15+15+15+15+15+15+15+15=120 1 decimal place + 1 decimal place = 2 decimal places
Converting from 1.5 to 15, and 0.8 to 8 is multiplication (by 10). Shifting the decimal place back 2 places when you are finished is division. All you've done is rewritten the problem so that the multiplication part is easy.
This is what you've done in long form:
1.5 * 0.8 1 * 1 * (1.5 * 0.8) -- multiplication identity (1 * x == x) applied twice (1*1.5) * (1*0.8) -- associative prop. of multiplication [a(bc) == (ab)c] applied twice (10/10*1.5) * (10/10*0.8) -- division identity (n/n == 1 for n != 0) (15/10) * (8/10) -- plain old multiplication (you weren't supposed to do THIS!!) (15*8)/(10*10) -- dist. multiplication over division [x/y * v/w == xv/yw] (15*8)/100 -- plain old multiplication (or I could give you: 10+10+10+10+10+10+10+10+10+10) (15+15+15+15+15+15+15+15)/100 -- sum equivalence of mult x*y == x[0]+x[1]+... +x[y-1] (y must be an integer) 120 / 100 -- plain old addition 1.2 -- plain old division you weren't supposed to do this THIS either!!
You did at east 2 multiplications and 1 division to set things up so you could simplify the original multiplication. And its fine as a method to simplify performing the mechanical process of multiplication while avoiding the memorization of 'times tables'. But it doesn't succeed at demonstrating the original assertion:
'multiplication is shorthand for addition'
To demonstrate THAT, you would have to perform multiplication without doing any multiplication or division. Hiding the multiplication by moving the radix point around without calling it multiplication doesn't satisfy the requirements. Moving the radix point around isn't addition. Its multiplication/division.
It isn't. It just takes longer and it's more boring. But that's the very essence of having rules for multiplication (and division and factorization): to strip appart the costing and boring parts of an easy process to make it faster (at a cost: the cost of memorizing the appropiate rules).
Yes, and we use the same sort of rules when multiplying large numbers:
Again it makes the actual arithmetic easier. But we aren't doing it without multiplication. We're doing a lot more multiplication actually. But its easier to do.
I don't dispute that you can do multiplication without knowing your times tables. I'm only disputing the more abstract assertion that addition is shorthand for multiplication. (ie that multiplication can be defined in terms of addition.) You can for integers, but not it over rational or real numbers. And attempting to convert rational numbers to integers requires the very multiplation/division you supposed to be proving you don't need.
Isn't that basically suing yourself. How can anyone but the lawyers gain anything?
Pretty much.
Its the corporate equivalent of a "swear jar". When you do let one slip out in front of the kids you put in $20M and it eventually pays for you to go on vacation someplace tropical.
The more you swear the more baddass you appear and the more you are penalized. The more you are penalized the more you are punished and the more responsible for your actions you appear. The more you are punished, the sooner you can go on vacation.
Its really a win-win situation.
Shareholders suing their corporation over hot coffee has the same effect. They: a) get to have sex scandals (baddass & fun) b) get to appear to be making right (responsible & disciplined) c) get to go on vacation as a result (wooo hoo!)
I didn't understand it when it was manually done and I fail to understand it when it is automatically done; but at least the ones using tweets will be have something else to talk about because TV watching habits will already be known.
Yup. Now we have this to look forward to:
Hey, did you catch my tweet last night about watching "So you think you can dance"? Yeah. Did you catch mine about the cat? Man that's a stupid cat. You should have seen it... it was just like I said in the tweet... hey... you never responded to my tweet about the game last night!...
No. I haven't. You've merely misunderstood what I've said.
First you say Apple doesn't provide downloads so I provide a link to Apple dowloads.
I have been talking exclusively about Apple written/owned standalone downloads since the beginning.
Now you're saying Apple only provides links for shareware/freeware software. I didn't know Adobe Maya, one of the links I provided, was shareware or freeware.
I'm saying no such thing. If you re-read my previous posts I included demo/trials for paid software. And its irrelevant anyway, because a link to a demo/trial for Adobe Maya has nothing to do with Apple.
Changing the rules as you have done only makes you look like a troll.
I didn't change the rules. You've been misunderstanding my posts.
I have been talking all along about the fact that OSX point upgrades have contained lots of "exciting new features" compared to XP Service packs which were comparatively dull. The parent to my original post was commenting that Service Packs don't really compare to OSX upgrades. I agreed to that, but pointed out that Microsoft provided a lot of the exciting features as free downloads on that side, features that, had they been apple, would have been included in a point upgrade and cranked up the exciting feature count. My point was that although service packs are fairly dry compared to OSX upgrades, its not that Microsoft hasn't done anything interesting, its that its distribution strategy for the interesting new features was different.
Your argument has been off track the entire time. As you can see, in this context it is irrelevant that Apple hosts a download site for 3rd party apps, (whether its trialware, shareware, FOSS is irrelevant. Its 3rd party.) Its also irrelevant that Apple lets you download patches and updates to software you've bought. Neither of these addresses my =original point= what-so-ever.
Again, you didn't read and click links. For Aperture Apple lists 93 downloads, there are 277 audio downloads, and business and finance shows 204. Those are just 3 categories of software Apple offers downloads in, and I doubt 5% of them are Apple software. In open source Apple includes NeoOffice, PHP, Apache, Samba, and more than 80 more downloads.
And again, you didn't read my post. We seem to be stuck here. I DID click and read those links. Almost none of that is Apple software. The VAST bulk of it is merely shareware/freeware 3rd party software for OSX, and Demo's for paid software.
I am ONLY INTERESTED here in comparing software WRITTEN and/or OWNED by Apple. Other than itunes and safari, its very slim pickings outside of what they bundle with OSX or otherwise SELL. Contrast that with the comparatively rich array of software freely available from Microsoft. (And my point here AGAIN is not that Microsoft is making more, but that its merely different distribution strategy. Apple bundles this stuff with OSX [making OSX updates look more feature laden] while Microsoft makes it available via the web [making its service packs look much more staid], but the "features" are there.
You seem to not be understanding what I'm trying to say at all.
In open source Apple includes NeoOffice, PHP, Apache, Samba, and more than 80 more downloads.
Very very few of which Apple has ever contributed anything to.
This apple download site is little more than a single platform Tucows. Its a collection of 3rd party software for Mac's, plus itunes+safari, and patches for apple products you purchased. It just doesn't compare to the wealth of usable software that Microsoft makes available that Microsoft actaully WROTE or OWNS.
And again, I'm not saying the wealth of software FROM APPLE doesn't exist. It does... but its bundled into the OSX upgrade cycle.
Of course it costs money to keep syncing with deprecated hardware. Apple will have to support this software bridge for the lifetime of Snow Leopard (2 years? 4? more?). Cutting out essentially deprecated software will make the OS easier (and cheaper) for Apple to support in the long run.
Cutting out code may cause bugs. At the very least it will need to be tested to determine whether cutting it out causes bugs. That will require developer time. And the cutting itself requires developer time. Additionally, any automated unit, regression, and integratin tests that check that module will need to be altered. Perhaps the build process may need to be altered. The API documentation will need to be altered, the object diagrams updated.
In practice, leaving it alone and 'supporting it' may be considerably less work than removing it.
I've done maintenance on many projects, where a bit of obsolete functionality was simply left alone, or at most just removed from the UI (e.g. its menu item removed). It wasn't worth the effort to actually remove the code, as it was inter-related with stuff that was still in use, and automatically tested by unit tests and integration tests. It was simpler to just leave it there, and as long as it continued to 'work', it was left alone.
Despite the best attempts at writing modular code, requirements changes over time invariably confound it. And removing code is harder than adding new code. Those are practically axioms of software engineering... the corollary is that eventually its cheaper to rebuild it from scratch.
Since I have Windows apps from 1995 that run just fine on 64 bit Windows 7
Uh huh. But they aren't supported.
I guess I just don't get the concept of a new OS version that breaks existing apps.
Outlook 2002 (from Office XP) is broken on Vista. (Vista removes an insecure security API that Outlook uses to store passwords, so Outlook 2002 in Vista requires you re-enter all your passwords each time you start the program.) There are other hiccups too. That's a pretty high profile break though. Windows users -generally- enjoy much better back-compatibility than Apple users --- Microsofts enterprise customers demand it, and Microsoft has preserved legacy APIs, even legacy defects, just for the sake of back-compat. Apple on the other hand, doesn't have that kind of pressure from its customers, and is generally much more happy to rapidly sever support for old stuff. This is both good and bad... on the upside, it makes the OS easier to maintain, since you aren't dragging all this legacy support around that needs to be tested, validated, and supported... on the other hand, you can't run all that legacy stuff.
Since your entire post is in italics I'm not sure what is the part you are replying to and what part is your reply,
My bad. I should have previewed. Still, there was only one line from your post, the rest was reply.
Apparently you did not read much and click on links. In the "All Downloads" catagory I clicked on 1 link, Apple, which lists Apple's own downloads including Safari and iTunes both of which are available for Windows as well as Macs, and updates to Apple software. It has 758 downloads
Yes, 758 downloads. Almost all of which are patches and firmware updates. And many of those updates are just that -updates- you need the previous version that was bundled with your OS. If it was bundled with OSX 10.4 and you have OSX 10.3, the 'update' is in the majority of cases worthless.
Other than itunes, and safari, there is practically no real software. And I already specifically talked about those 2. Microsoft offers windows media player and Internet explorer which offsets those two. And then it offers a shit-ton of utilities, power toys, honest to goodness applications -- everything from ProcessExplorer, to VirtualPC, to SharedView, to Windows Search.
My point was that Apple develops and releases this class of features as part of the "OSX upgrade package", whereas Microsoft has been building thme, but making them available separately (and for free). So when you look at a list of OSX features and compare that to an XP service pack, yeah, the OSX upgrade has more headliners -- but a lot of that stuff that OSX upgrades headline is available for XP, from Microsoft, for no additional fee. Apple's download site has nothing on what Microsoft gives away above and beyond what is bundled with the OS.
I'm just underscoring the different distribution and marketing approach. I'm not saying apple doesn't build cool new apps and features. I'm saying with Apple you get all the cool new stuff when you buy the next point release. With Microsft, the service packs contained boring critical stuff making them a poor comparison to apple's releases, but the cool features were still coming out... but as separate downloads.
Microsoft on the other hand stopped offering downloadable updates to Windows NT4 less than 5 years after it was released. I know because I have an NT4 PC I bought new I was unable to download an update for 3 years after I bought it. To get the latest update for it I had to order, and pay for, a CD with them.
The service packs and hotfixes are readily available via download. I have an NT4 VM I still occasionally fire up myself. They've been moved around a few times, but I can't recall them ever not being available.
They even have the service packs for 3.5 and 3.51 if you'd like them, including stuff for the mips and alpha chips... you are correct that they aren't up front an center, but come on, NT has been obsolete for nearly a decade now.
itunes safari quicktime - ok these 3 are apple, but are trivially matched by IE and WMP from MS.
iWork09 - trialware so not free quake live - not made by apple messenger for mac - not made by apple, made by microsoft firefox - not made by apple solitaire - not made by apple flip4mac - not by apple google earth - not by apple stuffit expander - not by apple wallet - shareware, not by apple notify - not by apple the game of life - not by apple...
My point was that *Microsoft* released a lot of stuff for Windows which was value add for XP but not part of a service pack. This apple page you've pointed is something completely different, as almost none of the software there was developed by Apple.
And if you were to argue, "it doesn't matter who made it, it still adds value to OSX" that would be true, but misses the point. And besides, even if we were to to look at that, the amount of shareware and freeware available for Windows from 3rd parties utterly eclipses whats available for OSX.
I think that it's disingenuous to compare point upgrades in the mac world to service packs in the windows world. This comparison comes naturally because MS took many years to actually come out with a featureful consumer upgrade (XP --> Vista), by which time every other OS had upgraded multiple times. Just because it takes Apple about as long to put out a point upgrade as it does for MS to put out a new service pack, doesn't mean they're equivalent.
Thing is Microsoft released a ton of new stuff outside of service packs, that was just a free download from its website. With OSX they would have been held back, restricted to the new version and been "exciting new features" in the next point release.
Virtual PC, Windows Scripting Host, Windows Search, Windows Search, Microsoft SharedView, new versions of MSN Messenger.
If you look at OSX, that sort of stuff was usually pay-walled as part of an upgrade: Spotlight, Automater, iChat AV...
The service packs contained less than an OSX upgrade, that's true, but that's because the service packs mostly just contained "critical stuff". A lot of the stuff that Apple would have released as headline features, were released as optional updates or separate downloads.
That's still not to say they are equal, but it just shows how disingenuous any sort of comparison of the release strategies for the two companies is. And of course, Microsoft didn't mean for Vista to take as long as it did -- so that wasn't even part of the "strategy", and its released Vista and 7 in fairly rapid succession.
But in any case, bottom line: both OSes have progressed at a fairly good clip if you look at the big picture.
What new features has XP implemented since it came out?
Its implemented lots of new features after release.
You don't see it because it was a service pack instead of an apple release media extravaganza.
There is also a big diffence in how all the stuff Microsoft released over the XP lifespan, I mean:
Microsoft could have taken things like Microsoft SharedView, IE7, Virtual PC, Photo Gallery, Virtual Desktop Manager, Power Calculator, ClearType, Windows Script Host, SyncTool, Image Resizer,.NET3, DirectX9c, Windows Search, USB2, WPA, Firewall, and packaged it all up and released it.
Instead they were variously distributed as free downloads off the web (sharedview, virtualpc...), as free power toys (image resizer, cleartype...), and bundled into service packs (USB2, WPA, Firewall,...).
NEW features, not fixed ones that used to be broken. NEW. Because there are NEW features with every 10.x release on Macs.
AS you can see above, there were lots of new things released for XP. And you are overstating things with OSX:
This is the list of BIG NEW FEATURES for say, 10.3:
1 Finder - Updated with a brushed-metal interface, a new real-time search engine, customizable Sidebar, secure deletion, File labels and Zip support built in. Finder logo changed. 2 Fast User Switching - Allows a user to remain logged in while another user logs in 3 Exposé - Helps the user manage windows by showing them all as thumbnails 4 TextEdit - TextEdit now is also compatible with Microsoft Word (.doc) documents. 5 Xcode developer tools - Faster compile times with gcc 3.3. 6 Preview - Increased speed with PDF rendering 7 QuickTime - Now supports the Pixlet high definition video codec
#1 ooo brushed metal ui. a search function! (xp has that) customizable sidebar (xp has that), secure deletion (new feature!), file labels (new feature!), zip support (xp has that), logo changed!!! #2 Expose(new feature!) #3 fast user switching (xp has that) #4 textedit can read.doc files (wowee!!) so can wordpad. #5 xcode dev tools faster -- this is the number 5 reason to be excited to buy 10.3? We're really scraping the barrel here. #6 preview faster -- yawn #7 quicktime - cross platform (ie XP has that), and could be installed in previous versions of osx too -- yawn.
So, $129 for expose, file labels, secure deletion, and zip support??
Oh but there's more... it came with new applications too...
FileVault - on the fly encryption - XP has that. ichat av - msn messenger does a/v too. yawn x11 built in - ooo so you don't have to manually install it like you used to! safari - about time, but safari 1.0 makes IE6 look good.
But that's not all, there's still more: Fax support built in -- xp has that
So... OSX10.3 -- much ado about Expose and a whole bunch of catch up with XP? Jobs' reality distortion field works wonders doesn't it.
Granted TimeMachine is cool, and Automator, and Spotlight, and there have been other features over the years too. But really as of today, only TimeMachine is really unmatched on windows. (although there are 3rd party options as there always are.)
Re:Maybe the Dem's Should Follow Nasa's Lead...
on
NASA May Outsource
·
· Score: 1
Lol. That's the trouble with irony.
Too many people =beleive= what you said for it to be reasonable to guess you aren't one of them.:)
Yes, that's right, Microsoft released 3 XP service packs, in the same time as apple released 3 major OS updates, and 28 service packs.
We could go round in circles all day. Most OSX "service packs" weren't much more than a particularly big "patch Tuesday", or contained what would be an optional windows update or 3rd party download. But its just semantics, and arguing over what's a service vs a patch vs an os update is like arguing over version number schemes or name conventions: pointless.
But I like how you pick the time frame to support your argument. Start the clock running the day after XP and stop it before Vista. That creates some serious distortion, don't you think? It lets you ignore Vista, SP1/2, and Windows 7 which played an awful lot of catch up with OSX, and even leap frogged it in areas, and a time frame where OSX has been relatively still.
Over the long haul, neither OS has been particularly stagnant. Which is what I originally said.
Context is important. The VERY next thing I said was "However, that ride is over,..." with respect to the 'free ride'. That pretty much undermines your entire argument.
Apple doesn't charge for their bug fixes either.
So if you have OSX10.2, and want the latest bug fixes, you can download a patch for them? No. I don't think so.
(*much* less, actually, than MS charges for their OS's)
Let's see your math on that. The average Windows update costs what? $150-250? OSX is $130 2x-3x as often?
I find it a bit odd that PC users are complaining that Apple improves their system too quickly.
The real complaint is that they discountinue supporting their system too quickly. The issue is once apple releases a new version support for the old one drops off VERY quickly. Lots of new Software won't run on the older version because many apple dev's (including Apple - e.g. ilife, itunes...) only support the latest release. And patches for previous version stop coming out much faster.
They aren't complaining that the OS is improved faster. Its that they have to upgrade more often. If it were more of a choice, there'd be no complaint. But these days even running 10.4 excludes you from a lot of stuff.
Microsoft likes to update rarely. This results in them having horrifically outdated products...
Except that Microsoft did release several free service packs, so the OS wasn't really nearly as stale as the release dates might imply.
And while Apple does release paid updates often, they often drag their feet as bad as Microsoft. Java updates for example tend to seriously lag. Hardware support for cutting edge hardware also tends to lag badly (video cards for example). And so on.
Re:Maybe the Dem's Should Follow Nasa's Lead...
on
NASA May Outsource
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
please look the complete failure of what NASA is, and realize too, that your Health Care package would probably do the same.
The existing health care system is a complete failure too. The question shouldn't be whether national health care would do a 'great' job. The question should be whether it will do a better job than the system we have now. Based on what goes on in other countries, the answer is a simple "yes". Better health care for more people at a lower GDP cost. Yeah, there are -some- people who will be -marginally- worse off. Yeah, I'm sure it will be rife with problems and inefficiency.
To use a car analogy: The car we're in right now is rusting out, bad on gas, and emitting toxic fumes. Refusing to consider changing to a different car because its bad on gas is idiotic.
If you don't like Obama's health plan fine, what's your better idea? (Hint: the status quo isn't better.) And while your working miracles, after you've done that, how are you going to sell it to congress and the american people?
Windows 95 -> 98 -> NT -> 2000 -> XP are all separate products one pays for. They are all Windows.
OS X 2 3 4 and 5 are all seperate products one pays for. They are all OS X (10)
This is patently absurd on multiple levels. The time period's don't line up, and the Windows sequence you illustrated is nonsense.
First, you are mixing two separate windows lines. NT4 came out in 96, it its absurd that people would have "upgraded" from Windows 98 to NT, and because of their separate functions few if anyone upgraded from NT to 98 either. Perhaps you meant ME? But that's irrelevant, practically nobody upgraded from 98 to ME, nor had any reason to. ME was only released because 2000 wasn't ready for the home market. So at best people went from 98 to ME or 2000 but not through both. But most went straight from 98 to XP, and only got ME new if it was on a PC released in that window between ME and XP.
Realistically, from 95 to XP you upgraded twice: Either you went from NT4-2K-XP or 95-98-XP. Because the average lifespan of a PC is 3-4 years, most people NEVER paid to upgrade at all, and just got the new version on their new PC.
Second, the reality is that ALL the above windows happened before OSX10.2 was even released. To take Windows back to 95 you HAVE to go back to 95 with MacOS. That means in addition to 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, you have to count: System 7. MacOS8, MacOS8.5, MacOS9, OSX 10.0 & OSX 10.1. That's 10 versions of the Apple OS in the same time frame as Microsoft had 3. Now, the same hardware cycle applies to OSX to Mac's as PCs, and indeed there is simply no way to run OSX10.5 on a PC that ran System 7. But still, that's enough releases to essentially require you to upgrade your OS every year that you don't replace your Mac. Granted you can skip the odd release, but Apple is a lot more demanding about having current software. Windows 2000 is just now falling off the wagon for being supported by new software... how much new software will run on OS9? Or even 3 versions later 10.2?
Bottom line, MS really HAS given us a relatively free ride the last 7 years with XP, while Apple has released several paid upgrades in that time frame. No point in trying to dispute it.
However, that ride is over, as Vista was a paid upgrade, as is Windows 7, so the comparisons start balancing out again. And who knows when Windows 8(or whatever they'll call it) will be out, or whether we'll get another 5+ years of good support and free service packs. We might see that again, we might not, but I think we all expect 10.6, 10.7, 10.8, 10.9, 10.X(?) to keep coming out like clockwork.
So you CAN make a good argument against comodore64_love, but yours was not a good argument.
I think that having a pet as a fashion accessory is still generally considered to be something reserved for the rich-and-famous (and still somewhat controversial); you don't see half of the shoppers in Wal-Mart with a canine hanging out of their purse.
I'd say that was only because they really are so utterly inconvenient and impractical that a more normal personal simply wouldn't put up with it just for the sake of fashion.
The SixthSense kit gets my geek sensibility excited, but you'd be laughed at for wearing anything resembling it. Right now there is already backlash against Bluetooth ear pieces (note the latest cover from Wired magazine).
In a world where women walk around with a dressed up living, breathing, pooping animals under their arm, you are going to try and convince me that there exists a thing or will ever exist a thing which the fashion industry can't arbitrarily decide is fasionable to have?
Slashdot Mirror
15+15+15+15+15+15+15+15=120
1 decimal place + 1 decimal place = 2 decimal places
Converting from 1.5 to 15, and 0.8 to 8 is multiplication (by 10). Shifting the decimal place back 2 places when you are finished is division. All you've done is rewritten the problem so that the multiplication part is easy.
This is what you've done in long form:
1.5 * 0.8
1 * 1 * (1.5 * 0.8) -- multiplication identity (1 * x == x) applied twice
(1*1.5) * (1*0.8) -- associative prop. of multiplication [a(bc) == (ab)c] applied twice
(10/10*1.5) * (10/10*0.8) -- division identity (n/n == 1 for n != 0)
(15/10) * (8/10) -- plain old multiplication (you weren't supposed to do THIS!!)
(15*8)/(10*10) -- dist. multiplication over division [x/y * v/w == xv/yw]
(15*8)/100 -- plain old multiplication (or I could give you: 10+10+10+10+10+10+10+10+10+10)
(15+15+15+15+15+15+15+15)/100 -- sum equivalence of mult x*y == x[0]+x[1]+... +x[y-1] (y must be an integer)
120 / 100 -- plain old addition
1.2 -- plain old division you weren't supposed to do this THIS either!!
You did at east 2 multiplications and 1 division to set things up so you could simplify the original multiplication. And its fine as a method to simplify performing the mechanical process of multiplication while avoiding the memorization of 'times tables'. But it doesn't succeed at demonstrating the original assertion:
'multiplication is shorthand for addition'
To demonstrate THAT, you would have to perform multiplication without doing any multiplication or division. Hiding the multiplication by moving the radix point around without calling it multiplication doesn't satisfy the requirements. Moving the radix point around isn't addition. Its multiplication/division.
It isn't. It just takes longer and it's more boring. But that's the very essence of having rules for multiplication (and division and factorization): to strip appart the costing and boring parts of an easy process to make it faster (at a cost: the cost of memorizing the appropiate rules).
Yes, and we use the same sort of rules when multiplying large numbers:
22*2.4 done longhand is usually:
2.2
2.4
-----
88
440
----
5.28
But again what's really going on is essentially:
2.2*(10/10)*4.4*(10/10) == (22*44)/100 == (22)(2*10+4)/100 == ((2*10*22)+(4*22))/100 == (440 + 88)/100 = 528/100 = 5.28
Again it makes the actual arithmetic easier. But we aren't doing it without multiplication. We're doing a lot more multiplication actually. But its easier to do.
I don't dispute that you can do multiplication without knowing your times tables. I'm only disputing the more abstract assertion that addition is shorthand for multiplication. (ie that multiplication can be defined in terms of addition.) You can for integers, but not it over rational or real numbers. And attempting to convert rational numbers to integers requires the very multiplation/division you supposed to be proving you don't need.
Make sense?
1.5 x 0.8 == 0.8 + 0.4 2.5 x 0.8 == 0.8 + 0.8 + 0.4
1) That doesn't even come out to the correct answer!
2) What are you doing in step 2?
Multiplication is just a shorthand for adding.
1.5 x 0.8
Describe that strictly in terms of addition. (no multiplication or its inverse division) Its harder than you think.
Isn't that basically suing yourself. How can anyone but the lawyers gain anything?
Pretty much.
Its the corporate equivalent of a "swear jar". When you do let one slip out in front of the kids you put in $20M and it eventually pays for you to go on vacation someplace tropical.
The more you swear the more baddass you appear and the more you are penalized.
The more you are penalized the more you are punished and the more responsible for your actions you appear.
The more you are punished, the sooner you can go on vacation.
Its really a win-win situation.
Shareholders suing their corporation over hot coffee has the same effect.
They:
a) get to have sex scandals (baddass & fun)
b) get to appear to be making right (responsible & disciplined)
c) get to go on vacation as a result (wooo hoo!)
I didn't understand it when it was manually done and I fail to understand it when it is automatically done; but at least the ones using tweets will be have something else to talk about because TV watching habits will already be known.
Yup. Now we have this to look forward to:
Hey, did you catch my tweet last night about watching "So you think you can dance"? ...
Yeah. Did you catch mine about the cat? Man that's a stupid cat. You should have seen it... it was just like I said in the tweet... hey... you never responded to my tweet about the game last night!
So you change the rules.
No. I haven't. You've merely misunderstood what I've said.
First you say Apple doesn't provide downloads so I provide a link to Apple dowloads.
I have been talking exclusively about Apple written/owned standalone downloads since the beginning.
Now you're saying Apple only provides links for shareware/freeware software. I didn't know Adobe Maya, one of the links I provided, was shareware or freeware.
I'm saying no such thing. If you re-read my previous posts I included demo/trials for paid software. And its irrelevant anyway, because a link to a demo/trial for Adobe Maya has nothing to do with Apple.
Changing the rules as you have done only makes you look like a troll.
I didn't change the rules. You've been misunderstanding my posts.
I have been talking all along about the fact that OSX point upgrades have contained lots of "exciting new features" compared to XP Service packs which were comparatively dull. The parent to my original post was commenting that Service Packs don't really compare to OSX upgrades. I agreed to that, but pointed out that Microsoft provided a lot of the exciting features as free downloads on that side, features that, had they been apple, would have been included in a point upgrade and cranked up the exciting feature count. My point was that although service packs are fairly dry compared to OSX upgrades, its not that Microsoft hasn't done anything interesting, its that its distribution strategy for the interesting new features was different.
Your argument has been off track the entire time. As you can see, in this context it is irrelevant that Apple hosts a download site for 3rd party apps, (whether its trialware, shareware, FOSS is irrelevant. Its 3rd party.) Its also irrelevant that Apple lets you download patches and updates to software you've bought. Neither of these addresses my =original point= what-so-ever.
Again, you didn't read and click links. For Aperture Apple lists 93 downloads, there are 277 audio downloads, and business and finance shows 204. Those are just 3 categories of software Apple offers downloads in, and I doubt 5% of them are Apple software. In open source Apple includes NeoOffice, PHP, Apache, Samba, and more than 80 more downloads.
And again, you didn't read my post. We seem to be stuck here. I DID click and read those links. Almost none of that is Apple software. The VAST bulk of it is merely shareware/freeware 3rd party software for OSX, and Demo's for paid software.
I am ONLY INTERESTED here in comparing software WRITTEN and/or OWNED by Apple. Other than itunes and safari, its very slim pickings outside of what they bundle with OSX or otherwise SELL. Contrast that with the comparatively rich array of software freely available from Microsoft. (And my point here AGAIN is not that Microsoft is making more, but that its merely different distribution strategy. Apple bundles this stuff with OSX [making OSX updates look more feature laden] while Microsoft makes it available via the web [making its service packs look much more staid], but the "features" are there.
You seem to not be understanding what I'm trying to say at all.
In open source Apple includes NeoOffice, PHP, Apache, Samba, and more than 80 more downloads.
Very very few of which Apple has ever contributed anything to.
This apple download site is little more than a single platform Tucows. Its a collection of 3rd party software for Mac's, plus itunes+safari, and patches for apple products you purchased. It just doesn't compare to the wealth of usable software that Microsoft makes available that Microsoft actaully WROTE or OWNS.
And again, I'm not saying the wealth of software FROM APPLE doesn't exist. It does ... but its bundled into the OSX upgrade cycle.
Of course it costs money to keep syncing with deprecated hardware. Apple will have to support this software bridge for the lifetime of Snow Leopard (2 years? 4? more?). Cutting out essentially deprecated software will make the OS easier (and cheaper) for Apple to support in the long run.
Cutting out code may cause bugs. At the very least it will need to be tested to determine whether cutting it out causes bugs. That will require developer time. And the cutting itself requires developer time. Additionally, any automated unit, regression, and integratin tests that check that module will need to be altered. Perhaps the build process may need to be altered. The API documentation will need to be altered, the object diagrams updated.
In practice, leaving it alone and 'supporting it' may be considerably less work than removing it.
I've done maintenance on many projects, where a bit of obsolete functionality was simply left alone, or at most just removed from the UI (e.g. its menu item removed). It wasn't worth the effort to actually remove the code, as it was inter-related with stuff that was still in use, and automatically tested by unit tests and integration tests. It was simpler to just leave it there, and as long as it continued to 'work', it was left alone.
Despite the best attempts at writing modular code, requirements changes over time invariably confound it. And removing code is harder than adding new code. Those are practically axioms of software engineering... the corollary is that eventually its cheaper to rebuild it from scratch.
Since I have Windows apps from 1995 that run just fine on 64 bit Windows 7
Uh huh. But they aren't supported.
I guess I just don't get the concept of a new OS version that breaks existing apps.
Outlook 2002 (from Office XP) is broken on Vista. (Vista removes an insecure security API that Outlook uses to store passwords, so Outlook 2002 in Vista requires you re-enter all your passwords each time you start the program.) There are other hiccups too. That's a pretty high profile break though. Windows users -generally- enjoy much better back-compatibility than Apple users --- Microsofts enterprise customers demand it, and Microsoft has preserved legacy APIs, even legacy defects, just for the sake of back-compat. Apple on the other hand, doesn't have that kind of pressure from its customers, and is generally much more happy to rapidly sever support for old stuff. This is both good and bad... on the upside, it makes the OS easier to maintain, since you aren't dragging all this legacy support around that needs to be tested, validated, and supported... on the other hand, you can't run all that legacy stuff.
Since your entire post is in italics I'm not sure what is the part you are replying to and what part is your reply,
My bad. I should have previewed. Still, there was only one line from your post, the rest was reply.
Apparently you did not read much and click on links. In the "All Downloads" catagory I clicked on 1 link, Apple, which lists Apple's own downloads including Safari and iTunes both of which are available for Windows as well as Macs, and updates to Apple software. It has 758 downloads
Yes, 758 downloads. Almost all of which are patches and firmware updates. And many of those updates are just that -updates- you need the previous version that was bundled with your OS. If it was bundled with OSX 10.4 and you have OSX 10.3, the 'update' is in the majority of cases worthless.
Other than itunes, and safari, there is practically no real software. And I already specifically talked about those 2. Microsoft offers windows media player and Internet explorer which offsets those two. And then it offers a shit-ton of utilities, power toys, honest to goodness applications -- everything from ProcessExplorer, to VirtualPC, to SharedView, to Windows Search.
My point was that Apple develops and releases this class of features as part of the "OSX upgrade package", whereas Microsoft has been building thme, but making them available separately (and for free). So when you look at a list of OSX features and compare that to an XP service pack, yeah, the OSX upgrade has more headliners -- but a lot of that stuff that OSX upgrades headline is available for XP, from Microsoft, for no additional fee. Apple's download site has nothing on what Microsoft gives away above and beyond what is bundled with the OS.
I'm just underscoring the different distribution and marketing approach. I'm not saying apple doesn't build cool new apps and features. I'm saying with Apple you get all the cool new stuff when you buy the next point release. With Microsft, the service packs contained boring critical stuff making them a poor comparison to apple's releases, but the cool features were still coming out... but as separate downloads.
Microsoft on the other hand stopped offering downloadable updates to Windows NT4 less than 5 years after it was released. I know because I have an NT4 PC I bought new I was unable to download an update for 3 years after I bought it. To get the latest update for it I had to order, and pay for, a CD with them.
The service packs and hotfixes are readily available via download. I have an NT4 VM I still occasionally fire up myself. They've been moved around a few times, but I can't recall them ever not being available.
ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/bussys/winnt/winnt-public/fixes/usa/nt40/
They even have the service packs for 3.5 and 3.51 if you'd like them, including stuff for the mips and alpha chips... you are correct that they aren't up front an center, but come on, NT has been obsolete for nearly a decade now.
Apple also as a lot of free downloads.
Falcon, this isn't stuff apple released.
Take a look at the top downloads:
itunes
safari
quicktime - ok these 3 are apple, but are trivially matched by IE and WMP from MS.
iWork09 - trialware so not free ...
quake live - not made by apple
messenger for mac - not made by apple, made by microsoft
firefox - not made by apple
solitaire - not made by apple
flip4mac - not by apple
google earth - not by apple
stuffit expander - not by apple
wallet - shareware, not by apple
notify - not by apple
the game of life - not by apple
My point was that *Microsoft* released a lot of stuff for Windows which was value add for XP but not part of a service pack. This apple page you've pointed is something completely different, as almost none of the software there was developed by Apple.
And if you were to argue, "it doesn't matter who made it, it still adds value to OSX" that would be true, but misses the point. And besides, even if we were to to look at that, the amount of shareware and freeware available for Windows from 3rd parties utterly eclipses whats available for OSX.
I think that it's disingenuous to compare point upgrades in the mac world to service packs in the windows world. This comparison comes naturally because MS took many years to actually come out with a featureful consumer upgrade (XP --> Vista), by which time every other OS had upgraded multiple times. Just because it takes Apple about as long to put out a point upgrade as it does for MS to put out a new service pack, doesn't mean they're equivalent.
Thing is Microsoft released a ton of new stuff outside of service packs, that was just a free download from its website. With OSX they would have been held back, restricted to the new version and been "exciting new features" in the next point release.
Virtual PC, Windows Scripting Host, Windows Search, Windows Search, Microsoft SharedView, new versions of MSN Messenger.
If you look at OSX, that sort of stuff was usually pay-walled as part of an upgrade: Spotlight, Automater, iChat AV...
The service packs contained less than an OSX upgrade, that's true, but that's because the service packs mostly just contained "critical stuff". A lot of the stuff that Apple would have released as headline features, were released as optional updates or separate downloads.
That's still not to say they are equal, but it just shows how disingenuous any sort of comparison of the release strategies for the two companies is. And of course, Microsoft didn't mean for Vista to take as long as it did -- so that wasn't even part of the "strategy", and its released Vista and 7 in fairly rapid succession.
But in any case, bottom line: both OSes have progressed at a fairly good clip if you look at the big picture.
What new features has XP implemented since it came out?
Its implemented lots of new features after release.
You don't see it because it was a service pack instead of an apple release media extravaganza.
There is also a big diffence in how all the stuff Microsoft released over the XP lifespan, I mean:
Microsoft could have taken things like Microsoft SharedView, IE7, Virtual PC, Photo Gallery, Virtual Desktop Manager, Power Calculator, ClearType, Windows Script Host, SyncTool, Image Resizer, .NET3, DirectX9c, Windows Search, USB2, WPA, Firewall, and packaged it all up and released it.
Instead they were variously distributed as free downloads off the web (sharedview, virtualpc...), as free power toys (image resizer, cleartype...), and bundled into service packs (USB2, WPA, Firewall, ...).
NEW features, not fixed ones that used to be broken. NEW. Because there are NEW features with every 10.x release on Macs.
AS you can see above, there were lots of new things released for XP. And you are overstating things with OSX:
This is the list of BIG NEW FEATURES for say, 10.3:
1 Finder - Updated with a brushed-metal interface, a new real-time search engine, customizable Sidebar, secure deletion, File labels and Zip support built in. Finder logo changed.
2 Fast User Switching - Allows a user to remain logged in while another user logs in
3 Exposé - Helps the user manage windows by showing them all as thumbnails
4 TextEdit - TextEdit now is also compatible with Microsoft Word (.doc) documents.
5 Xcode developer tools - Faster compile times with gcc 3.3.
6 Preview - Increased speed with PDF rendering
7 QuickTime - Now supports the Pixlet high definition video codec
#1 ooo brushed metal ui. a search function! (xp has that) customizable sidebar (xp has that), secure deletion (new feature!), file labels (new feature!), zip support (xp has that), logo changed!!! .doc files (wowee!!) so can wordpad.
#2 Expose(new feature!)
#3 fast user switching (xp has that)
#4 textedit can read
#5 xcode dev tools faster -- this is the number 5 reason to be excited to buy 10.3? We're really scraping the barrel here.
#6 preview faster -- yawn
#7 quicktime - cross platform (ie XP has that), and could be installed in previous versions of osx too -- yawn.
So, $129 for expose, file labels, secure deletion, and zip support??
Oh but there's more... it came with new applications too...
FileVault - on the fly encryption - XP has that.
ichat av - msn messenger does a/v too. yawn
x11 built in - ooo so you don't have to manually install it like you used to!
safari - about time, but safari 1.0 makes IE6 look good.
But that's not all, there's still more:
Fax support built in -- xp has that
So... OSX10.3 -- much ado about Expose and a whole bunch of catch up with XP? Jobs' reality distortion field works wonders doesn't it.
Granted TimeMachine is cool, and Automator, and Spotlight, and there have been other features over the years too. But really as of today, only TimeMachine is really unmatched on windows. (although there are 3rd party options as there always are.)
Lol. That's the trouble with irony.
Too many people =beleive= what you said for it to be reasonable to guess you aren't one of them. :)
Yes, that's right, Microsoft released 3 XP service packs, in the same time as apple released 3 major OS updates, and 28 service packs.
We could go round in circles all day. Most OSX "service packs" weren't much more than a particularly big "patch Tuesday", or contained what would be an optional windows update or 3rd party download. But its just semantics, and arguing over what's a service vs a patch vs an os update is like arguing over version number schemes or name conventions: pointless.
But I like how you pick the time frame to support your argument. Start the clock running the day after XP and stop it before Vista. That creates some serious distortion, don't you think? It lets you ignore Vista, SP1/2, and Windows 7 which played an awful lot of catch up with OSX, and even leap frogged it in areas, and a time frame where OSX has been relatively still.
Over the long haul, neither OS has been particularly stagnant. Which is what I originally said.
Context is important. The VERY next thing I said was "However, that ride is over,..." with respect to the 'free ride'. That pretty much undermines your entire argument.
Apple doesn't charge for their bug fixes either.
So if you have OSX10.2, and want the latest bug fixes, you can download a patch for them? No. I don't think so.
(*much* less, actually, than MS charges for their OS's)
Let's see your math on that. The average Windows update costs what? $150-250? OSX is $130 2x-3x as often?
I find it a bit odd that PC users are complaining that Apple improves their system too quickly.
The real complaint is that they discountinue supporting their system too quickly. The issue is once apple releases a new version support for the old one drops off VERY quickly. Lots of new Software won't run on the older version because many apple dev's (including Apple - e.g. ilife, itunes...) only support the latest release. And patches for previous version stop coming out much faster.
They aren't complaining that the OS is improved faster. Its that they have to upgrade more often. If it were more of a choice, there'd be no complaint. But these days even running 10.4 excludes you from a lot of stuff.
You don't have to pay for a new OS X when you get a new Mac either. That's hardly a revelation.
Yeah. I covered that. Thanks for contributing nothing to the conversation.
So to sum up your post.
Microsoft likes to update rarely. This results in them having horrifically outdated products...
Except that Microsoft did release several free service packs, so the OS wasn't really nearly as stale as the release dates might imply.
And while Apple does release paid updates often, they often drag their feet as bad as Microsoft. Java updates for example tend to seriously lag. Hardware support for cutting edge hardware also tends to lag badly (video cards for example). And so on.
please look the complete failure of what NASA is, and realize too, that your Health Care package would probably do the same.
The existing health care system is a complete failure too. The question shouldn't be whether national health care would do a 'great' job. The question should be whether it will do a better job than the system we have now. Based on what goes on in other countries, the answer is a simple "yes". Better health care for more people at a lower GDP cost. Yeah, there are -some- people who will be -marginally- worse off. Yeah, I'm sure it will be rife with problems and inefficiency.
To use a car analogy: The car we're in right now is rusting out, bad on gas, and emitting toxic fumes. Refusing to consider changing to a different car because its bad on gas is idiotic.
If you don't like Obama's health plan fine, what's your better idea? (Hint: the status quo isn't better.) And while your working miracles, after you've done that, how are you going to sell it to congress and the american people?
RSA was good while it lasted. It's still better than nothing. Looks like we may need to invest in biometric laptops for the crew. What a pain.
Reread what they are doing, biometric laptops won't help. They could capture the biometric data as easily as the keyboard data.
Windows 95 -> 98 -> NT -> 2000 -> XP are all separate products one pays for. They are all Windows.
OS X 2 3 4 and 5 are all seperate products one pays for. They are all OS X (10)
This is patently absurd on multiple levels. The time period's don't line up, and the Windows sequence you illustrated is nonsense.
First, you are mixing two separate windows lines. NT4 came out in 96, it its absurd that people would have "upgraded" from Windows 98 to NT, and because of their separate functions few if anyone upgraded from NT to 98 either. Perhaps you meant ME? But that's irrelevant, practically nobody upgraded from 98 to ME, nor had any reason to. ME was only released because 2000 wasn't ready for the home market. So at best people went from 98 to ME or 2000 but not through both. But most went straight from 98 to XP, and only got ME new if it was on a PC released in that window between ME and XP.
Realistically, from 95 to XP you upgraded twice: Either you went from NT4-2K-XP or 95-98-XP. Because the average lifespan of a PC is 3-4 years, most people NEVER paid to upgrade at all, and just got the new version on their new PC.
Second, the reality is that ALL the above windows happened before OSX10.2 was even released. To take Windows back to 95 you HAVE to go back to 95 with MacOS. That means in addition to 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, you have to count: System 7. MacOS8, MacOS8.5, MacOS9, OSX 10.0 & OSX 10.1. That's 10 versions of the Apple OS in the same time frame as Microsoft had 3. Now, the same hardware cycle applies to OSX to Mac's as PCs, and indeed there is simply no way to run OSX10.5 on a PC that ran System 7. But still, that's enough releases to essentially require you to upgrade your OS every year that you don't replace your Mac. Granted you can skip the odd release, but Apple is a lot more demanding about having current software. Windows 2000 is just now falling off the wagon for being supported by new software... how much new software will run on OS9? Or even 3 versions later 10.2?
Bottom line, MS really HAS given us a relatively free ride the last 7 years with XP, while Apple has released several paid upgrades in that time frame. No point in trying to dispute it.
However, that ride is over, as Vista was a paid upgrade, as is Windows 7, so the comparisons start balancing out again. And who knows when Windows 8(or whatever they'll call it) will be out, or whether we'll get another 5+ years of good support and free service packs. We might see that again, we might not, but I think we all expect 10.6, 10.7, 10.8, 10.9, 10.X(?) to keep coming out like clockwork.
So you CAN make a good argument against comodore64_love, but yours was not a good argument.
A simple disclaimer would suffice - even one written in Engrish, like the "Do not iron clothes while wearing them" on irons.
That isn't engrish.
An engrish one would be
"Do not iron worn clothes."
or perhaps:
"Do not wear clothes while ironing."
I think that having a pet as a fashion accessory is still generally considered to be something reserved for the rich-and-famous (and still somewhat controversial); you don't see half of the shoppers in Wal-Mart with a canine hanging out of their purse.
I'd say that was only because they really are so utterly inconvenient and impractical that a more normal personal simply wouldn't put up with it just for the sake of fashion.
The SixthSense kit gets my geek sensibility excited, but you'd be laughed at for wearing anything resembling it. Right now there is already backlash against Bluetooth ear pieces (note the latest cover from Wired magazine).
In a world where women walk around with a dressed up living, breathing, pooping animals under their arm, you are going to try and convince me that there exists a thing or will ever exist a thing which the fashion industry can't arbitrarily decide is fasionable to have?
I only find one of the statements in the article though.
The other statement was in the /. summary