Amusing? I'm sitting here with a Windows XP laptop, a 12" Apple powerbook running OSX, and an OpenBSD 3.6 desktop in front of me. I'm always for using the right tool for the job at hand. I just think telling all windows users that they should switch to OSX is just... silly. OSX is not the end-all be-all. It has it's benifits, but it has it's own problems as well.
All I was looking for was for you to say "Windows doesn't really have the stated problems" or "the problems with Windows aren't that bad". I'm actually unsure what to think about the fact that you didn't actually answer the question of if Windows is good enough or if it's a problem begging to be fixed... after being prompted to take a clear position on the question for a second time.
What's the better alternative to Exchange servers? What's more feature rich for email, calendar scheduling, etc, etc?
Part of the allure of Exchange is that it combines these features, but... separate software packages do the same job, only differently/better. MeetingMaker is a better calendar app; IMAP servers should allow users to pick their own platform/email client, etc.
Also, some of those Exchange features ( like the ones where they try, and fail, to support small databases? ) are poor at best. I'd prefer separate applications that actually get the job done.
You can argue all you want that the prices are getting closer to what PC prices are, but switching would sitll entail throwing out working hardware to buy new.
Did I recommend throwing out a _working_ system for a new one? No. _If_ the current system is a problem, functionally broken ( note the reason could be other than hardware, i.e. as TFA states, viruses and spyware and security/support cost, etc ) _or_ you're thinking of replacing it anyway, _then_ folks should at least consider a different solution than the previous system. Of course, previous capital investments ( both software and hardware ) are what's keeping M$ as the perceived safe choice for many businesses.
But businesses buy new computers on a regular basis- most every 3 years or so. Why not change OS on the same schedule? Why would it always have to be Windows, regardless of problems that causes?
What's amusing to me is that you don't argue that Windows doesn't really have the stated problems... either it's good enough or it's a problem begging to be fixed, which is it?
Games, enterprise business apps, and obscure in-house projects have pretty much sustained the Windows platform up to this point.
True. However, with the advent of OS X, enterprise business apps are on pretty equal footing ( with the notable exception of MS Exchange, though I'd like to take anyone who thinks _that_ is a good system and smack them with a clue stick ).
Obscure in-house projects are much, much easier to port than they were in the past ( please, hire me away from here, I'll do it ! ), and many of those need a re-write anyway ( trust me, i've seen them )... but businesses are likely to go with what they've used in the past. Folks who do hire me ( oh, or you, or someone else ) to port their apps to OS X will be pleasantly surprised that the ports are better apps developed in less time than the originals. Others will keep spending tons of cash to lock down their networks and de-louse their PCs.
So, other than games, which is a real catch-22, I think OS X has essentially caught up. I guess we'll have to wait and see how the market share numbers pan out over the next few years...
Why do people eat at McDonald's? They definitely don't make the best burger in town.
Things like consistency, convenience, perceived value, brand recognition, etc., all play a big role.
Thanks, that was the answer I was looking to provoke when I submitted this story. Of course, RatBastard, true to his name, beat my submission of the same article by a lousy 18 minutes. No, I don't really care... and yes, submitting this story to/. is essentially a troll, although, despite some of the comments being made, it does raise an interesting question.
More interesting is the less-academic "what would it take to get people to change operating systems ?" - in the past, there would have been a longer list of needed things, but now the dominant thing seems to be "games", which I find weird, because there's a huge stack of Mac games and more all the time. The other things - business apps and custom apps - are now pretty much either available under OS X or ( fairly ) easy to port to OS X... it's mainly just games and, in a few cases, "my marketing guys like Exchange servers" even though alternatives ( even better alternatives ) can be found, it boils down to "I'm used to my dark cave".
What's wacky is that poor consistency, little convenice, and not much value are made up for in many cases by big brand recognition. Maybe Apple's upswing really is due to brand recognition brought about by the iPod. Boy, people are stupid...
Funny reply, but that's the point. Confusing Star Trek and Star Wars is a classic joke. I saw Jedi T. Kirk on FFXI. I went to a LAN party, played Jedi Knight and made my nick 'Spock'. It's all to make the nerds say, "Nooo! Oh my god, you're wrong! Don't you know that you're screwing it all up!?".
well, it is all to make the nerds say "you're screwing it all up".
However, you only think it's funny. I don't mean to insult you, but it's kinda lame, really.
Seriously, I mean... it's not very clever, is it? How hard is it to walk into a room full of experts and make them want to correct you by spewing a bunch of obviously confused nonsense? It's not hard at all. Not clever. Except that it's trying to be clever? By sounding dumb on purpose?
Do you want to hang around someone who thinks that sounding dumb on purpose makes them look clever ?
Cooling may indeed be an issue. At the very least, expect to hear a more noise coming from the machine as the fans attempt to remove more heat than they were designed too. At worst, it may indeed run too hot, because the chips used may have different heat characteristics.
Perhaps, just perhaps, it won't be an issue because the speed jump is so small... but really, this guy's done something interesting, not necessarily something practical.
All overclocking is done with some risk, and just because it was successful with one processor doesn't mean it will work with another processor of exactly the same model.
Will people really want to buy yet another version of their favorite movies for $19.99 (price amount is just a guess)?
Let me guess, that's a rhetorical question, right ? We all know the answer is a resounding "no!".
Ask me if I even _want_ to watch a movie on something with a tiny like this, and the answer will be the same.
Sure, I might want to watch a movie on a laptop screen, but once a screen gets smaller than 7 inches or so, do you -really- want to watch a movie produced for widescreen theater release ?? Maybe I could watch cheesy anime on this little screen, but Spiderman 2 ? Why???
Sony knows this, which is exactly why it's a movie that they're making a 'special' promotion over.
I ( and many others, from what I gather ) would prefer a cheaper system that plays great games and does nothing else... but being Sony, they have to try to sell proprietary memory and movies...
The chart in the article has Obj-C listed.. believe it had it listed around 1983 which shocked me.
I've been programming Objective-C personally since 1988. I first saw it on a NeXT cube, so I figured it had to have been there since earlier- but '83 is early.
But, really, I wanted samvo to do an entry for Objective-C programmers in his humorous descriptions list...
doesn't use any drivers, and has a really good battery life without being $100 to replace like an iPod.
It's already been pointed out to you that you don't know what you're talking about ( what iPod drivers? ) but I want to clarify what a previous post said about the battery price- they said it's $50. They can be had much cheaper, and you can replace them with higher-capacity batteries than they ship with.
They are between $25.99 and $39.95, depending on model of iPod and battery capacity.
They give you a couple of 'installation tools' with that, too, though I hear a sharp screwdriver or a couple of guitar picks do the trick if you don't get these 'tools'.
It does connect, at the Millbrae station right across the freeway from SFO airport.
But BART really needs to go around the Bay and connect with the other end of the CalTrain line near San Jose.
That's new since the SFO expansion- I didn't know it met up there. Still, it should connect in SF, don't you think? To get from BART to the CalTrain station in SF, you have to take Muni... which seems kinda silly, since they're like 8 blocks apart. It would have made sense for the rail line that came second ( BART, I think ) to have a stop at the older line... like, from the get-go, when BART was first built.
Thanks for the update. My info's kinda stale, I got out of the peninsula in '98. Saw the writing on the wall, thanks to a trend-setting layoff... that and the peninsula totally annoyed my wife. Damn yuppies.
The two bay area rail systems will probably finally connect in San Jose around 2032, just about the time that driving from SF to San Jose will take 5 hours by car and gas will cost $20 a gallon...
San Francisco with it's excellent Muni and BART systems.
That sound you just heard was every slashdot reader in the SF bay area falling out of their chairs from shock.
It's news to me that these are 'excellent' systems. BART is pretty good, if you want to go where it goes, and at least it finally 'sort of' goes to the airport, I guess. But it doesn't go a lot of places one would like to get to, and oddly enough, it doesn't connect to CalTrain, a local rail system that it really _should_ connect with. Muni is cronically not on time, though for a few lines they do get geek points by having GPS tracking via NextBus... if you're using one of the monitored lines.
That aside, at least SF _has_ public transit in a meaningful sense, which is a lot more than can be said for much of the US.
Totally off-topic ( and yet, actually, mentioned in the story, so is it? ) and yet fantastic Paige from Trading Spaces dirt !
I don't know if I should be happy that everyone is so geeky here that they're not talking about Paige's sex tapes, or if I should be as bewildered as I am... hel-looo, people, SEX TAPES!?!! And they all pile on the carbon monoxide comment. What dorks. I guess nobody can be bothered to click on links to get the joke.
Eh. Same ol' slashdot.
But how is it that I, with a reality-TV-addicted wife ( she's been hooked since the _first_ frickin' "Real World" for cryin' out loud ) don't know about this www.realityblurred.com website!? That guy needs some publicity for his site, a reality TV gossip site the most obvious brilliant website idea I've seen in a while.
TiVo was invented for people to busy to be able to attend complete tv shows.
That's just silly, and not very interesting at all. Tivo is for people who want to watch their choice of TV show on their own time, with the ability to quickly skip lame parts ( like commercials and lame announcers padding the show ). You don't have to be busy to like Tivo - you just have to like TV shows.
I'm not sure what that really buys Apple, unless TiVo has patents critical to making a well-designed DVR. After all, Apple is
Well, at least according to Tivo ( and several companies who have licensed Tivo patents ) they do have patents critical to making a well-designed DVR. But... IF Apple was looking to get in to the DVR space directly themselves ( they're not, IMHO ), they might just license rather than buy, huh?
buying right after and announcement is a good idea, but waiting two weeks after an announcment is even better
Very, very insightful. I wouldn't have thought of that.
Frankly, for my own purchases, I wait until there's a refurbished unit I can buy. It's significantly cheaper, and ( at least with Apple ) the factory warranty is exactly the same. But I just do that because I'm cheap/broke, and have ( through lots of pain ) have learned that I don't have to have the latest great thing _right_ away...
I wouldn't want to suggest to a bunch of slashdotters that they wait before buying the newest gadget, that's blasphemy around here. It's a very brave thing you've done.
The Elgato software simply does not use the video card for acceleration at the moment which is why the requirements are off the chart.
Right. I seem to remember reading somewhere yesterday that Elgato _can't_ use the video card for playback acceleration for whatever reason ( someone was blaming Apple for that )...
I suppose I should have said "but it would be OK for 720p, maybe..." which I guess might just fit Cringley's prediction and Apple's tendancies in the media area ( witness the "good enough" 128kbps AAC quality, not 196kbps as some would prefer ).
From what ( admittedly little ) I know about these HD video streams, you should be able to have video targeted to 720p.
But a video service? Apple has a lot going on, I'm not sure they're making quite such a bold leap.
Everyone talks about the iTunes/iPod bundling as being esential, but I'm sure there's lots of people like me who love the iPod, but could care less about iTune
I'm sure you're right. I'm also sure that the Mac mini, with it's diminutive hard drive, is *not* a conduit for future HD movie sales via iTunes.
I'm still a bit baffled by the folks who listen to Cringley like he knows what Apple has planned next. His guess might be somewhat educated, but it's still a guess, and in many cases, it's a silly, not terribly well-informed one.
Why am I saying this? Every single HD video review I've read has said that, without extra hardware support, a G4 running at 1Ghz doesn't do full 1080i HD playback smoothly. Given this, how the heck is it the playback device for some Apple HD movie download service? But it sounds great to talk about it if you've never tried or even read reviews of the Elgato EyeTV 500 HD tuner.
I'm not saying Apple won't ever come out with such a service. I'm saying they won't come out with it soon, and, without extra hardware, the target delivery platform won't be a Mac mini.
Slashdot Mirror
All I was looking for was for you to say "Windows doesn't really have the stated problems" or "the problems with Windows aren't that bad". I'm actually unsure what to think about the fact that you didn't actually answer the question of if Windows is good enough or if it's a problem begging to be fixed... after being prompted to take a clear position on the question for a second time.
Part of the allure of Exchange is that it combines these features, but... separate software packages do the same job, only differently/better. MeetingMaker is a better calendar app; IMAP servers should allow users to pick their own platform/email client, etc.
Also, some of those Exchange features ( like the ones where they try, and fail, to support small databases? ) are poor at best. I'd prefer separate applications that actually get the job done.
You can argue all you want that the prices are getting closer to what PC prices are, but switching would sitll entail throwing out working hardware to buy new.
Did I recommend throwing out a _working_ system for a new one? No. _If_ the current system is a problem, functionally broken ( note the reason could be other than hardware, i.e. as TFA states, viruses and spyware and security/support cost, etc ) _or_ you're thinking of replacing it anyway, _then_ folks should at least consider a different solution than the previous system. Of course, previous capital investments ( both software and hardware ) are what's keeping M$ as the perceived safe choice for many businesses.
But businesses buy new computers on a regular basis- most every 3 years or so. Why not change OS on the same schedule? Why would it always have to be Windows, regardless of problems that causes?
What's amusing to me is that you don't argue that Windows doesn't really have the stated problems... either it's good enough or it's a problem begging to be fixed, which is it?
True. However, with the advent of OS X, enterprise business apps are on pretty equal footing ( with the notable exception of MS Exchange, though I'd like to take anyone who thinks _that_ is a good system and smack them with a clue stick ).
Obscure in-house projects are much, much easier to port than they were in the past ( please, hire me away from here, I'll do it ! ), and many of those need a re-write anyway ( trust me, i've seen them )... but businesses are likely to go with what they've used in the past. Folks who do hire me ( oh, or you, or someone else ) to port their apps to OS X will be pleasantly surprised that the ports are better apps developed in less time than the originals. Others will keep spending tons of cash to lock down their networks and de-louse their PCs.
So, other than games, which is a real catch-22, I think OS X has essentially caught up. I guess we'll have to wait and see how the market share numbers pan out over the next few years...
Thanks, that was the answer I was looking to provoke when I submitted this story. Of course, RatBastard, true to his name, beat my submission of the same article by a lousy 18 minutes. No, I don't really care... and yes, submitting this story to /. is essentially a troll, although, despite some of the comments being made, it does raise an interesting question.
More interesting is the less-academic "what would it take to get people to change operating systems ?" - in the past, there would have been a longer list of needed things, but now the dominant thing seems to be "games", which I find weird, because there's a huge stack of Mac games and more all the time. The other things - business apps and custom apps - are now pretty much either available under OS X or ( fairly ) easy to port to OS X... it's mainly just games and, in a few cases, "my marketing guys like Exchange servers" even though alternatives ( even better alternatives ) can be found, it boils down to "I'm used to my dark cave".
What's wacky is that poor consistency, little convenice, and not much value are made up for in many cases by big brand recognition. Maybe Apple's upswing really is due to brand recognition brought about by the iPod. Boy, people are stupid...
Did anyone else read that and think that maybe she was swapping Dead tunes ?
The distinction being, of course, that they're actually soldered on. Yet another reason why I won't be doing this to any Mac minis that cross my path.
well, it is all to make the nerds say "you're screwing it all up".
However, you only think it's funny. I don't mean to insult you, but it's kinda lame, really.
Seriously, I mean... it's not very clever, is it? How hard is it to walk into a room full of experts and make them want to correct you by spewing a bunch of obviously confused nonsense? It's not hard at all. Not clever. Except that it's trying to be clever? By sounding dumb on purpose?
Do you want to hang around someone who thinks that sounding dumb on purpose makes them look clever ?
Cooling may indeed be an issue. At the very least, expect to hear a more noise coming from the machine as the fans attempt to remove more heat than they were designed too. At worst, it may indeed run too hot, because the chips used may have different heat characteristics.
Perhaps, just perhaps, it won't be an issue because the speed jump is so small... but really, this guy's done something interesting, not necessarily something practical.
All overclocking is done with some risk, and just because it was successful with one processor doesn't mean it will work with another processor of exactly the same model.
Let me guess, that's a rhetorical question, right ? We all know the answer is a resounding "no!".
Ask me if I even _want_ to watch a movie on something with a tiny like this, and the answer will be the same.
Sure, I might want to watch a movie on a laptop screen, but once a screen gets smaller than 7 inches or so, do you -really- want to watch a movie produced for widescreen theater release ?? Maybe I could watch cheesy anime on this little screen, but Spiderman 2 ? Why???
Sony knows this, which is exactly why it's a movie that they're making a 'special' promotion over.
I ( and many others, from what I gather ) would prefer a cheaper system that plays great games and does nothing else... but being Sony, they have to try to sell proprietary memory and movies...
I've been programming Objective-C personally since 1988. I first saw it on a NeXT cube, so I figured it had to have been there since earlier- but '83 is early.
But, really, I wanted samvo to do an entry for Objective-C programmers in his humorous descriptions list...
It's already been pointed out to you that you don't know what you're talking about ( what iPod drivers? ) but I want to clarify what a previous post said about the battery price- they said it's $50. They can be had much cheaper, and you can replace them with higher-capacity batteries than they ship with.
They are between $25.99 and $39.95, depending on model of iPod and battery capacity.
They give you a couple of 'installation tools' with that, too, though I hear a sharp screwdriver or a couple of guitar picks do the trick if you don't get these 'tools'.
Still, the differences between C++ and Objective-C might provide for amusing distinction betweent the two...
Seriously. TiVo. No decisions. Just TiVo it.
And uh, regarding your response to your own post, although you were joking, you shouldn't need cable. UPN is broadcast.
Just admit it- you weren't going to watch anyway.
That's new since the SFO expansion- I didn't know it met up there. Still, it should connect in SF, don't you think? To get from BART to the CalTrain station in SF, you have to take Muni... which seems kinda silly, since they're like 8 blocks apart. It would have made sense for the rail line that came second ( BART, I think ) to have a stop at the older line... like, from the get-go, when BART was first built.
Thanks for the update. My info's kinda stale, I got out of the peninsula in '98. Saw the writing on the wall, thanks to a trend-setting layoff... that and the peninsula totally annoyed my wife. Damn yuppies.
The two bay area rail systems will probably finally connect in San Jose around 2032, just about the time that driving from SF to San Jose will take 5 hours by car and gas will cost $20 a gallon...
That sound you just heard was every slashdot reader in the SF bay area falling out of their chairs from shock.
It's news to me that these are 'excellent' systems. BART is pretty good, if you want to go where it goes, and at least it finally 'sort of' goes to the airport, I guess. But it doesn't go a lot of places one would like to get to, and oddly enough, it doesn't connect to CalTrain, a local rail system that it really _should_ connect with. Muni is cronically not on time, though for a few lines they do get geek points by having GPS tracking via NextBus... if you're using one of the monitored lines.
That aside, at least SF _has_ public transit in a meaningful sense, which is a lot more than can be said for much of the US.
dude, if you _have_ a torrent, why are you keeping it to yourself ?
har har...
Nobody asked because we all know you'd have posted it in your first comment if you did...
Smart folks.
Totally off-topic ( and yet, actually, mentioned in the story, so is it? ) and yet fantastic Paige from Trading Spaces dirt !
I don't know if I should be happy that everyone is so geeky here that they're not talking about Paige's sex tapes, or if I should be as bewildered as I am... hel-looo, people, SEX TAPES!?!! And they all pile on the carbon monoxide comment. What dorks. I guess nobody can be bothered to click on links to get the joke.
Eh. Same ol' slashdot.
But how is it that I, with a reality-TV-addicted wife ( she's been hooked since the _first_ frickin' "Real World" for cryin' out loud ) don't know about this www.realityblurred.com website!? That guy needs some publicity for his site, a reality TV gossip site the most obvious brilliant website idea I've seen in a while.
Pirates have been cooler than ninjas ever since The Spongebob Movie came out.
Wait. Check that. Ok. Maybe not... cool is in the eyepatch of the beholder?
That's just silly, and not very interesting at all. Tivo is for people who want to watch their choice of TV show on their own time, with the ability to quickly skip lame parts ( like commercials and lame announcers padding the show ). You don't have to be busy to like Tivo - you just have to like TV shows.
Well, at least according to Tivo ( and several companies who have licensed Tivo patents ) they do have patents critical to making a well-designed DVR. But... IF Apple was looking to get in to the DVR space directly themselves ( they're not, IMHO ), they might just license rather than buy, huh?
Very, very insightful. I wouldn't have thought of that.
Frankly, for my own purchases, I wait until there's a refurbished unit I can buy. It's significantly cheaper, and ( at least with Apple ) the factory warranty is exactly the same. But I just do that because I'm cheap/broke, and have ( through lots of pain ) have learned that I don't have to have the latest great thing _right_ away...
I wouldn't want to suggest to a bunch of slashdotters that they wait before buying the newest gadget, that's blasphemy around here. It's a very brave thing you've done.
Really great post.
Thanks!
Right. I seem to remember reading somewhere yesterday that Elgato _can't_ use the video card for playback acceleration for whatever reason ( someone was blaming Apple for that )...
I suppose I should have said "but it would be OK for 720p, maybe..." which I guess might just fit Cringley's prediction and Apple's tendancies in the media area ( witness the "good enough" 128kbps AAC quality, not 196kbps as some would prefer ).
From what ( admittedly little ) I know about these HD video streams, you should be able to have video targeted to 720p.
But a video service? Apple has a lot going on, I'm not sure they're making quite such a bold leap.
I'm sure you're right. I'm also sure that the Mac mini, with it's diminutive hard drive, is *not* a conduit for future HD movie sales via iTunes.
I'm still a bit baffled by the folks who listen to Cringley like he knows what Apple has planned next. His guess might be somewhat educated, but it's still a guess, and in many cases, it's a silly, not terribly well-informed one.
Why am I saying this? Every single HD video review I've read has said that, without extra hardware support, a G4 running at 1Ghz doesn't do full 1080i HD playback smoothly. Given this, how the heck is it the playback device for some Apple HD movie download service? But it sounds great to talk about it if you've never tried or even read reviews of the Elgato EyeTV 500 HD tuner.
I'm not saying Apple won't ever come out with such a service. I'm saying they won't come out with it soon, and, without extra hardware, the target delivery platform won't be a Mac mini.