problems reactivating it. You do NOT enter a serial number during installation; I think that was the point the original poster was going for.
And yes, they probably could use this number. However, as a hardware company the ROI for developing a fullproof activation scheme would be low.
(Some might point out the fact they don't allow iDVD on Apple's w/o their records, but I think this has more to do with their licensing codec's and other legal issues, not to mention the whole goal of iDVD was to encourage buyers to upgrade their purchase.)
I just finished the My Question section of the essay when it hit me:
Caldera/SCO has become infested with Vogons!
Well, that's what it seems like. We have a niche company that bought the Unix rights possibly as a lark(Hitchhiker's Guide), bought by another company(Infinidim) and suddenly their entire goal seems to be the destruction of Linux(The Question to Life, the Universe, and Everything) through the most convoluted manner possible(reverse time engineering)!
I was about to hit 'Preview' and I noticed something else - the adds across the top of my window are (in order) "Buy SCO OpenServer 5", "U.S. Legal Forms, Inc.", "SCO Unix and Linux help", and "Non Disclosure Forms"!
Those Belgium turlingdromes! They're everywhere!
Cheech: ... And all the time, he was getting stopped and pulled over and asked for his I.D., man. Just everywhere he went he ran into too much recession, man.
Chong: No, man, you mean he ran into too much "repression", man.
Cheech: Ah, repression, recession, man, it's all the same thing, man.
"Santa Clause and His Old Lady"
The problem there was with him being held accountable for patented genes getting into his fields, not with genetic engineering itself. If he was not cuplable for the genes getting there, there should have been some relief for destroying the crop.
And why blame just "American justice"? He was Canadian - couldn't Canada become involved that an American company was spreading mutations without permits? (Or whatever - my point is he should have had other options if it wasn't his fault, though I really don't know for sure.)
Our current server is a 750HMz Duron with 256MB of RAM. It handles email (SMPT, POP3, IMAP and webmail), about a hundred individual web sites (not very high traffic, about 15000 requests per day average), Jabber (public server, listed on the jabber.org site), a web-cam and a few other things. Its load average sits at under 0.20. In fact I'm running top on it right now, and the most CPU-intensive thing it's doing is running top. We stopped upgrading it a while back and diverted the funds to new workstations.
While this is true, Apple's problem is with IIS's requirements being so high the people who sign the budgets generally won't think it compares very well at the numbers summary level. They'll assume any benchmarks by Apple or Apple-flavored magazines are biased, if they see/hear them at all.
From experience I know if you tried to do all of that on a 2000 box you could forget it; not to mention that having it all on one box is a recipe for disaster between worms/viruses/crashes/Windoze Update.