it was going back and taking the myths and legends which awed us (who the Jedi and Sith had been, how the Empire changed the galaxy) and acting them all out, while giving the prequels few myths and legends of their own to compensate
That's a solid point.
In the first film (Ep4) the Jedi seemed like some extinct mystic order of religious warriors, but by not giving details it remained mysterious and interesting and yet did not bog down the story. The later films (Ep5, 6) reinforced this, and left me with a feeling that there was a huge, mysterious area to explore with the Jedi. They were interesting and powerful.
The prequel trilogy then showed us that the mysterious and powerful Jedi held meetings, had layers of bureaucracy and a rigid, formalised structure. I half expected someone to pop out of PowerPoint presentation when they were talking.
Yoda: "Talk now, will Bob from marketing. About the advertising revenue, yes, hmmm?" Bob: "Thanks Yoda. Well, if you'll all look at slide one here, you'll see that despite leveraging multiple synergies, ad spending is up and revenue has stayed flat."
Maybe Episode I could have been subtitled "Star Wars Episode I - You will believe a Jedi can hold a meeting."
Well, bang goes that mystery. Still, there's the Sith, they're still mysterious, right?
Well, not any more. We now know all we need about them as well. There may be a few individual stories to find out, but they're just over-emotional Jedi with a bad career path movement policy.
Still, there's the great mystery of what the Force actually is... bang! It's a symbiote living in your cells that connects you to the Universe. Great. Another mysterious veil pierced and ripped away. It also seems that it's got a genetic link, making some families 'strong with the force' and the vast majority weak. Hey, why not call it a caste system and be done with it! Two types of people - force strong and force weak, with the more fortunate ones using their great power to maintain the status quo. Excellent. After however many tens of thousands of years, there's no way that could be anything less than the best possible system is there? I mean, the status quo is always worth maintaining, isn't it?
While I'm on a roll... The Jedi come across as a bunch of fools, whose much vaunted wisdom and skill is completely outplayed by a single, clever opponent. Even when they thought there was a Sith somewhere in the government, what did they do? Absolutely nothing. Apparently waiting for the Sith's plans to mature and finalise was better than trying to ferret them out and destroy them.
It's not just a hindsight thing either. The Jedi sat on their hands because that's what they're all about. I cannot imagine any way they could have risen to power with that attitude. How they are meant to be a revered font of wisdom is beyond me. They're full of homespun crap homilies and an expectation that people should be happy with their lot in life. Gee, what role models they turned out to be.
I cheered when they were all slaughtered. That was the best possible thing that could have happened to the Jedi order - to start again from scratch with none of the bozo baggage from the previous, worthless thousand years of fence-sitting, do-nothing tools of oppression. At least the Sith had the balls to actually live up to their ideals. Sure, they were evil buggers, but they actually did stuff to force the galaxy forward towards their ideals. I bet they had the trains running on time.
Well, there's still the amazing universe to explore, right? Please?
Not any more. We now know that Coruscant, the glittering hub of the galaxy's civilisation, looks just like New York or Tokyo or any big modern city today, but with taller buildings. We get traffic problems, neon advertising, drugs being offered, bars, gambling, high-rise living, street-level diners (do they still have those in the US?) and all the crap we associate with our lives right now. Sure, it's in the future, but i
Surely the only reason Darth Vader was on the Death Star II was because he was bringing Luke to the Emperor. If Luke had've stayed in bed, Vader would have been commanding the fleet and while the Emperor would've been blown up aboard the Death Star, Vader would've trained up a new apprentice and become the new Emperor.
Only with Luke there was it possible to kill both of the Sith, ending the Empire.
Of course, the Rebel fleet could've wiped out a demoralised Empire fleet after the Death Star blew up, killing Vader anyway. In fact they almost certainly would have (the Empire fleet seemed to stop shooting when the Death Star exploded, instead of pressing the weaker Rebel fleet). Now that I think about it, what was Luke thinking by going to Endor when he knew Vader was nearby and would sense him? And why didn't Vader remember that turning Luke must result in either his own death or the Emperor's? I mean, come on, he knew full well that there could only be two Sith at a time, and given that he was the one doing all the fighting he should've guessed that most likely he would be killed by Luke as part of the 'turning' process.
I really shouldn't start to analyse the plot of the Star Wars sextet. It's just too full of holes, inconsistencies and odd character decisions. Still, it looked good on screen.
Funnily enough, since WWII was declared against Germany (well, the bit in Europe was anyway), it didn't end in 1945 because there was no Germany in existence to surrender, which is critical for the formal end of a war.
The war officially ended when Germany reunified in 1990, and someone got around to the paperwork.
That would be true if potential customers were all reading those articles. Clearly they're not.
Microsoft needs no help in making the Zune a failure. They designed the Zune to compete today, but when their product came out, today became yesterday and the competition had already moved on.
Add to that the Zune's lack of profit by the second generation, and you've got a failure at the financial level at least.
The sad part is that people still view apple as the *underdog*. In all reality, their position in the MP3 player market is no different than MS's in the OS market, except they're far more abusive, proprietary, and monopolistic.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
When Apple are successfully sentenced from an anti-trust trial or some other monopoly-based charge, your case will be made. Until then it's just an opinion. I see this opinion a lot, but for some reason it doesn't take into account the massive number of non-Apple mp3 players (look at Asia and you'll see there's no Apple monopoly there), the huge ongoing sales of CDs and the fact that Apple have never done anything to stop any other company entering the market. Abuse has to be shown somewhere, but Apple have simply done their own thing from the start, and neither aided nor hindered competitors. In contrast, Microsoft were charged with offences relating to abusing their monopoly power to force competitors out of the market.
In the online music space, Apple are definitely not an underdog, but they're not the overbearing tyrant you try to paint them as either.
Let me know when they've opened up itunes to download music from any vendor I choose,...
Well, if the vendor doesn't use DRM you're good to go right now (and have been since day 1). Apple have said all along they want to drop DRM (there's a Rolling Stone article dated at the debut of the iTMS with the quotes from Steve Jobs, in addition to Jobs' open letter earlier this year) and they've used their position to apply some pressure on the labels who have insisted on it. It's not been a complete success by any means, but the industry is slowly turning away from DRM.... and their car jacks etc to be opened and licensed to other players. I don't want an "ipod" jack in my car, I want a universal mp3 player jack.
Do you mean a 3.5mm stereo plug/socket? That's the only universal mp3 player jack I've ever heard of (works with portable CD or cassette players too).
Besides, why should a car that will last for (say) 10-20 years have somewhere for a transient piece of technology to sit? Will you still be using the same player in 20 years? Better to get all car stereos to include a generic 3.5mm socket that you can plug any piece of technology into. It'll be far more future-proof than an iPod socket.
His articles are all very one-sided, but while I see a lot of people call him on that and disagree with him, I'm yet to see a substantial attack that focused on his points rather than on their author.
No, it's a failure because it's being sold at a loss and there's no aftermarket products that bring money in (as in the case of game consoles).
Microsoft could sell these for millions of years and it'd still be a failure if every unit loses them money. That's not strategy, it's sheer bloody-mindedness. A successful product brings in more money than it costs. The Zune does not do that, and all the cross-subsidising in the world won't change a turkey into an eagle.
At least the X-Box 360 makes money on the game licences, although it's got about five billion dollars to go before that division reaches profitability.
By the way - long term strategies? For the Zune? Got anything to show to back that up? Not that I'm calling you a liar, but I've seen a picture of you with your pants on fire.
I'm saying that there are many business PCs that don't have Internet access, and if you're looking at total Windows licences in existence, you have to understand that proportion. That will affect the stats that Net Applications provides.
In addition you've got the internationally-used PCs that do connect to the Internet but whose users don't go to Fortune 500 sites. That will be a huge factor, and Net Applications doesn't even see them. An example - I'm an Australian, and most likely Net Applications has never factored in my Mac because I may never have visited on of your Fortune 500 sites.
If you're willing to restrict your data set to only the US-based PCs that are actively used on the Internet and view Fortune 500 websites, then Net Applications provides solid data. If you want a broader set (or the full set), then it's just worthless. It only sees a subset, and provides no real information on the complete set.
I agree that my last post was purely anecdotal, but Net Applications data is definitely not representative of all computers, merely those connecting to the Internet. That factors out a lot of business PCs, making any conclusions drawn from it suspect.
I know of one business I worked in that was entirely Win2K and since the majority of users didn't have Internet access, they wouldn't show up in NetApplications data. I suspect that while XP is still predominant, Win2K numbers are higher than shown in that graph.
The reply was intelligent and articulate, with swearing only in the last paragraph. If anything, the language shows passion for the issues and frustrations. I think any IT manager worth their salt would feel damned lucky to have someone who knows their stuff, can actually use the English language well and is passionate about their work.
Read the previous post he replied to. That poster would rile up anyone who lives in the real world with actual, Human customers. Apart from calling SatanicPuppy stoned, the AC dropped clangers like "people can learn to use new apps" and "you get resistance if you blow your nose." I'm all for the rise of Linux, but people with attitudes like that help no-one. Users are the entire reason that IT exists in the first place, and anyone who's rolled out any user-facing IT project, even a tiny one (I've done a few), has to deal with a huge amount of inertia on the part of the users. It's not enough just to tell them to go and learn it, you've got to lead them by the hand, show them why this is better, give them real reasons to switch to the new stuff and even change business processes if necessary. Switching from Windows to Linux on the desktop is a mammoth project, and SatanicPuppy is exactly right when he talks about lower-level staff raising show-stoppers. It happens.
Hmm... got a bit carried away there, but that's an issue I've seen too many times - IT staff with no idea how users behave. As someone who's not in IT but has run several IT projects, I know that SatanicPuppy is spot on even though I wish he wasn't (it'd make life so much easier if users did just "learn to use new apps").
I'm not sure you realize it, but you just provided evidence that you enjoy some real security with MS Windows.
Few people, even on Slashdot, would argue that it's not possible to enjoy a secure environment in Windows. It's too easy to blow holes in such arguments. With care and effort, an environment can be created that allows users to do just about everything they want while being safe.
Windows has been (I believe) harder to properly secure, thanks to decisions made by Microsoft. It's better now than ever, but a way short from best in class.
At first glance this doesn't appear that bad for Microsoft -- so businesses wait, and then buy a different product from Microsoft; it delays income, but isn't that bad.
I'd say that it looks bad at first glance just on that comment alone. Microsoft, like any company, needs a solid revenue stream. If their biggest corporate customers hold off, that's a lot of money not being given to them. They may well get it later, but with their entertainment division burning through billions and almost no sign of profit from any division except Windows and Office, they need to keep the Windows cash cow producing.
At my last workplace we had Win2K installed across the network, and I'd say we were about as secure as any site could be. Between the users and the raw Internet we had gateways and routers and firewalls a'plenty. Emails were scrutinised on their way in and out of the email server, and at the user level. We all had anti-virus software as well, and to cap it off the IT Security team would send out notification emails (ie 'don't open attachments named "xxx"') every now and then when a particularly bad email virus was being distributed 'out there.'
We never had a security incident hit the users. We had a couple of power failures during a building construction next door (our site), but no security incidents. I was only there for 5.5 years, so it's possible there were incidents before and after, but I doubt it.
So, given the industrial-strength security that large installations can bring to bear, what will Vista provide that they don't already have, and will the benefits outweigh the costs of upgrading all the older PIII and P4 machines (many of which were still at 128MB when I left six months ago) ?
I would say that the better security of Vista is targeted at home users and very small business. Medium to large businesses will already have better security.
And the only reason Vista nags so much, is because people (presumably Mac users) slagged off XP so much for not asking you, and said how OS X was better because you had to enter your password to do such things. So that's who we have to thank for that!
Citation needed!
Seriously though, the reason Vista nags so much is that Microsoft were copping a lot of flak for their crappy security model and overhauled it. Unfortunately they produced a crappy interface to their improved security model. Don't blame Mac users for the rampant stupidity of some Microsoft project managers and developers. Vista has some really nice features, but there are some astoundingly stupid 'features' that somehow made it past usability testing. Still, we know they'll fix it in an update sometime, making it a 'safe' buy.
I've thought about the whole static world problem, and I agree with you. My issue is that I can't work out a way to allow players to actually make an impact on the world (driving a story) when you need to allow all players to have the same experiences. Maybe there could be weekly or monthly resets, but then it's a race to complete the big, world-changing quests and the winners will be the people playing for 48 hours straight.
The decision to have a static world means that players won't compete with each other as much, and that allows slower players (like myself) to have some fun experiences along the way. It also means that no player can affect the world or story in any meaningful way, which detracts from the game in my eyes.
I can't reconcile the two. If I could I'd probably be working for Blizzard!
The second part (skills linked to level) is one of those many game decisions that doesn't make sense in the real world, but is made to help drive players forward in the game. Why can't a smart player buy raw materials in the auction house, make and sell items and get to the maximum skill level in a profession while remaining at level one? It'd be interesting to see if someone could do this, but the option isn't there in WoW (and the others you mention). The restrictions tying skill to level seem pretty arbitrary. When I was moving up in leather-working I hit the skill limit about ten levels too early in the last two skill 'buckets' and that brick wall seemed incongruous then and still does now.
I know that expecting real-life experiences to play out in the game is never going to work, but why can't we have (for example) great tailors who aren't supremely powerful characters as well? I'd be amazed if I walked into a tailor's shop in real life and the tailor was a powerful, confident person exuding an air of utter capability and majesty. But that's what we get in the game.
Ah, game decisions. Some seem brilliant, some not so much. I guess they're all made for good reasons, even if they seem odd to us.
I'd say that it's their job to be pretty certain of success before launching these kind of lawsuits. The costs for this failure will be borne by the members, who will see a reduced retirement fund now.
The legal-action door is still open, but I'd be surprised if they proceed with any further cases, given their original was judged to have had no merit.
If I were a member, I'd be pretty upset with the current crop of bozos running the fund. After all, the share price wasn't hurt by the backdating so I would not have lost any money. Well, until this case was brought with all its attendant legal fees.
Oh, come on. That's not even a worthwhile definition of a monopoly. Every company has a 100% monopoly on their own products. You're defining the market too narrowly. The Mac operates in the same market as machines running Windows, so you can't consider it a monopoly in any sensible manner. I thought you'd come back with something about the iPod, which is far more likely to be judged a monopoly in the portable music player business. I bet you didn't even type that with a straight face.
I think the fundamental difference here is that you believe, for whatever reasons, that were Apple to somehow become as successful as Microsoft was in the 1990s, that it would not use its market power illegally.
Apple may be just as bad as Microsoft, but I'll wait until they actually do something before I pass judgement. I won't agree with the sort of cynicism you espouse.
The numbers prove popularity, not quality. You say "...popular doesn't necessarily mean best" but then contradict that with "...the numbers clearly proving..." The two statements can't be reconciled.
It's okay to dump on the leaders. Sometimes there's good reason, and sometimes they will be forced to improve.
(For the record, I'm a WoW player, and while I do have fun, there are elements I find weak or entirely missing. An example is the trade-off made that allows all players to complete important quests, but the world remains the same. The static nature of the world means that there can be no advancement of story, it's a snapshot in time and nothing more. Another example is the profession system being tied to player level. Why can't a tailor reach 375 in tailoring while staying in Stormwind at level 1? Some people would prefer to make things than kill things, but the game discourages that preference. The reason is probably to keep players 'out there' in the world, interacting and all that, but I find this a poor decision. The game's a lot of fun, but it deserves criticism in many places.)
There used to be a few graphics cards available before the move to x86, although they've dried up now. Apple are doing nothing to stop ATi and nVidia from making retail cards for the Mac, so I guess it's just the appearance of low sales (they can only target the Mac Pro, sadly).
Plenty of people make hardware that's either for Macs, or Mac compatible. Some Macs have socket-upgradable processors as well, so you can add Intel to the list.
How many can people sell FairPlay tracks for ipods?
A better question is "How many people can sell music that will play on the iPods?" The answer is about 90% of the world's music retailers, through CDs and non-DRM music. The solution is not to get Apple to licence FairPlay, but to dispose of DRM altogether (and that aim was stated by Steve Jobs in an open letter some time ago). What good does licensing do?
Apple's as much of a monopolist as MS, it's just not as successful (yet).
No, that's just not true. You may think Apple are monopolistic, but they've not been taken to court and convicted of anti-trust charges which have held up under all appeals. They're under fire for the DRM in FairPlay, but they're not being sued around the planet (particularly in the US states and the EU) for their anti-trust misuse of their monopoly. It's a nice convenient little line to trot out that Apple are just as bad as Microsoft, but the evidence doesn't support it and never has. Apple definitely do things their own way, and people disagree with that from time to time, but that doesn't make them a monopolistic company who abuse that power to force others into deals.
There was a story here last week, and plenty of people did scream themselves blue in the face about how Apple was insecure by design.
You're right though - it was bad design and Apple were pulled up on it. I think it's okay to make mistakes as long as they're fixed reasonably quickly, like this was. It's not wonderful to make the mistakes in the first place, but it's always good to learn from them.
Slashdot Mirror
it was going back and taking the myths and legends which awed us (who the Jedi and Sith had been, how the Empire changed the galaxy) and acting them all out, while giving the prequels few myths and legends of their own to compensate
That's a solid point.
In the first film (Ep4) the Jedi seemed like some extinct mystic order of religious warriors, but by not giving details it remained mysterious and interesting and yet did not bog down the story. The later films (Ep5, 6) reinforced this, and left me with a feeling that there was a huge, mysterious area to explore with the Jedi. They were interesting and powerful.
The prequel trilogy then showed us that the mysterious and powerful Jedi held meetings, had layers of bureaucracy and a rigid, formalised structure. I half expected someone to pop out of PowerPoint presentation when they were talking.
Yoda: "Talk now, will Bob from marketing. About the advertising revenue, yes, hmmm?"
Bob: "Thanks Yoda. Well, if you'll all look at slide one here, you'll see that despite leveraging multiple synergies, ad spending is up and revenue has stayed flat."
Maybe Episode I could have been subtitled "Star Wars Episode I - You will believe a Jedi can hold a meeting."
Well, bang goes that mystery. Still, there's the Sith, they're still mysterious, right?
Well, not any more. We now know all we need about them as well. There may be a few individual stories to find out, but they're just over-emotional Jedi with a bad career path movement policy.
Still, there's the great mystery of what the Force actually is... bang! It's a symbiote living in your cells that connects you to the Universe. Great. Another mysterious veil pierced and ripped away. It also seems that it's got a genetic link, making some families 'strong with the force' and the vast majority weak. Hey, why not call it a caste system and be done with it! Two types of people - force strong and force weak, with the more fortunate ones using their great power to maintain the status quo. Excellent. After however many tens of thousands of years, there's no way that could be anything less than the best possible system is there? I mean, the status quo is always worth maintaining, isn't it?
While I'm on a roll...
The Jedi come across as a bunch of fools, whose much vaunted wisdom and skill is completely outplayed by a single, clever opponent. Even when they thought there was a Sith somewhere in the government, what did they do? Absolutely nothing. Apparently waiting for the Sith's plans to mature and finalise was better than trying to ferret them out and destroy them.
It's not just a hindsight thing either. The Jedi sat on their hands because that's what they're all about. I cannot imagine any way they could have risen to power with that attitude. How they are meant to be a revered font of wisdom is beyond me. They're full of homespun crap homilies and an expectation that people should be happy with their lot in life. Gee, what role models they turned out to be.
I cheered when they were all slaughtered. That was the best possible thing that could have happened to the Jedi order - to start again from scratch with none of the bozo baggage from the previous, worthless thousand years of fence-sitting, do-nothing tools of oppression. At least the Sith had the balls to actually live up to their ideals. Sure, they were evil buggers, but they actually did stuff to force the galaxy forward towards their ideals. I bet they had the trains running on time.
Well, there's still the amazing universe to explore, right? Please?
Not any more. We now know that Coruscant, the glittering hub of the galaxy's civilisation, looks just like New York or Tokyo or any big modern city today, but with taller buildings. We get traffic problems, neon advertising, drugs being offered, bars, gambling, high-rise living, street-level diners (do they still have those in the US?) and all the crap we associate with our lives right now. Sure, it's in the future, but i
Surely the only reason Darth Vader was on the Death Star II was because he was bringing Luke to the Emperor. If Luke had've stayed in bed, Vader would have been commanding the fleet and while the Emperor would've been blown up aboard the Death Star, Vader would've trained up a new apprentice and become the new Emperor.
Only with Luke there was it possible to kill both of the Sith, ending the Empire.
Of course, the Rebel fleet could've wiped out a demoralised Empire fleet after the Death Star blew up, killing Vader anyway. In fact they almost certainly would have (the Empire fleet seemed to stop shooting when the Death Star exploded, instead of pressing the weaker Rebel fleet). Now that I think about it, what was Luke thinking by going to Endor when he knew Vader was nearby and would sense him? And why didn't Vader remember that turning Luke must result in either his own death or the Emperor's? I mean, come on, he knew full well that there could only be two Sith at a time, and given that he was the one doing all the fighting he should've guessed that most likely he would be killed by Luke as part of the 'turning' process.
I really shouldn't start to analyse the plot of the Star Wars sextet. It's just too full of holes, inconsistencies and odd character decisions. Still, it looked good on screen.
How long did WW2 last again?
Funnily enough, since WWII was declared against Germany (well, the bit in Europe was anyway), it didn't end in 1945 because there was no Germany in existence to surrender, which is critical for the formal end of a war.
The war officially ended when Germany reunified in 1990, and someone got around to the paperwork.
Thanks to QI for that bizarre tidbit!
Nobody ever talks about wanting XP because of how great it is.
Apparently a lot of former Vista users say that XP is great. They wax lyrical around on tech websites about it.
No conclusions. I'm just saying, that's all.
That would be true if potential customers were all reading those articles. Clearly they're not.
Microsoft needs no help in making the Zune a failure. They designed the Zune to compete today, but when their product came out, today became yesterday and the competition had already moved on.
Add to that the Zune's lack of profit by the second generation, and you've got a failure at the financial level at least.
The sad part is that people still view apple as the *underdog*. In all reality, their position in the MP3 player market is no different than MS's in the OS market, except they're far more abusive, proprietary, and monopolistic.
...
... and their car jacks etc to be opened and licensed to other players. I don't want an "ipod" jack in my car, I want a universal mp3 player jack.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
When Apple are successfully sentenced from an anti-trust trial or some other monopoly-based charge, your case will be made. Until then it's just an opinion. I see this opinion a lot, but for some reason it doesn't take into account the massive number of non-Apple mp3 players (look at Asia and you'll see there's no Apple monopoly there), the huge ongoing sales of CDs and the fact that Apple have never done anything to stop any other company entering the market. Abuse has to be shown somewhere, but Apple have simply done their own thing from the start, and neither aided nor hindered competitors. In contrast, Microsoft were charged with offences relating to abusing their monopoly power to force competitors out of the market.
In the online music space, Apple are definitely not an underdog, but they're not the overbearing tyrant you try to paint them as either.
Let me know when they've opened up itunes to download music from any vendor I choose,
Well, if the vendor doesn't use DRM you're good to go right now (and have been since day 1). Apple have said all along they want to drop DRM (there's a Rolling Stone article dated at the debut of the iTMS with the quotes from Steve Jobs, in addition to Jobs' open letter earlier this year) and they've used their position to apply some pressure on the labels who have insisted on it. It's not been a complete success by any means, but the industry is slowly turning away from DRM.
Do you mean a 3.5mm stereo plug/socket? That's the only universal mp3 player jack I've ever heard of (works with portable CD or cassette players too).
Besides, why should a car that will last for (say) 10-20 years have somewhere for a transient piece of technology to sit? Will you still be using the same player in 20 years? Better to get all car stereos to include a generic 3.5mm socket that you can plug any piece of technology into. It'll be far more future-proof than an iPod socket.
His articles are all very one-sided, but while I see a lot of people call him on that and disagree with him, I'm yet to see a substantial attack that focused on his points rather than on their author.
No, it's a failure because it's being sold at a loss and there's no aftermarket products that bring money in (as in the case of game consoles).
Microsoft could sell these for millions of years and it'd still be a failure if every unit loses them money. That's not strategy, it's sheer bloody-mindedness. A successful product brings in more money than it costs. The Zune does not do that, and all the cross-subsidising in the world won't change a turkey into an eagle.
At least the X-Box 360 makes money on the game licences, although it's got about five billion dollars to go before that division reaches profitability.
By the way - long term strategies? For the Zune? Got anything to show to back that up? Not that I'm calling you a liar, but I've seen a picture of you with your pants on fire.
They are as representative as it gets.
Well that's just not true at all.
I'm saying that there are many business PCs that don't have Internet access, and if you're looking at total Windows licences in existence, you have to understand that proportion. That will affect the stats that Net Applications provides.
In addition you've got the internationally-used PCs that do connect to the Internet but whose users don't go to Fortune 500 sites. That will be a huge factor, and Net Applications doesn't even see them. An example - I'm an Australian, and most likely Net Applications has never factored in my Mac because I may never have visited on of your Fortune 500 sites.
If you're willing to restrict your data set to only the US-based PCs that are actively used on the Internet and view Fortune 500 websites, then Net Applications provides solid data. If you want a broader set (or the full set), then it's just worthless. It only sees a subset, and provides no real information on the complete set.
A "wealthy musician?" Seriously?
It's Prince. Or that symbol thingy. Or TAFKAP (I think I know what one of those "A"s stands for).
The summary seems unnecessarily coy about exactly who's behind this.
I agree that my last post was purely anecdotal, but Net Applications data is definitely not representative of all computers, merely those connecting to the Internet. That factors out a lot of business PCs, making any conclusions drawn from it suspect.
I know of one business I worked in that was entirely Win2K and since the majority of users didn't have Internet access, they wouldn't show up in NetApplications data. I suspect that while XP is still predominant, Win2K numbers are higher than shown in that graph.
I completely disagree.
The reply was intelligent and articulate, with swearing only in the last paragraph. If anything, the language shows passion for the issues and frustrations. I think any IT manager worth their salt would feel damned lucky to have someone who knows their stuff, can actually use the English language well and is passionate about their work.
Read the previous post he replied to. That poster would rile up anyone who lives in the real world with actual, Human customers. Apart from calling SatanicPuppy stoned, the AC dropped clangers like "people can learn to use new apps" and "you get resistance if you blow your nose." I'm all for the rise of Linux, but people with attitudes like that help no-one. Users are the entire reason that IT exists in the first place, and anyone who's rolled out any user-facing IT project, even a tiny one (I've done a few), has to deal with a huge amount of inertia on the part of the users. It's not enough just to tell them to go and learn it, you've got to lead them by the hand, show them why this is better, give them real reasons to switch to the new stuff and even change business processes if necessary. Switching from Windows to Linux on the desktop is a mammoth project, and SatanicPuppy is exactly right when he talks about lower-level staff raising show-stoppers. It happens.
Hmm... got a bit carried away there, but that's an issue I've seen too many times - IT staff with no idea how users behave. As someone who's not in IT but has run several IT projects, I know that SatanicPuppy is spot on even though I wish he wasn't (it'd make life so much easier if users did just "learn to use new apps").
I'm not sure you realize it, but you just provided evidence that you enjoy some real security with MS Windows.
Few people, even on Slashdot, would argue that it's not possible to enjoy a secure environment in Windows. It's too easy to blow holes in such arguments. With care and effort, an environment can be created that allows users to do just about everything they want while being safe.
Windows has been (I believe) harder to properly secure, thanks to decisions made by Microsoft. It's better now than ever, but a way short from best in class.
At first glance this doesn't appear that bad for Microsoft -- so businesses wait, and then buy a different product from Microsoft; it delays income, but isn't that bad.
I'd say that it looks bad at first glance just on that comment alone. Microsoft, like any company, needs a solid revenue stream. If their biggest corporate customers hold off, that's a lot of money not being given to them. They may well get it later, but with their entertainment division burning through billions and almost no sign of profit from any division except Windows and Office, they need to keep the Windows cash cow producing.
At my last workplace we had Win2K installed across the network, and I'd say we were about as secure as any site could be. Between the users and the raw Internet we had gateways and routers and firewalls a'plenty. Emails were scrutinised on their way in and out of the email server, and at the user level. We all had anti-virus software as well, and to cap it off the IT Security team would send out notification emails (ie 'don't open attachments named "xxx"') every now and then when a particularly bad email virus was being distributed 'out there.'
We never had a security incident hit the users. We had a couple of power failures during a building construction next door (our site), but no security incidents. I was only there for 5.5 years, so it's possible there were incidents before and after, but I doubt it.
So, given the industrial-strength security that large installations can bring to bear, what will Vista provide that they don't already have, and will the benefits outweigh the costs of upgrading all the older PIII and P4 machines (many of which were still at 128MB when I left six months ago) ?
I would say that the better security of Vista is targeted at home users and very small business. Medium to large businesses will already have better security.
And the only reason Vista nags so much, is because people (presumably Mac users) slagged off XP so much for not asking you, and said how OS X was better because you had to enter your password to do such things. So that's who we have to thank for that!
Citation needed!
Seriously though, the reason Vista nags so much is that Microsoft were copping a lot of flak for their crappy security model and overhauled it. Unfortunately they produced a crappy interface to their improved security model. Don't blame Mac users for the rampant stupidity of some Microsoft project managers and developers. Vista has some really nice features, but there are some astoundingly stupid 'features' that somehow made it past usability testing. Still, we know they'll fix it in an update sometime, making it a 'safe' buy.
Clearly the graph's author has never heard of a semi-log graph. I mean, going for effect is nice and all that, but that scale is ridiculous.
I've thought about the whole static world problem, and I agree with you. My issue is that I can't work out a way to allow players to actually make an impact on the world (driving a story) when you need to allow all players to have the same experiences. Maybe there could be weekly or monthly resets, but then it's a race to complete the big, world-changing quests and the winners will be the people playing for 48 hours straight.
The decision to have a static world means that players won't compete with each other as much, and that allows slower players (like myself) to have some fun experiences along the way. It also means that no player can affect the world or story in any meaningful way, which detracts from the game in my eyes.
I can't reconcile the two. If I could I'd probably be working for Blizzard!
The second part (skills linked to level) is one of those many game decisions that doesn't make sense in the real world, but is made to help drive players forward in the game. Why can't a smart player buy raw materials in the auction house, make and sell items and get to the maximum skill level in a profession while remaining at level one? It'd be interesting to see if someone could do this, but the option isn't there in WoW (and the others you mention). The restrictions tying skill to level seem pretty arbitrary. When I was moving up in leather-working I hit the skill limit about ten levels too early in the last two skill 'buckets' and that brick wall seemed incongruous then and still does now.
I know that expecting real-life experiences to play out in the game is never going to work, but why can't we have (for example) great tailors who aren't supremely powerful characters as well? I'd be amazed if I walked into a tailor's shop in real life and the tailor was a powerful, confident person exuding an air of utter capability and majesty. But that's what we get in the game.
Ah, game decisions. Some seem brilliant, some not so much. I guess they're all made for good reasons, even if they seem odd to us.
I suggest that we agree to disagree?
I don't agree to that!
(sorry, couldn't help myself)
I'd say that it's their job to be pretty certain of success before launching these kind of lawsuits. The costs for this failure will be borne by the members, who will see a reduced retirement fund now.
The legal-action door is still open, but I'd be surprised if they proceed with any further cases, given their original was judged to have had no merit.
If I were a member, I'd be pretty upset with the current crop of bozos running the fund. After all, the share price wasn't hurt by the backdating so I would not have lost any money. Well, until this case was brought with all its attendant legal fees.
Apple has a 100% monopoly in Macintoshes.
Oh, come on. That's not even a worthwhile definition of a monopoly. Every company has a 100% monopoly on their own products. You're defining the market too narrowly. The Mac operates in the same market as machines running Windows, so you can't consider it a monopoly in any sensible manner. I thought you'd come back with something about the iPod, which is far more likely to be judged a monopoly in the portable music player business. I bet you didn't even type that with a straight face.
I think the fundamental difference here is that you believe, for whatever reasons, that were Apple to somehow become as successful as Microsoft was in the 1990s, that it would not use its market power illegally.
Apple may be just as bad as Microsoft, but I'll wait until they actually do something before I pass judgement. I won't agree with the sort of cynicism you espouse.
The numbers prove popularity, not quality. You say "...popular doesn't necessarily mean best" but then contradict that with "...the numbers clearly proving..." The two statements can't be reconciled.
It's okay to dump on the leaders. Sometimes there's good reason, and sometimes they will be forced to improve.
(For the record, I'm a WoW player, and while I do have fun, there are elements I find weak or entirely missing. An example is the trade-off made that allows all players to complete important quests, but the world remains the same. The static nature of the world means that there can be no advancement of story, it's a snapshot in time and nothing more. Another example is the profession system being tied to player level. Why can't a tailor reach 375 in tailoring while staying in Stormwind at level 1? Some people would prefer to make things than kill things, but the game discourages that preference. The reason is probably to keep players 'out there' in the world, interacting and all that, but I find this a poor decision. The game's a lot of fun, but it deserves criticism in many places.)
How many people sell kit for Apple hardware?
http://www.sonnettech.com/
http://www.powerlogix.com/products/index.html
http://macspeedzone.com/html/hubs/central/upgrades/processor/ (not recent stuff, but that's not the point)
http:/// any hard drive manufacturer
There used to be a few graphics cards available before the move to x86, although they've dried up now. Apple are doing nothing to stop ATi and nVidia from making retail cards for the Mac, so I guess it's just the appearance of low sales (they can only target the Mac Pro, sadly).
Plenty of people make hardware that's either for Macs, or Mac compatible. Some Macs have socket-upgradable processors as well, so you can add Intel to the list.
How many can people sell FairPlay tracks for ipods?
A better question is "How many people can sell music that will play on the iPods?" The answer is about 90% of the world's music retailers, through CDs and non-DRM music. The solution is not to get Apple to licence FairPlay, but to dispose of DRM altogether (and that aim was stated by Steve Jobs in an open letter some time ago). What good does licensing do?
Apple's as much of a monopolist as MS, it's just not as successful (yet).
No, that's just not true. You may think Apple are monopolistic, but they've not been taken to court and convicted of anti-trust charges which have held up under all appeals. They're under fire for the DRM in FairPlay, but they're not being sued around the planet (particularly in the US states and the EU) for their anti-trust misuse of their monopoly. It's a nice convenient little line to trot out that Apple are just as bad as Microsoft, but the evidence doesn't support it and never has. Apple definitely do things their own way, and people disagree with that from time to time, but that doesn't make them a monopolistic company who abuse that power to force others into deals.
There was a story here last week, and plenty of people did scream themselves blue in the face about how Apple was insecure by design.
You're right though - it was bad design and Apple were pulled up on it. I think it's okay to make mistakes as long as they're fixed reasonably quickly, like this was. It's not wonderful to make the mistakes in the first place, but it's always good to learn from them.