Yeah, but does a out-of-the-box PC have the same quality of applications (iLife, iTunes, iCal, Mail.app, etc) with the same level of seamless integration? Sure PCs come with Music Match, some basic calendar app, Outlook Express, and other bundled software, but it is nowhere near the quality of the Mac's bundled software; in fact, some of that bundled software may be spyware. Does an out-of-the-box Windows PC have the same security as OS X's out-of-the-box security? Once again, if I bought a Windows PC, I have to worry about installing anti-malware tools (which is basically a high memory tax), installing Firefox, and keeping up to date with every little Windows update. And don't get me started on Windows default admin mode, lack of full multiuser support, lack of user permissions (that work the same way as Unix permissions), and other stuff.
Apple doesn't compete on the low-end scale, so that is the reason why PCs are much more common; you can buy a nice Athlon 64 box for $600 or more (depending on the specs), or a decent Celeron M laptop for the same price. They are quite capable machines, and they run Windows/*nix very well. Apple would make a big sweep if they competed on the low end (imagine a $300 Mac Mini to counter those Dell $299 specials, or a $699 MacBook with a Core Solo processor). Not everybody needs a dual core laptop, for example. However, when configured at the same price, the Mac is usually a better deal, unless you must need Windows for your job, or you are a serious gamer (I admit, I'd rather game on Windows than OS X; my favorite game, Sim City 4, costs $60 on the Mac but $20 for the exact same version for Windows. Eh?).
PCs may be more popular, but there is a reason why Mac users buy Macs. It comes with a well thought out package of software that complements each other quite nicely with no hiccups.
Folsom Dam is the dam that I am talking about. I am a Sacramento resident (but I spend much more time in San Luis Obispo since I go to Cal Poly). And I remember the "Open the Dam Road" bumper stickers.
Don't get me started on the Sacramento area's road system, but that's for another forum....
The x86 has managed to kill off every other competing processor in the desktop space and relegate them to embedded computing or history books. First Alpha, then MIPS, and finally the PowerPC. (I'm typing this on an Intel Mac). We are now back to one architecture again, which is good for compatibility, but sucks for platform diversity. Not that I'm complaining about my computer (or the latest x86 offerings in general); you can't go wrong with the 1.83GHz Core Duo. The new Xeon chips make a dream machine. Intel did a very good job with the internals of the processor, by making it RISC-like (while still maintaining the x86 instruction set) and making it perform fast and relatively cool at the same time. I also like AMD's offerings; the Athlon 64 makes 64-bit computing very affordable (with great performance). But what about 10-20 years from now? Where will the new computer architecture ideas (or, more specifically, microprocessor ideas) come from? Will we finally get beyond the x86 instruction set? (Anybody who can point me to some recent academic/industrial research in this area will make me happy).
Secondly, guess who is in the Trusted Computing Group? Intel and AMD. My Intel Mac has a TPM chip used to make sure I don't do something like purchasing a $299 Dell special desktop and installing OS X on it. Most new Core Duo laptops sold have some sort of TPM chip on them, although as of yet they have no use (unless you have a Mac). Imagine what happens when the law/**AA/Microsoft/whatever demands hardware-enforced DRM. Well, we already have the hardware on the Intel machines. AMD probably doesn't want to lose a few sales and doesn't want to look out of date, so they'll implement a TPM chip, too. Since there are no other architectures to choose from, you're stuck.
Now, hopefully this doesn't happen. I am optimistic that this won't happen. There is quite a bit of backlash of DRM (even with normal consumers; look at the Sony rootkit fiasco, for example). However, it can happen, and the architecture for hardware-enforced DRM is falling into place. It's just the software that's falling behind, as usual.
name one way in which the 'war on terror' has affected you, personally
Let's begin:
You are now carded for state/federal ID to buy bus or train tickets on Amtrak or Greyhound. I don't know long the policy has existed, nor do I have too much of an issue with this, but back in my parents days, they weren't carded for going a few hundred miles.
A local dam road (that was very popular with commuters) was closed forever (since immediately after the 9/11 attacks) because the Feds feared that somebody may come over there and explode it. Nothing has happened. The road hasn't been reopened since, and even though the city requests that the road should be reopened, the Feds continue to refuse. Traffic has gotten much worse in that area (they now must find another bridge across, which is a mile away and is now stressed), and has affected the entire community as a whole.
The War on Iraq has raised gas prices. Prices were about $30 per barrel before the war started. Now they are approaching $75. Gas is $3.15 per gallon where I live, and rising. If we have a war with Iran, it's going to approach $4 or more. Gas prices affect the entire economy, and hits everybody's pocketbooks.
I am worried about the government's increased surveillance. I don't want my searches, web sites, message board postings, and other online stuff all indexed and mined by the federal government. I don't want my chats monitored, or my cell phone calls wiretapped. I just wish to be left alone.
Those are the issues that are affecting me the most. The first one might not be so serious (although it still reminds me of the "papers, please" policy of the Soviets), and the second one may only be a local issue, but the latter two are big pressing issues that are a direct consequence of our War on Terror policies.
The best way to fight terror isn't to make our government bigger and to impose countless amounts of restrictions on our citizens, as well as curb civil liberties, listen in on our conversations, and log our data. The best way to fight terror is for the government to get out of Middle Eastern (or any other foreign) conflict. The sooner we exit, the sooner the Middle Easterners won't hate us anymore (hence, no terror attacks from them or any other foreign country), and the sooner we can return to some sense of sanity again. We'll have no terrorism if there is no reason for terrorists to terrorize us in the first place.
I'm not quite sure how banning items that may be disguised explosives is irrational, but whatever.
Any explosive can be disguised as anything. All a potential terrorist has to do now is to disguise a explosive in something that isn't currently banned. Let's say that a terrorist is able to place a hard drive-sized bomb in a laptop. Do we ban laptops now? Any explosive can be disguised, and any object can be made a weapon if you throw it in the right angle. Banning everything we see just because of some irrational fear of "oh my god! oh my god! Terrorist can do this, and this, and that" is a ridiculous policy, and it doesn't stop a true terrorist. At best it just inconviences travellers, and at worst it just gives terrorists new ideas.
Your remark about the list of restrictions is exactly my point: whining about the inconsequential annoyances distracts from the bigger problems. Life is full of government restrictions, from not being able to smoke in public buildings in some places to having to pay sometimes arbitrary taxes. If people get more worked up about the petty irritations than the important issues -- and they do -- the important issues get pushed aside.
This is an important issue. It's the government's irrational anti-terror measures that are causing more and more irritations each day. Government officials aren't reacting out of common sense, they are reacting out of irrational fear. And, you just thrown another "grow up, suck it up, c'est la vie" comment that a lot of other people are saying these days. The terrorists have already won if we have to dramatically change the way that we live our lives just because we have some irrational fear that the bogeyman is out to get us. Look at the facts. How many terrorist attacks happen in America per year? Now, how many people die from car crashes/heart attacks/old age/murders/suicides/etc. each day?
All of these anti-terror measures are getting out of hand. But this is what the terrorists want. They want us to live in fear every day. They want us to give up all of the conviences and freedoms that we have. And you're suggesting that we just bend over and take it, as if it were the same thing as taxation and other laws.
Somebody please change this current attitude and policy of security through fear mongering. All of this security and anti-terrorism policies is starting to get really bad and reek of the old days of the Soviet Union. In the 80s, we prided ourselves of travelling anywhere within the country without having to go to a desk with a guy saying "Papers, please." That was restricted to places like the Soviet Union. Now it is not only "papers, please," but it is also a growing list of banned items that do not make sense to ban. Once again, anything can be made a weapon. Do we ban everything, or do we think of sensible policies?
We need to end this war on terror now, before we lose serious freedoms. All of this stuff is a small but growing list of annoyances for the most part. But if this doesn't end, they'll start taking away some real freedoms.
Non-pornographic movie ratings are not government mandated; they are enforced privately. That same logic is used for games, as long as they are not pornographic.
Pornography falls under a set of laws that are similar to the laws for buying tobacco products and alcohol.
Remember the Commerce Clause in the Constitution. In other words, the federal government can regulate interstate commerce. It's interpretation wasn't originally broad (the Commerce Clause originally was bound to the 10 Amendments), but since FDR's reign, the Commerce Clause has been exploited and abused, while the 9th and 10th Amendments were virtually thrown out (nobody respects those amendments any more).
I'm not whining about the fact that I can't bring toothpaste on a plane (I don't fly anyway; all of the distances that I travel to are within driving distance or bus/train distance). I also know the difference between privileges/convienciencs and rights, thank you very much. However, this is another governmental restriction (not private restriction) piled on an already high list of governmental restrictions made all in the name of "curbing terrah." When was the last time you've heard of a terrorist kill people with toothpaste, of all things? Did Saddam make a bomb out of shampoo and conditioner? Some restrictions of things on aircraft (such as firearms, weapons, and knives) are necessary, but soda, hair accessories, and toothpaste? Come on. Every time the feds add more laws and restrictions dealing with "terrorism curbing", they seem to get more and more irrational as they come. What's next; looking through your luggage and banning certain types of clothing?
Sure, this is one more thing that Americans have been told to suck up when they deal with "post-9/11" life, but I wonder how much the average American can suck up before his or her stomach is full from all of the sucking up they had to do in a given time period. This "war on terrorism" seems to be causing more problems than it is solving (assuming that it has solved any problems). Look at our gas prices (they have more than doubled since the War on Iraq started), our economy, the PATRIOT Act, and our quality of life. I hope that something changes soon, and fast. Otherwise, who knows what other restrictions, laws, and other stuff will be piled on us.
But for now, make sure that your teeth are clean before flying;)
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
Or, even better for this topic:
Our history has shown us that insecurity threatens liberty. Yet, if our liberties are curtailed, we lose the values that we are struggling to defend." ~ The 9/11 Commission Report by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
I bought a MacBook almost two weeks ago (this is the first OS X Mac that I've ever owned; I have an old Mac SE and Performa 6220 that I received 2 years ago from a teacher's friend). I've dreamed of owning a Mac for over two years now, and when the MacBook came out, it was the Mac notebook that I've always wanted. It had OS X, was the right screen size for me, and did everything that I wanted. I was a bit worried about the purchase, due to some of the problems that I've continued to hear about on the Internet (heat so much that it can cook an egg, discoloration within a few days, mooing noises, etc). I was also a bit worried with some technical details (integrated graphics and OS X performance, plus glossy screen).
However, once I bought the machine, I couldn't be happier. I have no problems with my Mac. I've never heard the fan (it is silent), I see no discoloration occurring at all (although I should clean it often in order for it to continue looking new), and the heat is warm enough for me to feel confortable on a cold day (it's even confortable on a lap), but not hot enough to burn myself. The glossy screen is never an annoyance for me (I forget that it is glossy whenever I am working in a non-floursecent environment), and the integrated graphics do a great job handling OS X's graphics and video playback; quite better than the Voodoo 3 in my old PC. Since buying my Mac, I haven't turned on my desktop PC (an old 950MHz Duron with 384MB RAM, running Windows XP and FreeBSD; a generally trouble free computer) once.
Now, it is less than 2 weeks old, so it is probably too early to tell. However, I advise people looking into getting a MacBook or MacBook Pro to just buy one (unless they want to hold out for a Core 2 Duo Mac). Everybody that I know who has one has a wonderful experience with them. They are wicked fast, quite elegant, and comes with all of that OS X goodness. Plus, since these are of a later generation of the first generation, all of the problems should be generally fixed.
And, no, I do not work at Apple, nor do I get paid by Apple to make this. This is my personal experience. I'm just a computer science student, that's all.
Just because something is the most popular doesn't always make it the best.
I'm not saying that XP Embedded isn't the best (I don't know too much about embedded computing); I am just saying that popularity doesn't imply something being the best.
Because IBM is the founder of the standard x86 PC (also known as the IBM PC). The article is reflecting on the history of PCs, so it makes sense to have an IBM logo.
If you downgrade the Mac Pro to the 2.0GHz configuration (two 2.0GHz dual-core Xeons), you save $300. If you downgrade the 250GB hard drive to 160GB, you save another $50, bringing the cost to $2,149. Still a little more expensive than the base $1,999 Power Mac G5, but the base Power Mac G5 didn't have two dual-core processors (just one dual-core G5). Quite a great deal.
Yes, I would have loved for Apple to release a cheaper tower computer. However, Apple doesn't do product announcements like that during the WWDC. The WWDC is about releasing products intended for professional Mac developers; the operating system and the flagship developer machines. Professional developers such as MS, Apple, Adobe, and the rest of them need the most powerful Mac they can get with their money; the Mac Pro fulfills their dreams. Apple releases other products either during some other conference (such as the Paris event every September and MacWorld), or just out of the blue on a Tuesday morning.
For all of you dreaming about MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo machines, Apple tablets, $1000 Core Duo mini-towers, $700 Core Solo MacBooks, and other announcements, there is still plenty of time for Apple to release those products. Apple doesn't announce nor release those types of products during the WWDC.
f you want to be able to play the latest and most popular games guess which OS you better be running?
Duh. Windows. I admit that OS X isn't a gamer's platform. But guess what? Intel Macs can run Windows, too. You have the best of both worlds.
If I made the change howmany of my apps would I still be able to use?
I don't know; what apps do you use. I had no trouble switching over from Windows and FreeBSD to OS X. However, all of the apps that I use are either open source and/or have OS X equivalents.
To change simply based on looks and feel is complete stupidity.
OS X is more than just looks and feel. I didn't switch to OS X because of Aqua; if the only thing that OS X had to offer was Aqua, I would still be using Windows and FreeBSD right now. The reason why I switched to OS X is because it beats having to install BSD on a laptop, it does all of my Unix work (while still maintaining an easy-to-use interface; a feat that Linux/BSD still needs much work on), many proprietary packages are supported (Office, Photoshop, and the like), I don't have to struggle with either malware (unlike Windows) or hardware support (unlike Linux/BSD), and the actual machines have quite good hardware at a competitive price (I love this Core Duo, for example). I didn't switch to OS X just because it looks nice (although it is icing on the cake); I switched to OS X because it is nice.
But if you feel better with Windows and Linux, then by all means use them. But don't diss Macs before you have some experience with them. OS X may be a "toy OS" (using your definition), but, gosh darn it, this is the best darn toy that I've used in my life.
I didn't think of an iMac girl with I thought of the sig, I just thought of a dream girl with the perfect combination of beauty (Aqua) and brains (Unix). You know; what many geeks want.
...the more time Apple has to add features and functionality to OS X (according to the WWDC 2005, Leopard should be released in December or January), and the more time the FOSS community has to improve its offerings (KDE and GNOME get better with each release, Linux distributions get easier to use, and FOSS software offerings get a bit more compelling).
MS will still have a head start even if Vista is delayed another year, since Vista will be sold on all new machines, and not everybody is going to run out and buy a Mac or install Linux. However, more people are starting to learn about OS X and Apple's offerings (especially the fact that Apple switched to Intel, and the fact that they can still use Windows on those machines if they choose to, although OS X is really good; I showed my parents and siblings my MacBook and they got to use it for two days. They fell in love with it), and more people are starting to learn about FOSS. If Vista isn't all what it is cracked up to be, then Mac sales and Linux downloads would go up.
As for me? I hope that Vista improves. Us Mac and *nix users have to use Windows boxes for work and for school, so it would be nice if we got to use a much improved version of Windows. But, after they have gutted out all of the features that I have desired (such as WinFS and the Monad shell), I'm not so enthusiastic about Vista. And, yes, I've got a chance from a friend to use the beta for a few hours. Vista's interface is pretty nice, IE 7 is a browser worth using, and I am fond of some of the new features. However, everything I can get in Vista in January I already have on my MacBook, and the gap may be larger, depending on what Steve Jobs reveals next week during the WWDC 2006.
For now. But I wonder what would happen if CDs had a sort of DRM (similar to DVD's CSS)? Imagine if they marketed those new CDs as "Red Ray" or "HDCD" or something like that, with triple the songs, clearer audio, lyrics on the disk, and other "benefits"? What if consumers don't care about the DRM and buy these new CDs in droves, effectively obseleting the CD (just like how the DVD replaced VHS tapes)? Then you'll have to answer to the DMCA, unfortunately, and that would be one more restriction and a few more problems.
Don't believe me? It can (and most likely will) happen. So start a stockpile of CDs now; you'll need them.
Apple has carved out a nice niche market. The days are gone when Apple can increase market share in any meaningful way.
That battle is over. Unless Apple wants to become a commodity PC builder and start selling windows boxes, people who don't want a Mac aren't going to buy one.
Agreed, although I still think that this is tied into the mess during the "beleaguered" days of Apple. Apple's niche has traditionally been those working in graphics arts/communications, media, music, and similar fields. Back during the ages where the Classic Mac OS was getting quite long in the tooth, those were pretty much the only people buying them. Since the release of OS X, Apple has expanded its niche over the years to Unix hackers who want an easy to use desktop; all of my research professors own MacBook Pros, and half of the CS professors that I know have a Mac. Macs are very popular in the mathematics department, too. However, I believe that Apple is interested in reaching out to who I call the "iPod crowd"; people who bought iPods and run Windows compters who are a bit more interested in the computers that Apple sells.
Apple is never going to have Microsoft's marketshare, or even a marketshare of 50% any time soon. However, Apple has a lot of room to grow in these markets. Apple has convinced me to switch and my family to switch; I know a lot of other people who would probably end up switching once they have some more exposure to Macs.
Then please explain MS's 95% marketshare versus Apple's 5%
I believe that is due to misshaps that Apple made during the early and mid 90s (this is before Steve Jobs and OS X). Apple had a hard time creating a modern OS (Pink, Taligent, Copland), while Microsoft started to improve their OSes to the point that they surpassed the original Mac OS in stability and performance while almost matched it in usability (Windows 95 and especially Windows NT-based products). In 1999, I'd choose Windows 2000 over Mac OS 9 any day for most tasks. Had Apple's failed OS ventures actually didn't fail, then perhaps Apple's marketshare would be much more substantial.
Windows and non-Mac PCs are still selling very well for a few reasons. Businesses are still heavily dependent on Windows software. But the biggest reason why MS has 95% and Apple has 5% is the price of admission is much lower. You can buy an entry level desktop for $300 and an entry level laptop for $600. It would come with some Celeron processor, a somewhat shabby graphics card, the traditional bundled applications (that don't really play together with other applications, unlike iLife and OS X's integration), and XP Home. However, this is what 90% or so of the computer population wants to buy; a computer fast enough to do email, word processing, photo editing, DVD watching, web browsing, music downloading, and other everyday tasks. For them, that $300 Celeron machine or $600 Celeron laptop would suffice.
Now, if you spend $600 (or $1100 for the laptop), you can get a Mac. The Mac comes with OS X, iLife, a pretty nice processor (1.5GHz Core Solo for the $600 Mac Mini, 1.66GHz Core Duo for the $800 Mini, and 1.83GHz Core Duo for the $1100 MacBook), decent graphics (I'm typing this on a MacBook now; the Intel Integrated Graphics on this machine isn't very hampering unless you are a intense gamer, which I am not). All of the iLife applications work together. I enjoy the searching capabilities of Spotlight and use them every day. I like how Spotlight is integrated with all of my other applications. For a Unix hacker like myself, the terminal is just a click on the Dock away. I don't have to worry about bad drivers, malware, viruses, or anything like that. I work with a peace of mind.
Macs are worth the price. When I showed my parents and siblings my Mac and fooled around with it for a few days, they fell in love with it. They were sold on buying a Mac, and they are now saving up for a iMac. The problem is that cheaper PCs are good enough for 90% of the market. Windows XP "just works" now (as long as you keep an eye on security), and Vista will be far better than XP (insert "it's a copy of OS X here"; say what you want, but Vista is still better than XP). Perhaps they haven't had exposure to OS X; my parents were sold on the Mac within a few days. Perhaps they still must have a Windows PC for their jobs (and they don't know that Intel Macs can run Windows natively). Or, perhaps that money is an issue for most people.
Many people say that in order for Apple to increase its marketshare, they should release OS X to all x86 PCs. After owning a Mac for a few days, I'll disagree. Most users don't know how to install an OS, assuming that they know what an OS is. Plus, part of the benefit of buying a Mac is that you know that all of your hardware works. You don't have to scrounge the Net looking for drivers; your hardware in most cases "just works." Finally, it will make Apple have to compete with Microsoft in Microsoft's domain: OSes. Apple would be back in the Spindler/Amelio days of cloning and red ink. The best way for Apple to raise its marketshare is to lower its price of admission and provide some more variety in Mac offerings (while retaining a clear-cut consumer/pro line). How about a Core Solo MacBook for $700? How about knocking down the Mac Mini to $500 again just like it was originally was in January 2005. How about releasing that iMac for Education to the general public for $999? That will make a large increase in Apple's marketshare, because they will be much closer to the price points that most consumers buy their computers at.
Keep in mind that the average system of that time was a pentium 133 with 100MB of ram
IIRC, the average amount of RAM at the time (circa 1995-96) was more like 4MB or 8MB per PC, maybe 16MB or 32MB on high end systems. Users didn't start getting about 100MB RAM until about 1999 or 2000, maybe later when XP was released.
The 'free market' ended in 1930's for the same reason 'anarchy' ended in the stone age: a single strongman will fuck up the playing field for everybody by assimilating, subjugating, and repressing everyone else (while getting even stronger in the process).
Wrong. I'm tired of the old Great Depression "free markets failed" bullcrap that many history books spew and a lot of people believe. The Great Depression was a normal recession made much worse by the Federal Reserve's mishandling of the money supply. Getting off the gold standard and switching to fiat money didn't help situations, as well as higher tarrifs.
But free markets did end in the 1930s, or at least became much less free. We have fiat money that inflates often. We implemented socialistic programs that didn't really help with the depression and arguably made it worse (World War II is what got us out of the depression, not the New Deal). Government went from very small to very large. We now mired in massive federal debt that only increases every year. Classical liberalism was thrown out in place of socialism and fascism, and now whenever people believe in classical liberal and libertarian ideas, they're written off as silly people.
Now, interestingly enough, some of the problems that you have stated are caused by the government, not by free markets. Patents, for example. Patents (and other "intellectual property" like copyrights and trademarks) are a governmental creation. I don't advocate getting rid of copyrights, patents, and other "IP," but don't blame the free market for that. I am a staunch free market supporter who also supports anti-trust legislation and other similar measures; they help keep the market free. (Being controlled by mega-corporations is just as bad as being controlled by big governments, in my book. However, governments hold a legal monopoly on force, which makes them worse, IMO.). But I don't believe in redistributionist policies. Perhaps we should focus on helping the poor in the marketplace instead of welfare. After all, if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; but if you teach a man how to fish....
Slashdot Mirror
Remember that Apple's iTunes music is encoded with its DRM. So you cannot legally play iTunes-encoded music on the iPod.
Linux will remain behind of commercial OSes in the realm of media, not because it is Linux, but becuase of DRM.
Yeah, but does a out-of-the-box PC have the same quality of applications (iLife, iTunes, iCal, Mail.app, etc) with the same level of seamless integration? Sure PCs come with Music Match, some basic calendar app, Outlook Express, and other bundled software, but it is nowhere near the quality of the Mac's bundled software; in fact, some of that bundled software may be spyware. Does an out-of-the-box Windows PC have the same security as OS X's out-of-the-box security? Once again, if I bought a Windows PC, I have to worry about installing anti-malware tools (which is basically a high memory tax), installing Firefox, and keeping up to date with every little Windows update. And don't get me started on Windows default admin mode, lack of full multiuser support, lack of user permissions (that work the same way as Unix permissions), and other stuff.
Apple doesn't compete on the low-end scale, so that is the reason why PCs are much more common; you can buy a nice Athlon 64 box for $600 or more (depending on the specs), or a decent Celeron M laptop for the same price. They are quite capable machines, and they run Windows/*nix very well. Apple would make a big sweep if they competed on the low end (imagine a $300 Mac Mini to counter those Dell $299 specials, or a $699 MacBook with a Core Solo processor). Not everybody needs a dual core laptop, for example. However, when configured at the same price, the Mac is usually a better deal, unless you must need Windows for your job, or you are a serious gamer (I admit, I'd rather game on Windows than OS X; my favorite game, Sim City 4, costs $60 on the Mac but $20 for the exact same version for Windows. Eh?).
PCs may be more popular, but there is a reason why Mac users buy Macs. It comes with a well thought out package of software that complements each other quite nicely with no hiccups.
Folsom Dam is the dam that I am talking about. I am a Sacramento resident (but I spend much more time in San Luis Obispo since I go to Cal Poly). And I remember the "Open the Dam Road" bumper stickers.
Don't get me started on the Sacramento area's road system, but that's for another forum....
There are just a few problems:
The x86 has managed to kill off every other competing processor in the desktop space and relegate them to embedded computing or history books. First Alpha, then MIPS, and finally the PowerPC. (I'm typing this on an Intel Mac). We are now back to one architecture again, which is good for compatibility, but sucks for platform diversity. Not that I'm complaining about my computer (or the latest x86 offerings in general); you can't go wrong with the 1.83GHz Core Duo. The new Xeon chips make a dream machine. Intel did a very good job with the internals of the processor, by making it RISC-like (while still maintaining the x86 instruction set) and making it perform fast and relatively cool at the same time. I also like AMD's offerings; the Athlon 64 makes 64-bit computing very affordable (with great performance). But what about 10-20 years from now? Where will the new computer architecture ideas (or, more specifically, microprocessor ideas) come from? Will we finally get beyond the x86 instruction set? (Anybody who can point me to some recent academic/industrial research in this area will make me happy).
Secondly, guess who is in the Trusted Computing Group? Intel and AMD. My Intel Mac has a TPM chip used to make sure I don't do something like purchasing a $299 Dell special desktop and installing OS X on it. Most new Core Duo laptops sold have some sort of TPM chip on them, although as of yet they have no use (unless you have a Mac). Imagine what happens when the law/**AA/Microsoft/whatever demands hardware-enforced DRM. Well, we already have the hardware on the Intel machines. AMD probably doesn't want to lose a few sales and doesn't want to look out of date, so they'll implement a TPM chip, too. Since there are no other architectures to choose from, you're stuck.
Now, hopefully this doesn't happen. I am optimistic that this won't happen. There is quite a bit of backlash of DRM (even with normal consumers; look at the Sony rootkit fiasco, for example). However, it can happen, and the architecture for hardware-enforced DRM is falling into place. It's just the software that's falling behind, as usual.
Let's begin:
Those are the issues that are affecting me the most. The first one might not be so serious (although it still reminds me of the "papers, please" policy of the Soviets), and the second one may only be a local issue, but the latter two are big pressing issues that are a direct consequence of our War on Terror policies.
The best way to fight terror isn't to make our government bigger and to impose countless amounts of restrictions on our citizens, as well as curb civil liberties, listen in on our conversations, and log our data. The best way to fight terror is for the government to get out of Middle Eastern (or any other foreign) conflict. The sooner we exit, the sooner the Middle Easterners won't hate us anymore (hence, no terror attacks from them or any other foreign country), and the sooner we can return to some sense of sanity again. We'll have no terrorism if there is no reason for terrorists to terrorize us in the first place.
Any explosive can be disguised as anything. All a potential terrorist has to do now is to disguise a explosive in something that isn't currently banned. Let's say that a terrorist is able to place a hard drive-sized bomb in a laptop. Do we ban laptops now? Any explosive can be disguised, and any object can be made a weapon if you throw it in the right angle. Banning everything we see just because of some irrational fear of "oh my god! oh my god! Terrorist can do this, and this, and that" is a ridiculous policy, and it doesn't stop a true terrorist. At best it just inconviences travellers, and at worst it just gives terrorists new ideas.
This is an important issue. It's the government's irrational anti-terror measures that are causing more and more irritations each day. Government officials aren't reacting out of common sense, they are reacting out of irrational fear. And, you just thrown another "grow up, suck it up, c'est la vie" comment that a lot of other people are saying these days. The terrorists have already won if we have to dramatically change the way that we live our lives just because we have some irrational fear that the bogeyman is out to get us. Look at the facts. How many terrorist attacks happen in America per year? Now, how many people die from car crashes/heart attacks/old age/murders/suicides/etc. each day?
All of these anti-terror measures are getting out of hand. But this is what the terrorists want. They want us to live in fear every day. They want us to give up all of the conviences and freedoms that we have. And you're suggesting that we just bend over and take it, as if it were the same thing as taxation and other laws.
Somebody please change this current attitude and policy of security through fear mongering. All of this security and anti-terrorism policies is starting to get really bad and reek of the old days of the Soviet Union. In the 80s, we prided ourselves of travelling anywhere within the country without having to go to a desk with a guy saying "Papers, please." That was restricted to places like the Soviet Union. Now it is not only "papers, please," but it is also a growing list of banned items that do not make sense to ban. Once again, anything can be made a weapon. Do we ban everything, or do we think of sensible policies?
We need to end this war on terror now, before we lose serious freedoms. All of this stuff is a small but growing list of annoyances for the most part. But if this doesn't end, they'll start taking away some real freedoms.
Non-pornographic movie ratings are not government mandated; they are enforced privately. That same logic is used for games, as long as they are not pornographic.
Pornography falls under a set of laws that are similar to the laws for buying tobacco products and alcohol.
Remember the Commerce Clause in the Constitution. In other words, the federal government can regulate interstate commerce. It's interpretation wasn't originally broad (the Commerce Clause originally was bound to the 10 Amendments), but since FDR's reign, the Commerce Clause has been exploited and abused, while the 9th and 10th Amendments were virtually thrown out (nobody respects those amendments any more).
I'm not whining about the fact that I can't bring toothpaste on a plane (I don't fly anyway; all of the distances that I travel to are within driving distance or bus/train distance). I also know the difference between privileges/convienciencs and rights, thank you very much. However, this is another governmental restriction (not private restriction) piled on an already high list of governmental restrictions made all in the name of "curbing terrah." When was the last time you've heard of a terrorist kill people with toothpaste, of all things? Did Saddam make a bomb out of shampoo and conditioner? Some restrictions of things on aircraft (such as firearms, weapons, and knives) are necessary, but soda, hair accessories, and toothpaste? Come on. Every time the feds add more laws and restrictions dealing with "terrorism curbing", they seem to get more and more irrational as they come. What's next; looking through your luggage and banning certain types of clothing?
Sure, this is one more thing that Americans have been told to suck up when they deal with "post-9/11" life, but I wonder how much the average American can suck up before his or her stomach is full from all of the sucking up they had to do in a given time period. This "war on terrorism" seems to be causing more problems than it is solving (assuming that it has solved any problems). Look at our gas prices (they have more than doubled since the War on Iraq started), our economy, the PATRIOT Act, and our quality of life. I hope that something changes soon, and fast. Otherwise, who knows what other restrictions, laws, and other stuff will be piled on us.
But for now, make sure that your teeth are clean before flying ;)
Or, even better for this topic:
I bought a MacBook almost two weeks ago (this is the first OS X Mac that I've ever owned; I have an old Mac SE and Performa 6220 that I received 2 years ago from a teacher's friend). I've dreamed of owning a Mac for over two years now, and when the MacBook came out, it was the Mac notebook that I've always wanted. It had OS X, was the right screen size for me, and did everything that I wanted. I was a bit worried about the purchase, due to some of the problems that I've continued to hear about on the Internet (heat so much that it can cook an egg, discoloration within a few days, mooing noises, etc). I was also a bit worried with some technical details (integrated graphics and OS X performance, plus glossy screen).
However, once I bought the machine, I couldn't be happier. I have no problems with my Mac. I've never heard the fan (it is silent), I see no discoloration occurring at all (although I should clean it often in order for it to continue looking new), and the heat is warm enough for me to feel confortable on a cold day (it's even confortable on a lap), but not hot enough to burn myself. The glossy screen is never an annoyance for me (I forget that it is glossy whenever I am working in a non-floursecent environment), and the integrated graphics do a great job handling OS X's graphics and video playback; quite better than the Voodoo 3 in my old PC. Since buying my Mac, I haven't turned on my desktop PC (an old 950MHz Duron with 384MB RAM, running Windows XP and FreeBSD; a generally trouble free computer) once.
Now, it is less than 2 weeks old, so it is probably too early to tell. However, I advise people looking into getting a MacBook or MacBook Pro to just buy one (unless they want to hold out for a Core 2 Duo Mac). Everybody that I know who has one has a wonderful experience with them. They are wicked fast, quite elegant, and comes with all of that OS X goodness. Plus, since these are of a later generation of the first generation, all of the problems should be generally fixed.
And, no, I do not work at Apple, nor do I get paid by Apple to make this. This is my personal experience. I'm just a computer science student, that's all.
Just because something is the most popular doesn't always make it the best.
I'm not saying that XP Embedded isn't the best (I don't know too much about embedded computing); I am just saying that popularity doesn't imply something being the best.
Because IBM is the founder of the standard x86 PC (also known as the IBM PC). The article is reflecting on the history of PCs, so it makes sense to have an IBM logo.
If you downgrade the Mac Pro to the 2.0GHz configuration (two 2.0GHz dual-core Xeons), you save $300. If you downgrade the 250GB hard drive to 160GB, you save another $50, bringing the cost to $2,149. Still a little more expensive than the base $1,999 Power Mac G5, but the base Power Mac G5 didn't have two dual-core processors (just one dual-core G5). Quite a great deal.
Yes, I would have loved for Apple to release a cheaper tower computer. However, Apple doesn't do product announcements like that during the WWDC. The WWDC is about releasing products intended for professional Mac developers; the operating system and the flagship developer machines. Professional developers such as MS, Apple, Adobe, and the rest of them need the most powerful Mac they can get with their money; the Mac Pro fulfills their dreams. Apple releases other products either during some other conference (such as the Paris event every September and MacWorld), or just out of the blue on a Tuesday morning.
For all of you dreaming about MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo machines, Apple tablets, $1000 Core Duo mini-towers, $700 Core Solo MacBooks, and other announcements, there is still plenty of time for Apple to release those products. Apple doesn't announce nor release those types of products during the WWDC.
IIRC, didn't Microsoft do something like this when they were getting Windows 2000 ready for release? This looks very familiar.
Duh. Windows. I admit that OS X isn't a gamer's platform. But guess what? Intel Macs can run Windows, too. You have the best of both worlds.
I don't know; what apps do you use. I had no trouble switching over from Windows and FreeBSD to OS X. However, all of the apps that I use are either open source and/or have OS X equivalents.
OS X is more than just looks and feel. I didn't switch to OS X because of Aqua; if the only thing that OS X had to offer was Aqua, I would still be using Windows and FreeBSD right now. The reason why I switched to OS X is because it beats having to install BSD on a laptop, it does all of my Unix work (while still maintaining an easy-to-use interface; a feat that Linux/BSD still needs much work on), many proprietary packages are supported (Office, Photoshop, and the like), I don't have to struggle with either malware (unlike Windows) or hardware support (unlike Linux/BSD), and the actual machines have quite good hardware at a competitive price (I love this Core Duo, for example). I didn't switch to OS X just because it looks nice (although it is icing on the cake); I switched to OS X because it is nice.
But if you feel better with Windows and Linux, then by all means use them. But don't diss Macs before you have some experience with them. OS X may be a "toy OS" (using your definition), but, gosh darn it, this is the best darn toy that I've used in my life.
You just reminded me of this comic strip.
I didn't think of an iMac girl with I thought of the sig, I just thought of a dream girl with the perfect combination of beauty (Aqua) and brains (Unix). You know; what many geeks want.
...the more time Apple has to add features and functionality to OS X (according to the WWDC 2005, Leopard should be released in December or January), and the more time the FOSS community has to improve its offerings (KDE and GNOME get better with each release, Linux distributions get easier to use, and FOSS software offerings get a bit more compelling).
MS will still have a head start even if Vista is delayed another year, since Vista will be sold on all new machines, and not everybody is going to run out and buy a Mac or install Linux. However, more people are starting to learn about OS X and Apple's offerings (especially the fact that Apple switched to Intel, and the fact that they can still use Windows on those machines if they choose to, although OS X is really good; I showed my parents and siblings my MacBook and they got to use it for two days. They fell in love with it), and more people are starting to learn about FOSS. If Vista isn't all what it is cracked up to be, then Mac sales and Linux downloads would go up.
As for me? I hope that Vista improves. Us Mac and *nix users have to use Windows boxes for work and for school, so it would be nice if we got to use a much improved version of Windows. But, after they have gutted out all of the features that I have desired (such as WinFS and the Monad shell), I'm not so enthusiastic about Vista. And, yes, I've got a chance from a friend to use the beta for a few hours. Vista's interface is pretty nice, IE 7 is a browser worth using, and I am fond of some of the new features. However, everything I can get in Vista in January I already have on my MacBook, and the gap may be larger, depending on what Steve Jobs reveals next week during the WWDC 2006.
For now. But I wonder what would happen if CDs had a sort of DRM (similar to DVD's CSS)? Imagine if they marketed those new CDs as "Red Ray" or "HDCD" or something like that, with triple the songs, clearer audio, lyrics on the disk, and other "benefits"? What if consumers don't care about the DRM and buy these new CDs in droves, effectively obseleting the CD (just like how the DVD replaced VHS tapes)? Then you'll have to answer to the DMCA, unfortunately, and that would be one more restriction and a few more problems.
Don't believe me? It can (and most likely will) happen. So start a stockpile of CDs now; you'll need them.
Agreed, although I still think that this is tied into the mess during the "beleaguered" days of Apple. Apple's niche has traditionally been those working in graphics arts/communications, media, music, and similar fields. Back during the ages where the Classic Mac OS was getting quite long in the tooth, those were pretty much the only people buying them. Since the release of OS X, Apple has expanded its niche over the years to Unix hackers who want an easy to use desktop; all of my research professors own MacBook Pros, and half of the CS professors that I know have a Mac. Macs are very popular in the mathematics department, too. However, I believe that Apple is interested in reaching out to who I call the "iPod crowd"; people who bought iPods and run Windows compters who are a bit more interested in the computers that Apple sells.
Apple is never going to have Microsoft's marketshare, or even a marketshare of 50% any time soon. However, Apple has a lot of room to grow in these markets. Apple has convinced me to switch and my family to switch; I know a lot of other people who would probably end up switching once they have some more exposure to Macs.
I believe that is due to misshaps that Apple made during the early and mid 90s (this is before Steve Jobs and OS X). Apple had a hard time creating a modern OS (Pink, Taligent, Copland), while Microsoft started to improve their OSes to the point that they surpassed the original Mac OS in stability and performance while almost matched it in usability (Windows 95 and especially Windows NT-based products). In 1999, I'd choose Windows 2000 over Mac OS 9 any day for most tasks. Had Apple's failed OS ventures actually didn't fail, then perhaps Apple's marketshare would be much more substantial.
Windows and non-Mac PCs are still selling very well for a few reasons. Businesses are still heavily dependent on Windows software. But the biggest reason why MS has 95% and Apple has 5% is the price of admission is much lower. You can buy an entry level desktop for $300 and an entry level laptop for $600. It would come with some Celeron processor, a somewhat shabby graphics card, the traditional bundled applications (that don't really play together with other applications, unlike iLife and OS X's integration), and XP Home. However, this is what 90% or so of the computer population wants to buy; a computer fast enough to do email, word processing, photo editing, DVD watching, web browsing, music downloading, and other everyday tasks. For them, that $300 Celeron machine or $600 Celeron laptop would suffice.
Now, if you spend $600 (or $1100 for the laptop), you can get a Mac. The Mac comes with OS X, iLife, a pretty nice processor (1.5GHz Core Solo for the $600 Mac Mini, 1.66GHz Core Duo for the $800 Mini, and 1.83GHz Core Duo for the $1100 MacBook), decent graphics (I'm typing this on a MacBook now; the Intel Integrated Graphics on this machine isn't very hampering unless you are a intense gamer, which I am not). All of the iLife applications work together. I enjoy the searching capabilities of Spotlight and use them every day. I like how Spotlight is integrated with all of my other applications. For a Unix hacker like myself, the terminal is just a click on the Dock away. I don't have to worry about bad drivers, malware, viruses, or anything like that. I work with a peace of mind.
Macs are worth the price. When I showed my parents and siblings my Mac and fooled around with it for a few days, they fell in love with it. They were sold on buying a Mac, and they are now saving up for a iMac. The problem is that cheaper PCs are good enough for 90% of the market. Windows XP "just works" now (as long as you keep an eye on security), and Vista will be far better than XP (insert "it's a copy of OS X here"; say what you want, but Vista is still better than XP). Perhaps they haven't had exposure to OS X; my parents were sold on the Mac within a few days. Perhaps they still must have a Windows PC for their jobs (and they don't know that Intel Macs can run Windows natively). Or, perhaps that money is an issue for most people.
Many people say that in order for Apple to increase its marketshare, they should release OS X to all x86 PCs. After owning a Mac for a few days, I'll disagree. Most users don't know how to install an OS, assuming that they know what an OS is. Plus, part of the benefit of buying a Mac is that you know that all of your hardware works. You don't have to scrounge the Net looking for drivers; your hardware in most cases "just works." Finally, it will make Apple have to compete with Microsoft in Microsoft's domain: OSes. Apple would be back in the Spindler/Amelio days of cloning and red ink. The best way for Apple to raise its marketshare is to lower its price of admission and provide some more variety in Mac offerings (while retaining a clear-cut consumer/pro line). How about a Core Solo MacBook for $700? How about knocking down the Mac Mini to $500 again just like it was originally was in January 2005. How about releasing that iMac for Education to the general public for $999? That will make a large increase in Apple's marketshare, because they will be much closer to the price points that most consumers buy their computers at.
IIRC, the average amount of RAM at the time (circa 1995-96) was more like 4MB or 8MB per PC, maybe 16MB or 32MB on high end systems. Users didn't start getting about 100MB RAM until about 1999 or 2000, maybe later when XP was released.
Wrong. I'm tired of the old Great Depression "free markets failed" bullcrap that many history books spew and a lot of people believe. The Great Depression was a normal recession made much worse by the Federal Reserve's mishandling of the money supply. Getting off the gold standard and switching to fiat money didn't help situations, as well as higher tarrifs.
But free markets did end in the 1930s, or at least became much less free. We have fiat money that inflates often. We implemented socialistic programs that didn't really help with the depression and arguably made it worse (World War II is what got us out of the depression, not the New Deal). Government went from very small to very large. We now mired in massive federal debt that only increases every year. Classical liberalism was thrown out in place of socialism and fascism, and now whenever people believe in classical liberal and libertarian ideas, they're written off as silly people.
Now, interestingly enough, some of the problems that you have stated are caused by the government, not by free markets. Patents, for example. Patents (and other "intellectual property" like copyrights and trademarks) are a governmental creation. I don't advocate getting rid of copyrights, patents, and other "IP," but don't blame the free market for that. I am a staunch free market supporter who also supports anti-trust legislation and other similar measures; they help keep the market free. (Being controlled by mega-corporations is just as bad as being controlled by big governments, in my book. However, governments hold a legal monopoly on force, which makes them worse, IMO.). But I don't believe in redistributionist policies. Perhaps we should focus on helping the poor in the marketplace instead of welfare. After all, if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; but if you teach a man how to fish....
My friend's Gateway laptop (17" with Intel Core Duo 1.83GHz) has a TPM chip, but he says that it is nonfunctional.
And this advice is brought to you by Slashdot, of all places.