"Pre MS Windows 95, to set up something like a Zip drive, which was the popular external removable mass storage device, required a hack to get the PC to recognize it, then some drivers. it was not trivial."
What was that hack? Are you saying that PCs didn't have SCSI? Is this the device that you claim requires a BIOS mod? Who do you think was even capable of such a thing?
Zip drives were introduced in 1994 in both IDE and SCSI flavors. I believe there was a parallel port version as well and later there was ATAPI and USB. None required "BIOS modifications" as there is no such thing. For PCs with SCSI, Zip drives appear as hard drives with removable media. PCs supported those just as well as Macs did.
PCs have a great deal more configuration flexibility than macs do. It is both a strength and a weakness. Could macs use the IDE version of Zip drives back then? No, but PCs could use all versions.
"The Keyboard is just a symbol of the lack of thought that went into the PC..."
Not really. Originally the PC only had one connector for the keyboard. The PS/2 changed that connector and added a 2nd identical one. Blame IBM for that. Some PCs actually had the ability to support the keyboard and mouse plugged in arbitrarily but standardization of the 8042/8051 code did away with that. Color coding was adopted in the PnP times. Setup of a machine, regardless of the ease or difficulty, is of no significance over the life of a computer (except to mac users who love to criticise PCs for it). I'd like to see a computer that can't support a keyboard on any of its USB ports. USB isn't supposed to work that way.
"Everything about 'open standards' and 'open this and that' are a myth."
Really? How so? Did you own any of the IBM PC tech ref manuals that you could buy at the IBM store? They were detailed and definitive.
"Compaq broke open the the standards..."
Really? In what way? The PC was built with off-the-shelf parts and was thoroughly documented by IBM. Compaq's main task was the cleanroom reimplementing of the BIOS (which it certainly did not share with other cloners).
"The myth of various sources of OS was a myth since 1990, because everyone used MS DOS, and everyone moved to MS Windows."
Really? Fact is that many customers required IBM PC-DOS, not MS-DOS. There were other DOS competitors, plus SCO, Interactive 386/ix, Banyan, Novell, OS/2, and several Windows competitors in the early days as well. Having worked in the industry at that time, I am quite familiar with the test suites that PCs were subjected to. There was no OS monopoly.
"I can count on one hand the number of non-commercial enterprises that ran OS/2, and most of the commercial ones just ran it because it was IBM."
So clearly you aren't an expert on OS/2. IBM ultimately provided OS/2 support for a long, long time because it had many large customers that demanded it. OS/2 was originally Microsoft's successor to Windows so it had a great deal of support behind it at one point.
"Recall we have hundreds of PC manufacturers, but in terms of shipping computers the list is Dell and HP with around 20% each, and Gateway and Apple with 5-10% each. This puts Apple in third or fourth position in terms of PC sales."
The article was about Apple's failure in the 90's. They weren't claiming that Apple is a failure today.
Regarding the number of PC manufacturers and their market shares, it's a fact that any of those companies could falter and go under without impacting the PC market itself. In fact, even Intel could fail and the PC market would continue. Apple, on the other hand, is the sole champion of its market, and if Apple falters the mac could very well die. It is not Microsoft, nor Intel, nor Compaq, IBM, or Dell that caused Apple's decline. It was all of them. The PC platform through it's openness and broad industry support forced the mac into a niche.
Really? Please point out what hole I'm in. Here's the entirety of my original post. Please point out where I'm mistaken:
"This machine is the result of Dell buying Alienware."
"The toughness of this machine, I suspect, is another example of Alienware's influence."
What evidence do you have for making these statements?
"Someone also mentioned RAID 0..."
The Dell website lists RAID 0 or RAID 1.
"I suspect it's packing a Core Duo."
Why don't you look it up on Dell's website then?
All talk, no facts.
You will notice that I pointed out Dell's RAID features and I did not point out the factual error regarding the processor. You did though.
In constrast, all you've done is regurgitate the Dell website and we're all very grateful. That fact of the matter is that the original poster posted no facts, only speculation and opinion, and some of the speculation was totally unnecessary.
"This is last one, because more just does not make sense, even if you find some satisfaction, in what you manage to produce."
What a shame. It so enjoyable trying to figure out what you're trying to say. Too bad you don't make a similar effort.
"Which is further nonsense, as Apple is not competing in PC market, as Dell does, you see."
No, you don't see. Apple doesn't have to license OS X to Dell to run on Dell's generic PCs. The suggestion was to leverage Dell, not use Dell's existing products. Apple could lock OS X to specific Dell machines just as it does today. Once you realize that, even though you never will, you'll realize the rest of your rant is absurdly meanlingless.
"What software iPod runs, do you even KNOW, and you are geek, you must suppose. Shallow one."
Another spurious brain fart. What are you trying to say?
"There is no place for TWO brands, at least not now, under current IDEA."
How the hell do you know?
"Dell is incapable helping Apple along Gartner proposal - that's it."
State your opinion as though it's fact then. You are free to believe whatever you like, but just because you disagree with Gartner doesn't mean that they know nothing.
"They do not get at all current IDEA of THAT PARTICULAR company..."
You seem to be convinced of that even though you don't know the ideas of that particular company, you have totally failed to grasp what Gartner has said, and you demonstrated time and again a total lack of reading comprehension.
"Not me, boy - it will be first time, I'll allow myself naming YOU an idiot. But by now at least I know for certain, you deserved it."
I doubt you even know what an idiot is. Perhaps when you start looking up words in the dictionary you can start with that one.
"Even if it seems to you so, or you wish it was so..."
It's clear that it is so and I don't need to wish it to be. All I wish is that you continue to spew your random nonsense so that I may thrash you some more.
Now, prove to me again why Gartner doesn't know what a product is because their opinion, which you've demonstrated you completely fail to understand, doesn't agree with your own. Please? Try not to look so much like an idiot this time.
Why should I? The parent didn't bother so I was under no obligation. Why don't you refute my claims then? While you're at it, why don't you link to any information that supports that notion that the Dell machine comes from the Alienware connection?
"Sculley's big mistake was joining forces with IBM and Motorola in the PowerPC debacle, but almost everyone at the time (apart from Intel) thought Risc was the future, and that the x86 would die, so it's hard to criticise him for that."
I really agree with that. As an engineer at a PC company at that time (and before that) it was commonly believed that the x86 would run out of gas by the 486, but by the time of the PowerPC effort it had become clear that the x86 could remain competitive through superior engineering effort (and Intel had the money for it). While the PowerPC made curious tradeoffs of performance versus cost, it became increasingly clear that the x86 would be the eventual winner regardless of who the competitor was. PC makers knew it. Apple did not.
"The clones all used the reference board designs, even down to the add-in HPV video cards used in the 1st gen PPC machines."
That's true of PCs as well. IBM did those reference designs. That's not the difference.
Back when PCs began being cloned, IBM had a dominant position selling to business, it enjoyed a quality reputation, and it had high margins that created an umbrella for clone makers to operate under. A clone was considered to cost less but be of lesser quality and was not serious competition for IBM in many of its markets. Despite IBM machines being slower and costing more, there were compelling reasons to buy them anyway. Apple got beat by its clones because Apple was slower and cost more PLUS many believed that the clones were every bit as good as any Apple. That was likely true by then. Apple's clones were better clones that the PC ones in the early days and the margins weren't as high. Apple simply waited too late to open its platform. It may have failed at that in any case.
"Today, the current iMac is a very attractive machine, costing only a little more than most PC's but offering things like widescreen display, Intel Core 2 Duo CPU's, and multimedia support galore."
Are any of those features somehow different than the PC's the iMac only costs a little more than? Multimedia support galore? Are you saying that PC's don't offer multimedia support that compares? Intel CPU's? Widescreen displays?
Apparently you aren't aware that Photoshop on the PC has a configurable option to limit system memory allocation as a percentage of physical memory.
The sad aspect of your comment is that you think having the ability to manage something that is clearly the responsibility of the software is somehow an advantage. Memory management is clearly the responsibility of the system, not the user. What matters is how well the application runs, and (ignoring the new Intel macs) it's been a long, long time since the mac was competitive at running Photoshop. Next we'll here how great it was that Photoshop could use the mac's second processor even though the rest of the system couldn't.
In either system, having enough memory was important. Without it you couldn't dedicate memory to PS on a mac. With it, swapping would be controlled on the PC.
"You could hook up a external mass storage drive without hacking the BIOS."
So could the PC. That one makes no sense. No doubt macs were easier to set up. There were closed systems after all.
"The general quality of the whole industry declined, and we found ourselves in a situation where nothing worked. Except for the Apple which was an expensive machine."
That's complete bullshit. PC compatibility was spotty in the early years but it steadily improved. There was no idustry-wide decline in quality as you say. Exactly the opposite.
"You still have to do color coded keyboard and mouse."
You seem a little fixated on this as though it matters. If this were an actual problem then the PC world would have switched to USB by now. They haven't because it doesn't in spite of the fact that the PC industry developed the solution.
"This is the problem of the monopoly."
Microsoft didn't have a monopoly at this time. It competed with OS/2 for the desktop and many alternatives on the server side. Pricing for Windows at the time was modest compared to the hardware costs.
"MS just gathers money, and only occasionally competes."
So this explanation of Apple's failure is degenerating into a rag on Microsoft? What a surprise.
"In almost every establishment, there has been a profound lack of support, which results in the PC not being used effeciently."
That's also bullshit. There are reasons why PCs are in business and Macs aren't. One is multiple source, Another is the availability of business apps and compatability. Another is support. Vendors don't get into large accounts without being able to provide support. That's where IBM made its money, and vendors learned to compete by offering similar levels of support. There's a reason Dell is dominant and Gateway isn't. Dell learned how to sell to big business.
"And, with XP, with the admin lockout, the deficiency in support is even more evident..."
You're going crazy here.
"And these machines are not cheap. If support personnel was adequate, we would be looking at an additional $100 per years per machine, and that is just at the local level."
Sounds like your company doesn't know how to support its employees. The myth is that somehow that would be different with Apple. None of that matters because it isn't central to Apple's decline.
The fact is that PCs were an open documented standard that fostered a clone business that operated effectively under the umbrella of IBM's (and later Compaq's) high margins. The multiple source nature of the platform encouraged adoption as well as hardware and software development by 3rd parties. PCs ran multiple operating systems, came in all shapes and sizes, and could be used for a variety of applications. Meanwhile, Apple chose to keep their platform closed until their market share slipped away from them, and once they opened it they found themselves getting beaten by their clones because they didn't have the market position that IBM had when they were in a similar situation. Of course, IBM was eventually forced out of the market as well.
Microsoft was a ferocious and merciless competitor, but by the time they established Windows as a monopoly Apple's dominance was long gone. It was the ubiquity of the PC that did Apple in, not Microsoft. Large accounts are what made the PC and Apple was foolishly never a player there. Arguably they could not be since they weren't established in business like IBM and they were the sole champion of their platform, unlike the hundreds selling the PC.
I'm ignoring all your attempts to change the subject. The argument at hand is whether Gartner "knows what a product is". The claim is that they don't since their advice in the aricle rubbed the original poster the wrong way.
"They DO NOT GET APPLE PRODUCT. They got their recommendation of no value, that's what they got themselves."
Finally, something relevant (though meaningless). Now, prove that, whatever it is you're trying to say.
"Gartner says Apple should concentrate on what it does best -- create software -- and make use of Dell's production and distribution infrastructure"
Which is not to say that Apple should make its software run on generic PCs from Dell. They could partner with Dell to provide machines that were certified to run OS X and even sell them through the Apple store. Gartner only said that they believed Dell could offer Apple a lower cost structure that would make Apple more competitive. Perhaps you should think harder.
"Intel is unlikely to continue to subsidise Apple, the analyst argues"
That was totally unsubstantiated by the article. The suggestion is that Intel is losing money on Apple sales but I don't believe it. Nevertheless, that is the basis for the article and only Apple and Intel know the truth about it.
"Have you seen in the same comments - people are laughing at the clues this tank spews. This is NOT analysis of any worthy level."
Yes I have and now I see. You believe that, since you disagree with Gartner, they must know nothing about product. You are as big an idiot as the original poster then, and a far poorer communicator as well. Too bad your 20 years experience have taught you nothing.
"And the remainder deserves returning back to you:"
Tnank you for another content-free, inscrutable reply. It's clear that you're an Apple fan. Too bad you can't read commentary for what it is.
If the girl is got enough she's going to make the rules regardless. This is a club we're talking about, after all, and hot girls get what they want.
Notice that I never said they were entitled to anything, I was simply pointing out the facts. There will be guys willing to give the hot ones what they want even if you don't and, odds are, a hot girl in a club isn't going to respect you regardless of what you do. She views her assets as a bartering tool. You'd better offer her something worthy in exchange.
Now, if you think a little abuse gets you further with a hot girl then you must be hot yourself. Good for you---it's amazing what you can get when you're the object of desire more than they are.
As for me, I don't need lessons on how to deal with girls. I have absolutely no interest in them. I just felt an inherently sexist topic (started by Steve Jobs in his interview) deserved a blunt observation. Somehow I doubt that the hot girl in the club is going to take Jobs up on his offer to share a little earwax, no matter how he disrespects them like you advise, until they realize how much money he has. He stands a far better chance of picking up women by passing out iPods along with the free drinks.
Despite the popularity of making unsubstantiated claims here, it's impossible to know unless you're an insider. There's no reason to believe that any of the music files are modified in any way when loaded onto a Zune regardless of the mechanism. Files that are shared MAY be unconditionally restricted to the 3 and 3 policy but there's no reason to believe that either. All that's been said so far is that content that is shared through WiFi will be restricted. That doesn't mean the mechanism that provides that function can't support more flexibility.
The sharing feature that Zune offers must be restricted but it's also a feature that surpasses anything offered by any other device. If such a feature isn't appealing then there's nothing compelling one to use it, but the claim that the DRM built into the feature somehow makes the Zune crappy clearly comes from those who have an axe to grind.
We all know how heavy the 4G iPod was. What a travesty to compare it to a previous generation competitor immediately after comparing it to the current one...
You made up a quote and then analyzed it? Who are you attributing that statement to?
"And I'm sure the reason for this feature is that Microsoft promised the record companies an end to.mp3 trading if the record companies helped Microsoft become a success."
The reason for the "feature" is to get around copyright infringment.
"If existing.mp3s are wrapped in DRM as part of a compelling prouct feature..."
They aren't. Only the feature itself includes it. Further, the original mp3s aren't touched. iPods can't share their mp3s with Windows Media Player or any other non-iTunes player either.
"At least iTunes leaves your.mp3s alone."
iTunes does and so does the app Zune uses on the PC. An iPod doesn't allow mp3s to be copied back to the computer so it's no different than what you're complaining about.
"...and it will betray the arrangement."
What arrangement? The one you imagined after you analyzed a quote that you made up?
"The record companies are the only party that can really help this crappy device become more compelling than the iPod by offering content to Zune Marketplace ahead of iTunes."
There is nothing DRM-wise that makes a Zune more "crappy" than an iPod.
"The bullcrap about strocking the surface and melting reservations is so idiotic anybody with half a brain can see this jackass all he wants is brownie points with some effing provider for whatever his her bussiness is about."
Yes, because we all know that drooling over industrial design is only allowed with Apple products.
"All we care is weather the so called round button interface is simply enough to operate like you know what or is a stupid army-knife click-o-rama choke-full of features 4-way navigation pad where you have to memorize wich direction does what."
That's all we care about? Speak for yourself. Sounds like you're afraid for Zune to be faily and completely compared to an iPod.
"Like Jobs said, it's much more fun to stick your headphone in her ear."
Yeah, because then she'll listen to it more than 3 times. This whole bullshit argument was started by Jobs though. Zune is not marketed as a device to aid you in getting dates.
"Why does everyone talk about sharing music while you talk with some hot girl you met in a club/bar/wherever?"
Everyone isn't.
"...what are the odds that said girl will have dumped her $300 Ipod for a Zune and will be able to recieve your music?"
If she's a hot girl you should be willing to buy her one. If not, some other guy will.
"Where do you meet people who want to trade music anyway!?"
Everywhere.
"Maybe I'm just weird, but when I go somewhere to meet girls, I dont even bring my mp3 player."
No, you're not weird, but there may be times when you have your player that you meet a girl anyway. Besides, the feature isn't to help you get a date. It is more likely to be used with friends in general.
"Sounds lengthy, but if you're trying to chat up a hot prospect 20 seconds is plenty of time to break the ice."
The description was lengthy, but it's hard to imagine it working differently. He saw another Zune device, selected a song, and sent it to him. He said it was accceptably fast, unlike Steve Jobs who, after seeing only an internet demo, declared it to be too slow.
"Welcome to the dark side"
Yes, because without it the feature would be in violation of copyright.
"Clearly the reviewer is happy with DRM."
He didn't say that. He said the feature worked well. He made no mention of DRM (which is mandatory to have the feature).
Were you involved in development of these peripherals at this time? I was, and I watched these USB devices get tested every day for more than a year before the iMac even existed. One of my best friends was dedicated to it. There were interoperability plugfests occurring regularly. Just exactly what do you think was being tested if none of these peripheral makers weren't bothering? How did the iMac even boot if there weren't USB devices available for Apple to use well prior to announcement? Are you that great a fool?
You can make up your own history all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that USB had a long, deliberate, well-supported development cycle that was fully supported by peripheral makers, PC vendors, and Intel. Apple did nothing other than lay claim to the glory after the fact. The devices existed and their development costs was funded entirely by the PC world, just as most everything in a Mac is today.
They chose USB, just not quite yet. After all, MS wasn't supporting it yet even though every PC manufacturer was. The design of USB was deliverately done to make things cheap, and manufacturers had their products lined up already. I will remind you again what the parent posted:
"When none of the PC manufacturers jumped onto USB, Apple did."
This is an outright lie. All PC manufacturers were fully into USB. It was Microsoft that was behind.
"Then Apple released the USB only iMac, creating a whole new crop of consumers who would need new periphreals. Manufactuers could now make USB devices compatible with this captive market, and just about every PC made in the last couple years."...which they had already done thanks to those PC manufacturers and Intel. All the iMac did was encourage some of the initial peripherals to be in pastel colors. Apple contributed NOTHING to USB.
"Intel invented USB, but Apple is the one who got the ball rolling, and that's a fact."
No, it's an outright fabrication coming straight from Apple's lying mouth.
"Talk about making shit up."
It's not made up. Firewire was an interconnect Apple developed but didn't bring to market. It only lived on because Sony needed something and USB didn't exist yet. Sony shipped firewire in 1995. When did Apple?
"Hardly. There was always composite out, and later USB 2.0, although inferior to Firewire."
Sony needed a digital interface for DV and would have developed their own had Apple not had nuts and bolts available. Now, plenty of devices will use USB 2 to do the same. It's completely adequate since DV rates aren't very high by firewire or USB 2 standards.
I know is satisfying to the ego to believe that Apple invents everything. It's just not true. Firewire would have never existed had a compelling new device, the killer app, not come about. It was that device, not Apple, that delivered us firewire and it's STILL that device that keeps people using firewire. In the case of USB, Apple was but a mere blip on the screen of USB history.
"Yep! It is phenomenon, engineering, creative approach thing, that did not happen before in exact context..."
Really? The mac is over two decades old. It is plodding along; becoming less differentiated all the time.
"it is still being CREATED right now. It happens right now, tomorrow, cannot yet be analysed, because it didn't happen yet. Open for opportunities, throw yours into, y'know!"
Woohoo! Just like everything else.
"Apple EVENTUALLY seeking channels of Dell because of (good!) Intel processor (or what?)."
This was never claimed by anyone. Perhaps you need a remedial reading class.
"Why both of you are talking nonsense?"
What nonsense am I talking? That Gartner DOES know what a product is? I've never defended their position but I do take offense to idiotic comments. Interesting to see you jump in a take it up a notch.
"I knew Dell a little, ir was (and remains) miles away from Apple stuff."
You are free to judge as you like, but Dell's product quality was never part of the discussion. If you want to have that argument, take it somewhere else.
"Why do I have to insult you? I do not want it at all. Let's stop here, please."
You are free to stop, but please learn to read. No need to continue proving yourself a fool.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh irony! You are so clever. If only something were ironic.
Thanks for you coherent, fact-filled arguments. I'll stop digging now, and I suggest you stop beating your wife.
"Pre MS Windows 95, to set up something like a Zip drive, which was the popular external removable mass storage device, required a hack to get the PC to recognize it, then some drivers. it was not trivial."
What was that hack? Are you saying that PCs didn't have SCSI? Is this the device that you claim requires a BIOS mod? Who do you think was even capable of such a thing?
Zip drives were introduced in 1994 in both IDE and SCSI flavors. I believe there was a parallel port version as well and later there was ATAPI and USB. None required "BIOS modifications" as there is no such thing. For PCs with SCSI, Zip drives appear as hard drives with removable media. PCs supported those just as well as Macs did.
PCs have a great deal more configuration flexibility than macs do. It is both a strength and a weakness. Could macs use the IDE version of Zip drives back then? No, but PCs could use all versions.
"The Keyboard is just a symbol of the lack of thought that went into the PC..."
Not really. Originally the PC only had one connector for the keyboard. The PS/2 changed that connector and added a 2nd identical one. Blame IBM for that. Some PCs actually had the ability to support the keyboard and mouse plugged in arbitrarily but standardization of the 8042/8051 code did away with that. Color coding was adopted in the PnP times. Setup of a machine, regardless of the ease or difficulty, is of no significance over the life of a computer (except to mac users who love to criticise PCs for it). I'd like to see a computer that can't support a keyboard on any of its USB ports. USB isn't supposed to work that way.
"Everything about 'open standards' and 'open this and that' are a myth."
Really? How so? Did you own any of the IBM PC tech ref manuals that you could buy at the IBM store? They were detailed and definitive.
"Compaq broke open the the standards..."
Really? In what way? The PC was built with off-the-shelf parts and was thoroughly documented by IBM. Compaq's main task was the cleanroom reimplementing of the BIOS (which it certainly did not share with other cloners).
"The myth of various sources of OS was a myth since 1990, because everyone used MS DOS, and everyone moved to MS Windows."
Really? Fact is that many customers required IBM PC-DOS, not MS-DOS. There were other DOS competitors, plus SCO, Interactive 386/ix, Banyan, Novell, OS/2, and several Windows competitors in the early days as well. Having worked in the industry at that time, I am quite familiar with the test suites that PCs were subjected to. There was no OS monopoly.
"I can count on one hand the number of non-commercial enterprises that ran OS/2, and most of the commercial ones just ran it because it was IBM."
So clearly you aren't an expert on OS/2. IBM ultimately provided OS/2 support for a long, long time because it had many large customers that demanded it. OS/2 was originally Microsoft's successor to Windows so it had a great deal of support behind it at one point.
"Recall we have hundreds of PC manufacturers, but in terms of shipping computers the list is Dell and HP with around 20% each, and Gateway and Apple with 5-10% each. This puts Apple in third or fourth position in terms of PC sales."
The article was about Apple's failure in the 90's. They weren't claiming that Apple is a failure today.
Regarding the number of PC manufacturers and their market shares, it's a fact that any of those companies could falter and go under without impacting the PC market itself. In fact, even Intel could fail and the PC market would continue. Apple, on the other hand, is the sole champion of its market, and if Apple falters the mac could very well die. It is not Microsoft, nor Intel, nor Compaq, IBM, or Dell that caused Apple's decline. It was all of them. The PC platform through it's openness and broad industry support forced the mac into a niche.
Really? Please point out what hole I'm in. Here's the entirety of my original post. Please point out where I'm mistaken:
"This machine is the result of Dell buying Alienware."
"The toughness of this machine, I suspect, is another example of Alienware's influence."
What evidence do you have for making these statements?
"Someone also mentioned RAID 0..."
The Dell website lists RAID 0 or RAID 1.
"I suspect it's packing a Core Duo."
Why don't you look it up on Dell's website then?
All talk, no facts.
You will notice that I pointed out Dell's RAID features and I did not point out the factual error regarding the processor. You did though.
In constrast, all you've done is regurgitate the Dell website and we're all very grateful. That fact of the matter is that the original poster posted no facts, only speculation and opinion, and some of the speculation was totally unnecessary.
"This is last one, because more just does not make sense, even if you find some satisfaction, in what you manage to produce."
What a shame. It so enjoyable trying to figure out what you're trying to say. Too bad you don't make a similar effort.
"Which is further nonsense, as Apple is not competing in PC market, as Dell does, you see."
No, you don't see. Apple doesn't have to license OS X to Dell to run on Dell's generic PCs. The suggestion was to leverage Dell, not use Dell's existing products. Apple could lock OS X to specific Dell machines just as it does today. Once you realize that, even though you never will, you'll realize the rest of your rant is absurdly meanlingless.
"What software iPod runs, do you even KNOW, and you are geek, you must suppose. Shallow one."
Another spurious brain fart. What are you trying to say?
"There is no place for TWO brands, at least not now, under current IDEA."
How the hell do you know?
"Dell is incapable helping Apple along Gartner proposal - that's it."
State your opinion as though it's fact then. You are free to believe whatever you like, but just because you disagree with Gartner doesn't mean that they know nothing.
"They do not get at all current IDEA of THAT PARTICULAR company..."
You seem to be convinced of that even though you don't know the ideas of that particular company, you have totally failed to grasp what Gartner has said, and you demonstrated time and again a total lack of reading comprehension.
"Not me, boy - it will be first time, I'll allow myself naming YOU an idiot. But by now at least I know for certain, you deserved it."
I doubt you even know what an idiot is. Perhaps when you start looking up words in the dictionary you can start with that one.
"Even if it seems to you so, or you wish it was so..."
It's clear that it is so and I don't need to wish it to be. All I wish is that you continue to spew your random nonsense so that I may thrash you some more.
Now, prove to me again why Gartner doesn't know what a product is because their opinion, which you've demonstrated you completely fail to understand, doesn't agree with your own. Please? Try not to look so much like an idiot this time.
Why should I? The parent didn't bother so I was under no obligation. Why don't you refute my claims then? While you're at it, why don't you link to any information that supports that notion that the Dell machine comes from the Alienware connection?
"Sculley's big mistake was joining forces with IBM and Motorola in the PowerPC debacle, but almost everyone at the time (apart from Intel) thought Risc was the future, and that the x86 would die, so it's hard to criticise him for that."
I really agree with that. As an engineer at a PC company at that time (and before that) it was commonly believed that the x86 would run out of gas by the 486, but by the time of the PowerPC effort it had become clear that the x86 could remain competitive through superior engineering effort (and Intel had the money for it). While the PowerPC made curious tradeoffs of performance versus cost, it became increasingly clear that the x86 would be the eventual winner regardless of who the competitor was. PC makers knew it. Apple did not.
"The clones all used the reference board designs, even down to the add-in HPV video cards used in the 1st gen PPC machines."
That's true of PCs as well. IBM did those reference designs. That's not the difference.
Back when PCs began being cloned, IBM had a dominant position selling to business, it enjoyed a quality reputation, and it had high margins that created an umbrella for clone makers to operate under. A clone was considered to cost less but be of lesser quality and was not serious competition for IBM in many of its markets. Despite IBM machines being slower and costing more, there were compelling reasons to buy them anyway. Apple got beat by its clones because Apple was slower and cost more PLUS many believed that the clones were every bit as good as any Apple. That was likely true by then. Apple's clones were better clones that the PC ones in the early days and the margins weren't as high. Apple simply waited too late to open its platform. It may have failed at that in any case.
Sad that you can't get modded up since you're exactly right, as was the parent.
It wasn't just users switching to NT, software houses switched platforms as well.
"Today, the current iMac is a very attractive machine, costing only a little more than most PC's but offering things like widescreen display, Intel Core 2 Duo CPU's, and multimedia support galore."
Are any of those features somehow different than the PC's the iMac only costs a little more than? Multimedia support galore? Are you saying that PC's don't offer multimedia support that compares? Intel CPU's? Widescreen displays?
Apparently you aren't aware that Photoshop on the PC has a configurable option to limit system memory allocation as a percentage of physical memory.
The sad aspect of your comment is that you think having the ability to manage something that is clearly the responsibility of the software is somehow an advantage. Memory management is clearly the responsibility of the system, not the user. What matters is how well the application runs, and (ignoring the new Intel macs) it's been a long, long time since the mac was competitive at running Photoshop. Next we'll here how great it was that Photoshop could use the mac's second processor even though the rest of the system couldn't.
In either system, having enough memory was important. Without it you couldn't dedicate memory to PS on a mac. With it, swapping would be controlled on the PC.
"You could hook up a external mass storage drive without hacking the BIOS."
So could the PC. That one makes no sense. No doubt macs were easier to set up. There were closed systems after all.
"The general quality of the whole industry declined, and we found ourselves in a situation where nothing worked. Except for the Apple which was an expensive machine."
That's complete bullshit. PC compatibility was spotty in the early years but it steadily improved. There was no idustry-wide decline in quality as you say. Exactly the opposite.
"You still have to do color coded keyboard and mouse."
You seem a little fixated on this as though it matters. If this were an actual problem then the PC world would have switched to USB by now. They haven't because it doesn't in spite of the fact that the PC industry developed the solution.
"This is the problem of the monopoly."
Microsoft didn't have a monopoly at this time. It competed with OS/2 for the desktop and many alternatives on the server side. Pricing for Windows at the time was modest compared to the hardware costs.
"MS just gathers money, and only occasionally competes."
So this explanation of Apple's failure is degenerating into a rag on Microsoft? What a surprise.
"In almost every establishment, there has been a profound lack of support, which results in the PC not being used effeciently."
That's also bullshit. There are reasons why PCs are in business and Macs aren't. One is multiple source, Another is the availability of business apps and compatability. Another is support. Vendors don't get into large accounts without being able to provide support. That's where IBM made its money, and vendors learned to compete by offering similar levels of support. There's a reason Dell is dominant and Gateway isn't. Dell learned how to sell to big business.
"And, with XP, with the admin lockout, the deficiency in support is even more evident..."
You're going crazy here.
"And these machines are not cheap. If support personnel was adequate, we would be looking at an additional $100 per years per machine, and that is just at the local level."
Sounds like your company doesn't know how to support its employees. The myth is that somehow that would be different with Apple. None of that matters because it isn't central to Apple's decline.
The fact is that PCs were an open documented standard that fostered a clone business that operated effectively under the umbrella of IBM's (and later Compaq's) high margins. The multiple source nature of the platform encouraged adoption as well as hardware and software development by 3rd parties. PCs ran multiple operating systems, came in all shapes and sizes, and could be used for a variety of applications. Meanwhile, Apple chose to keep their platform closed until their market share slipped away from them, and once they opened it they found themselves getting beaten by their clones because they didn't have the market position that IBM had when they were in a similar situation. Of course, IBM was eventually forced out of the market as well.
Microsoft was a ferocious and merciless competitor, but by the time they established Windows as a monopoly Apple's dominance was long gone. It was the ubiquity of the PC that did Apple in, not Microsoft. Large accounts are what made the PC and Apple was foolishly never a player there. Arguably they could not be since they weren't established in business like IBM and they were the sole champion of their platform, unlike the hundreds selling the PC.
I'm ignoring all your attempts to change the subject. The argument at hand is whether Gartner "knows what a product is". The claim is that they don't since their advice in the aricle rubbed the original poster the wrong way.
"They DO NOT GET APPLE PRODUCT. They got their recommendation of no value, that's what they got themselves."
Finally, something relevant (though meaningless). Now, prove that, whatever it is you're trying to say.
"Gartner says Apple should concentrate on what it does best -- create software -- and make use of Dell's production and distribution infrastructure"
Which is not to say that Apple should make its software run on generic PCs from Dell. They could partner with Dell to provide machines that were certified to run OS X and even sell them through the Apple store. Gartner only said that they believed Dell could offer Apple a lower cost structure that would make Apple more competitive. Perhaps you should think harder.
"Intel is unlikely to continue to subsidise Apple, the analyst argues"
That was totally unsubstantiated by the article. The suggestion is that Intel is losing money on Apple sales but I don't believe it. Nevertheless, that is the basis for the article and only Apple and Intel know the truth about it.
"Have you seen in the same comments - people are laughing at the clues this tank spews. This is NOT analysis of any worthy level."
Yes I have and now I see. You believe that, since you disagree with Gartner, they must know nothing about product. You are as big an idiot as the original poster then, and a far poorer communicator as well. Too bad your 20 years experience have taught you nothing.
"And the remainder deserves returning back to you:"
Tnank you for another content-free, inscrutable reply. It's clear that you're an Apple fan. Too bad you can't read commentary for what it is.
If the girl is got enough she's going to make the rules regardless. This is a club we're talking about, after all, and hot girls get what they want.
Notice that I never said they were entitled to anything, I was simply pointing out the facts. There will be guys willing to give the hot ones what they want even if you don't and, odds are, a hot girl in a club isn't going to respect you regardless of what you do. She views her assets as a bartering tool. You'd better offer her something worthy in exchange.
Now, if you think a little abuse gets you further with a hot girl then you must be hot yourself. Good for you---it's amazing what you can get when you're the object of desire more than they are.
As for me, I don't need lessons on how to deal with girls. I have absolutely no interest in them. I just felt an inherently sexist topic (started by Steve Jobs in his interview) deserved a blunt observation. Somehow I doubt that the hot girl in the club is going to take Jobs up on his offer to share a little earwax, no matter how he disrespects them like you advise, until they realize how much money he has. He stands a far better chance of picking up women by passing out iPods along with the free drinks.
"This machine is the result of Dell buying Alienware."
"The toughness of this machine, I suspect, is another example of Alienware's influence."
What evidence do you have for making these statements?
"Someone also mentioned RAID 0..."
The Dell website lists RAID 0 or RAID 1.
"I suspect it's packing a Core Duo."
Why don't you look it up on Dell's website then?
All talk, no facts.
Despite the popularity of making unsubstantiated claims here, it's impossible to know unless you're an insider. There's no reason to believe that any of the music files are modified in any way when loaded onto a Zune regardless of the mechanism. Files that are shared MAY be unconditionally restricted to the 3 and 3 policy but there's no reason to believe that either. All that's been said so far is that content that is shared through WiFi will be restricted. That doesn't mean the mechanism that provides that function can't support more flexibility.
The sharing feature that Zune offers must be restricted but it's also a feature that surpasses anything offered by any other device. If such a feature isn't appealing then there's nothing compelling one to use it, but the claim that the DRM built into the feature somehow makes the Zune crappy clearly comes from those who have an axe to grind.
We all know how heavy the 4G iPod was. What a travesty to compare it to a previous generation competitor immediately after comparing it to the current one...
You made up a quote and then analyzed it? Who are you attributing that statement to?
.mp3 trading if the record companies helped Microsoft become a success."
.mp3s are wrapped in DRM as part of a compelling prouct feature..."
.mp3s alone."
"And I'm sure the reason for this feature is that Microsoft promised the record companies an end to
The reason for the "feature" is to get around copyright infringment.
"If existing
They aren't. Only the feature itself includes it. Further, the original mp3s aren't touched. iPods can't share their mp3s with Windows Media Player or any other non-iTunes player either.
"At least iTunes leaves your
iTunes does and so does the app Zune uses on the PC. An iPod doesn't allow mp3s to be copied back to the computer so it's no different than what you're complaining about.
"...and it will betray the arrangement."
What arrangement? The one you imagined after you analyzed a quote that you made up?
"The record companies are the only party that can really help this crappy device become more compelling than the iPod by offering content to Zune Marketplace ahead of iTunes."
There is nothing DRM-wise that makes a Zune more "crappy" than an iPod.
"The bullcrap about strocking the surface and melting reservations is so idiotic anybody with half a brain can see this jackass all he wants is brownie points with some effing provider for whatever his her bussiness is about."
Yes, because we all know that drooling over industrial design is only allowed with Apple products.
"All we care is weather the so called round button interface is simply enough to operate like you know what or is a stupid army-knife click-o-rama choke-full of features 4-way navigation pad where you have to memorize wich direction does what."
That's all we care about? Speak for yourself. Sounds like you're afraid for Zune to be faily and completely compared to an iPod.
"Like Jobs said, it's much more fun to stick your headphone in her ear."
Yeah, because then she'll listen to it more than 3 times. This whole bullshit argument was started by Jobs though. Zune is not marketed as a device to aid you in getting dates.
"Why does everyone talk about sharing music while you talk with some hot girl you met in a club/bar/wherever?"
Everyone isn't.
"...what are the odds that said girl will have dumped her $300 Ipod for a Zune and will be able to recieve your music?"
If she's a hot girl you should be willing to buy her one. If not, some other guy will.
"Where do you meet people who want to trade music anyway!?"
Everywhere.
"Maybe I'm just weird, but when I go somewhere to meet girls, I dont even bring my mp3 player."
No, you're not weird, but there may be times when you have your player that you meet a girl anyway. Besides, the feature isn't to help you get a date. It is more likely to be used with friends in general.
"Sounds lengthy, but if you're trying to chat up a hot prospect 20 seconds is plenty of time to break the ice."
The description was lengthy, but it's hard to imagine it working differently. He saw another Zune device, selected a song, and sent it to him. He said it was accceptably fast, unlike Steve Jobs who, after seeing only an internet demo, declared it to be too slow.
"Welcome to the dark side"
Yes, because without it the feature would be in violation of copyright.
"Clearly the reviewer is happy with DRM."
He didn't say that. He said the feature worked well. He made no mention of DRM (which is mandatory to have the feature).
Were you involved in development of these peripherals at this time? I was, and I watched these USB devices get tested every day for more than a year before the iMac even existed. One of my best friends was dedicated to it. There were interoperability plugfests occurring regularly. Just exactly what do you think was being tested if none of these peripheral makers weren't bothering? How did the iMac even boot if there weren't USB devices available for Apple to use well prior to announcement? Are you that great a fool?
You can make up your own history all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that USB had a long, deliberate, well-supported development cycle that was fully supported by peripheral makers, PC vendors, and Intel. Apple did nothing other than lay claim to the glory after the fact. The devices existed and their development costs was funded entirely by the PC world, just as most everything in a Mac is today.
"Guess which one they choose."
...which they had already done thanks to those PC manufacturers and Intel. All the iMac did was encourage some of the initial peripherals to be in pastel colors. Apple contributed NOTHING to USB.
They chose USB, just not quite yet. After all, MS wasn't supporting it yet even though every PC manufacturer was. The design of USB was deliverately done to make things cheap, and manufacturers had their products lined up already. I will remind you again what the parent posted:
"When none of the PC manufacturers jumped onto USB, Apple did."
This is an outright lie. All PC manufacturers were fully into USB. It was Microsoft that was behind.
"Then Apple released the USB only iMac, creating a whole new crop of consumers who would need new periphreals. Manufactuers could now make USB devices compatible with this captive market, and just about every PC made in the last couple years."
"Intel invented USB, but Apple is the one who got the ball rolling, and that's a fact."
No, it's an outright fabrication coming straight from Apple's lying mouth.
"Talk about making shit up."
It's not made up. Firewire was an interconnect Apple developed but didn't bring to market. It only lived on because Sony needed something and USB didn't exist yet. Sony shipped firewire in 1995. When did Apple?
"Hardly. There was always composite out, and later USB 2.0, although inferior to Firewire."
Sony needed a digital interface for DV and would have developed their own had Apple not had nuts and bolts available. Now, plenty of devices will use USB 2 to do the same. It's completely adequate since DV rates aren't very high by firewire or USB 2 standards.
I know is satisfying to the ego to believe that Apple invents everything. It's just not true. Firewire would have never existed had a compelling new device, the killer app, not come about. It was that device, not Apple, that delivered us firewire and it's STILL that device that keeps people using firewire. In the case of USB, Apple was but a mere blip on the screen of USB history.
"Yep! It is phenomenon, engineering, creative approach thing, that did not happen before in exact context..."
Really? The mac is over two decades old. It is plodding along; becoming less differentiated all the time.
"it is still being CREATED right now. It happens right now, tomorrow, cannot yet be analysed, because it didn't happen yet. Open for opportunities, throw yours into, y'know!"
Woohoo! Just like everything else.
"Apple EVENTUALLY seeking channels of Dell because of (good!) Intel processor (or what?)."
This was never claimed by anyone. Perhaps you need a remedial reading class.
"Why both of you are talking nonsense?"
What nonsense am I talking? That Gartner DOES know what a product is? I've never defended their position but I do take offense to idiotic comments. Interesting to see you jump in a take it up a notch.
"I knew Dell a little, ir was (and remains) miles away from Apple stuff."
You are free to judge as you like, but Dell's product quality was never part of the discussion. If you want to have that argument, take it somewhere else.
"Why do I have to insult you? I do not want it at all. Let's stop here, please."
You are free to stop, but please learn to read. No need to continue proving yourself a fool.
"I don't think my experience with poor quality product and poor quality tech support from Dell is unique."
Nor is it from any other manufacturer.