Dvorak has Microsoft underware, jammies, and bedsheets. He also has Bill-Gates power neckties that he wears during sex every now and then. He's worried that Microsoft may be in deep trouble and his delusions of grandeur let him believe that his suggestion might actually start a fight that would give Microsoft a little breathing room.
Such paranoia. Doesn't he know that about 90% of computer users are stuck in the same psychological computer ghetto as him and that they are never going to leave.
This guy is arguing his case from the point of view that there is no difference in quality between OS X and Win XP. It suggests that he's really never used OS X for a long enough period of time to know what he's talking about.
1. " I think he's missed the boat on this one, and here's why. Cooper assumes that the existence of Boot Camp alone will be enough to entice significant numbers of Windows XP-based PC users to shell out a few grand for a new Mac -- now that's wishful thinking! In my opinion, not many will even bother."
Wrong.
Most Mac's don't cost a few grand so this guy is starting out his discussion/rant with a deliberate gross misrepresentation.
2. "Dual booting Windows XP and Mac OS X through Boot Camp is superfluous, as you're forced to reboot each time you switch between operating systems, and the Windows XP partition can't read any of the files you've saved under your Mac OS X partition. "
OS X offers you a more secure environment and that security is potentially compromised when both operating systems run concurrently.
3. "So what's the point of it, when I could just stick with my current Windows XP-based PC and not worry about Mac OS X altogether? Does OS X really offer any applications that would entice me to purchase a new Mac and put up with the tedium of Boot Camp? I doubt it."
The short answer is that OS X is better. OS X offers a nicer more stable and better considered work environment within which to run your applications. In my experience you would have to use OS X for a while to really appreciate how that improves your experience with every application that you do use. One problem is that takes a while for your work habits to change in order to really take advantage of and appreciate the improved environment that OS X offers.
4. "Rather than enticing existing Windows XP users to switch, Boot Camp will be primarily attractive to current OS X users that are lusting after certain Windows XP applications, such as games. This makes sense -- they're already accustomed to performing most tasks on OS X, and only need to switch over to Windows when they feel the urge to game."
Wrong. Mac users aren't lusting after XP applications. They already own a cheap PC to play games and to run a those few applications in an insecure Windows environment that are not available on a Mac. Now Mac owners will be replacing their PC's with a second inexpensive Mac. With that replacement they will have a second computer that works no matter what Win XP did to their Windows partition when they installed service pack 2.
5. "Ultimately, with Boot Camp, Apple is only helping Microsoft sell more copies of Windows XP. How sweet of them."
See item 4.
6. "If Apple wants a significant number of users to sample OS X, Boot Camp just won't cut it. Instead, it's going to have to get off the fence and start selling OS X to PC users, rather than restricting it to the Mac. I don't see any valid reason why Apple isn't doing this, as it would dramatically increase its revenue and market penetration. Is Apple not confident that it can compete with PC vendors based on hardware design alone, should users have the ability to run OS X on a standard Dell or HP machine?"
Wrong. This assertion ignores the fact that Mac's and their operating systems have better integration, better reliability, and better support. When you call Apple support with a software problem they usually don't tell you that they can't help you with your problem because its a hardware problem and visa versa. Its Apple hardware and software and Apple usually can help you for a reasonable price. Running OS X on cheap generic hardware will disallow real support of the hardware software combination and will result in a much wider variation in the quality of experience of using OS X. Effectively Apple would lose much of their quality control.
7. "However, if Cooper's right about anything, it's that "folks are not clamouring for Windows; they're clamouring to run Windows applicat
My last interaction with Verizon customer service was the beginning of the end of my relationship with them. They are a bunch idiots hired by a bunch of idiots. Just pray that you never need to call their customer support or service department. If they want to give M$ a blowjob then thats fine with me. The final blast will probably kill their last brain cell.
Purty soon everbody will be connectin dere cornputer to dere phone and dere toilet and, hyuk hyuk hyuk, you won't be able to have a decent phone bone on the throne without a reboot and and an M$ upgrade, hyuk hyuk hyuk. Ain't technology wondermous.
Considering the alternatives I'm grateful for his presence and will take advantage of it as long as it lasts. Maybe someone else will notice so that successful behavior begets successful behavior. The bottom line is I won't bend over until I have to.
So it boils down to Microsoft is effectively introducing proprietary standards onto the web and we should all be concerned because it could ultimately give them ownership of the web.
Maybe you are correct but its its hard to understand how poor programming always results in websites that can only be accessed by a web browser that only runs on Windows.
This has been my experience also. It seems that some sites can only be accessed with an IE browser that only runs on Windows. Even the IE browser that does run on the Mac cannot access these sites. I'm encountering more of these MS only websites as time goes by. Will this end when we can only access the web using Windows or a hack of Windows software ? If this continues the web will essentially come under the control of Microsoft corporation. This should be of concern to everyone no matter what operating system they use.
Microsoft was initially completely opposed to an open document standard. When they realized that the market would turn against them they decided that they would put forward their own open document standart. If they win this battle for establishing the standard then, after it gains wide acceptance, they can start to close it back up with proprietary "enhancements". Anyone that trusts Microsoft to establish an open standard of any sort needs a checkup from the neckup. While its too much to expect, Microsoft, and anyone beholden to Microsoft, should not even be allowed to participate on open standards committees.
This post is a deliberate distortion by exclusion. Flame bait. From the article:
" Is it difficult having started this phenomenon of a company any maybe not agreeing with some of its decisions?
Oh no, I agree with it so much. There's just a few areas that are my own values cause me to be a perfectionist, but I do not go criticizing Apple very much at all. I mean, no, I love every part of the Apple world. You can look with your eyes and just see that it always has - every version of Macintosh, including the PowerBooks - the most beautiful product quality and they generally tend to lead the others in terms of qualities you like -- thinness, size of screen, pixels on the screen. The whole world of Apple works together.
I mostly agree with what you are saying but the depressing reality is that many or most people cannot, will not, or are not allowed to install software on the PC that they use to get their job done. By eliminating competition MS does effectively eliminate options for many people and the statistics of web browser useage make that clear. Additionally, there are important government websites that you cannot access with Firfox or any other browser that doesn't require the use of Windows. I believe that the number of these websites is increasing. I think that what people are worried about here is the possibility that lots and lots of important things will eventually be accessible only if you pay a tax to Microsoft. MS should not be allowed to abuse the monopoly that they have been allowed to keep. We are all directly or indirectly paying a Microsoft tax right now and we don't want it to increase. It would be a different matter if they were public service oriented and made a quality product but that isn't the case. They are a business dedicated to forcing money out of peoples pocket one way or another.
A retarded solution for a retarded problem. Without doing anything MS instant messenger will become the default instant messenger because it ships with Windows. This is a simple reality.
At first Microsofts product will be a very nice tool because it has to compete a little. It will even be better than other services. MS will keep making it nicer with proprietary innovations until it is the obvious and natural choice for most users. Within 5-10 years you won't be able to communicate without using their instant messenger and you will have to use Windows to use it.
Once all of the competition is dead then MS will be able to set the price and the quality will be whatever MS feels like delivering. Sort of like the way MS Office is now. A big expensive dysfunctional pile of steaming poo. It started out nice but now there is no competition and if anyone believes that Microsoft, or just about any company for that matter, will maintain a quality product without competition then they need to think again.
The fact is the MS has a competitive advantage that stems from the fact that they are a monopoly and if no one does anything about it then we will all pay and pay dearly.
We saw a preview of superman this weekend. The preview puts Superman in a Jesus-the-savior-of-humanity role. Obviously whoever produced this idiotic contortion of the original story thinks that its an improvement.
Let managment know that you are using a Linux printserver and ask them if, in their greater wisdom, you should swtich that to Windows too. Predictably they will rectify the situation immediately once they discover this secret horror. If, as you suggest, Windows falls on its face then you will do more for the cause of using Linux than if you quietly use Linux until Microsoft gets around to fixing Windows.
You have to find ways to bring pressure on the people who are directly or indirectly getting kickbacks from Microsoft as an inducement to using expensive and inferior products.
The touted "user friendliness" of Windows is skin deep. This becomes apparent when you have to pay someone to make it do its job and to keep it working.
The description of the pentium floating point bug reads like a damage control press release from intel. In spite of what the article says this bug could result in enormous errors in situations were cancellation error came into play.
Slashdot Mirror
"so many waited with baited breath" should read "so many waited with bad breath"
woob-woob-woo-woo-woo
Dvorak has Microsoft underware, jammies, and bedsheets. He also has Bill-Gates power neckties that he wears during sex every now and then. He's worried that Microsoft may be in deep trouble and his delusions of grandeur let him believe that his suggestion might actually start a fight that would give Microsoft a little breathing room.
Such paranoia. Doesn't he know that about 90% of computer users are stuck in the same psychological computer ghetto as him and that they are never going to leave.
Most psychotropic drugs are illegal even if you take them to clear your head while reading Dvorak.
If your OS X system is freezing more than your Windows PC then you need to get it repaired.
Uproariously funny concept.
This guy is arguing his case from the point of view that there is no difference in quality between OS X and Win XP. It suggests that he's really never used OS X for a long enough period of time to know what he's talking about.
1. " I think he's missed the boat on this one, and here's why. Cooper assumes that the existence of Boot Camp alone will be enough to entice significant numbers of Windows XP-based PC users to shell out a few grand for a new Mac -- now that's wishful thinking! In my opinion, not many will even bother."
Wrong.
Most Mac's don't cost a few grand so this guy is starting out his discussion/rant with a deliberate gross misrepresentation.
2. "Dual booting Windows XP and Mac OS X through Boot Camp is superfluous, as you're forced to reboot each time you switch between operating systems, and the Windows XP partition can't read any of the files you've saved under your Mac OS X partition. "
OS X offers you a more secure environment and that security is potentially compromised when both operating systems run concurrently.
3. "So what's the point of it, when I could just stick with my current Windows XP-based PC and not worry about Mac OS X altogether? Does OS X really offer any applications that would entice me to purchase a new Mac and put up with the tedium of Boot Camp? I doubt it."
The short answer is that OS X is better. OS X offers a nicer more stable and better considered work environment within which to run your applications. In my experience you would have to use OS X for a while to really appreciate how that improves your experience with every application that you do use. One problem is that takes a while for your work habits to change in order to really take advantage of and appreciate the improved environment that OS X offers.
4. "Rather than enticing existing Windows XP users to switch, Boot Camp will be primarily attractive to current OS X users that are lusting after certain Windows XP applications, such as games. This makes sense -- they're already accustomed to performing most tasks on OS X, and only need to switch over to Windows when they feel the urge to game."
Wrong.
Mac users aren't lusting after XP applications. They already own a cheap PC to play games and to run a those few applications in an insecure Windows environment that are not available on a Mac. Now Mac owners will be replacing their PC's with a second inexpensive Mac. With that replacement they will have a second computer that works no matter what Win XP did to their Windows partition when they installed service pack 2.
5. "Ultimately, with Boot Camp, Apple is only helping Microsoft sell more copies of Windows XP. How sweet of them."
See item 4.
6. "If Apple wants a significant number of users to sample OS X, Boot Camp just won't cut it. Instead, it's going to have to get off the fence and start selling OS X to PC users, rather than restricting it to the Mac. I don't see any valid reason why Apple isn't doing this, as it would dramatically increase its revenue and market penetration. Is Apple not confident that it can compete with PC vendors based on hardware design alone, should users have the ability to run OS X on a standard Dell or HP machine?"
Wrong.
This assertion ignores the fact that Mac's and their operating systems have better integration, better reliability, and better support. When you call Apple support with a software problem they usually don't tell you that they can't help you with your problem because its a hardware problem and visa versa. Its Apple hardware and software and Apple usually can help you for a reasonable price. Running OS X on cheap generic hardware will disallow real support of the hardware software combination and will result in a much wider variation in the quality of experience of using OS X. Effectively Apple would lose much of their quality control.
7. "However, if Cooper's right about anything, it's that "folks are not clamouring for Windows; they're clamouring to run Windows applicat
A rear entry product should have a rear entrance just for completeness and symmetry.
My last interaction with Verizon customer service
was the beginning of the end of my relationship with
them. They are a bunch idiots hired by a bunch of idiots.
Just pray that you never need to call their customer
support or service department.
If they want to give M$ a blowjob then thats fine with me.
The final blast will probably kill their last brain cell.
Purty soon everbody will be connectin dere cornputer to
dere phone and dere toilet and, hyuk hyuk hyuk, you won't be able
to have a decent phone bone on the throne without
a reboot and and an M$ upgrade, hyuk hyuk hyuk.
Ain't technology wondermous.
Considering the alternatives I'm grateful for his presence
and will take advantage of it as long as it lasts. Maybe someone
else will notice so that successful behavior begets successful
behavior. The bottom line is I won't bend over until I have to.
So it boils down to Microsoft is effectively
introducing proprietary standards onto the web
and we should all be concerned because it could
ultimately give them ownership of the web.
Maybe you are correct but its its hard to understand how poor programming
always results in websites that can only be accessed by a web browser
that only runs on Windows.
This has been my experience also.
It seems that some sites can only be accessed with an IE browser that only
runs on Windows. Even the IE browser that does run on the Mac
cannot access these sites.
I'm encountering more of these MS only websites as
time goes by. Will this end when we can only access the
web using Windows or a hack of Windows software ?
If this continues the web will essentially come under the control
of Microsoft corporation. This should be of concern to everyone no matter what
operating system they use.
How many things out there are called UNIX that aren't "really" UNIX in your opinion ? Is Linux "really" UNIX ?
Use a commercially successful UNIX desktop as a reference point.
While OS X doesn't occupy the majority of desktops it is
a commercial success.
Microsoft was initially completely opposed to an open document standard.
When they realized that the market would turn against them they
decided that they would put forward their own open document standart.
If they win this battle for establishing the standard then, after
it gains wide acceptance, they can start to close it back up with
proprietary "enhancements".
Anyone that trusts Microsoft to establish an open standard of any
sort needs a checkup from the neckup. While its too much to expect,
Microsoft, and anyone beholden to
Microsoft, should not even be allowed to participate on open standards committees.
This post is a deliberate distortion by exclusion. Flame bait.
From the article:
"
Is it difficult having started this phenomenon of a company any maybe not agreeing with some of its decisions?
Oh no, I agree with it so much. There's just a few areas that are my own values cause me to be a perfectionist, but I do not go criticizing Apple very much at all. I mean, no, I love every part of the Apple world. You can look with your eyes and just see that it always has - every version of Macintosh, including the PowerBooks - the most beautiful product quality and they generally tend to lead the others in terms of qualities you like -- thinness, size of screen, pixels on the screen. The whole world of Apple works together.
"
I mostly agree with what you are saying but the depressing reality
is that many or most people cannot, will not, or are not allowed to
install software on the PC that they use to get their job done.
By eliminating competition MS does effectively eliminate options
for many people and the statistics of web browser useage
make that clear. Additionally, there are important government websites that you cannot
access with Firfox or any other browser that doesn't require
the use of Windows. I believe that the number of these websites is increasing.
I think that what people are worried about here is the possibility that lots and lots
of important things will eventually be accessible only if you pay a tax to
Microsoft. MS should not be allowed to abuse the monopoly that they have
been allowed to keep. We are all directly or indirectly paying a Microsoft tax right now and we
don't want it to increase. It would be a different matter if they
were public service oriented and made a quality product but that
isn't the case. They are a business dedicated to forcing money out of
peoples pocket one way or another.
A retarded solution for a retarded problem.
Without doing anything MS instant messenger will become the default instant messenger because
it ships with Windows. This is a simple reality.
At first Microsofts product will be a very nice tool because it has to compete a little. It will even be better
than other services. MS will keep making it nicer with
proprietary innovations until it is the obvious and natural choice for most users. Within 5-10 years you won't
be able to communicate without using their instant messenger and you
will have to use Windows to use it.
Once all of the competition is dead then MS will be able to set the price and the quality
will be whatever MS feels like delivering. Sort of like the way MS Office is now. A big expensive dysfunctional
pile of steaming poo. It started out nice but now there is no competition and if anyone believes that
Microsoft, or just about any company for that matter,
will maintain a quality product without competition then they need to think again.
The fact is the MS has a competitive advantage that stems from the fact that they are a monopoly
and if no one does anything about it then we will all pay and pay dearly.
We saw a preview of superman this weekend.
The preview puts Superman in a Jesus-the-savior-of-humanity role.
Obviously whoever produced this idiotic contortion
of the original story thinks that its an improvement.
Let managment know that you are using a Linux printserver and ask them
if, in their greater wisdom, you should swtich that to Windows too.
Predictably they will rectify the situation immediately once
they discover this secret horror. If, as you suggest, Windows falls on its face then
you will do more for the cause of using Linux than if you quietly use Linux until Microsoft
gets around to fixing Windows.
You have to find ways to bring pressure on the people who
are directly or indirectly getting kickbacks from Microsoft
as an inducement to using expensive and inferior
products.
The touted "user friendliness" of Windows is skin deep. This becomes apparent
when you have to pay someone to make it do its job and to keep it working.
Sounds good to me. Otherwise I think that we are all fixing to get
screwed.
that effectively left PC users with only 640K of memory
for ever and ever.
The description of the pentium floating point bug
reads like a damage control press release from intel.
In spite of what the article says this bug could result
in enormous errors in situations were cancellation error
came into play.