Oh, and let's also explain exactly what a virgin is and what that's all about. Since they may ask what that is, and we mustn't lie.
Excuse me: I have a pretty good explanation of what all that's about. It seems to be nothing more (or less) that a recurring mythos in human culture.
Of course, when these myths were popularized, there wasn't the Gutenberg press, or the internet, or any sort of mass communication to raise people's awareness that "Hey! Isn't that the same as THIS story over here? What're you trying to sell us?!?" But now, people have to simply be Willfully Blind to not see the parallels in these myths.
And before the Thumpers start rationalizing "Those aren't myths. Those are simply different accounts of the same events.", keep in mind that the spread of these myths completely parallels the trade-routes of the day.
Nope. The FSM mythos is, and always has been, spread by those who have seen it as a way to bring power and wealth to themselves.
I bet you would rather do away with school boards all together and have some imperial science council decide what people should lean. Hell, why not just control what they believe too? That would fit best into your little control freak mind.
They could hardly do worse.
In fact, having a baby point to the books he thought were pretty would hardly be a less effective method of picking public education curricula.
First, your entire discussion of "dB" is meaningless without an additional "unit". dB, by and of itself, is a baseless unit. It's dBSPL, or dBm, or even the cheat-of-all-cheats, dBu. But NEVER just dB.
You're just plain wrong. In audio plain-jane decibels are useful as a relative measurement of levels. I'm a sound designer and my colleagues and I use them regularly.
Even if 1dB and 120dB weren't already defined in an human aural context (which they are, look it up) -- he provides the dynamic range as -90 to 0. All of the sudden the unit-less dB is useful as a comparison of levels in reference to the stated range.
First, you did correct your typo of 90 to 96; so let's get that out of the way...;-)
Yes, sound "pros" toss around dB without anything else all the time. But, everyone needs to know what "scale" you are talking about. Often it is obvious by context; but sometimes not.
First, your entire discussion of "dB" is meaningless without an additional "unit". dB, by and of itself, is a baseless unit. It's dBSPL, or dBm, or even the cheat-of-all-cheats, dBu. But NEVER just dB.
When you're dealing strictly in the digital domain, dB on its own is pretty common, and is (as the original poster said) understood to be referenced to 0dB = the maximum signal level the format can produce. Some searching reveals this is sometimes called dBFS (for dB Full Scale), but when I was working on that stuff, I never ran into that term.
Precisely. I'm certainly not Mr. Digital Audio; and I have actually seen the term "dBFS", but it is (fortunately) not all that common to see outside of product spec sheets.
I never claimed to be an engineer. I'm, at best, a layman with a little bit of knowledge. AFAIK, dB is perfectly valid when talking about dynamic range, even in audio engineering literature. For example, Eargle, Handbook of Recording Engineering (2003): "Music in a concert hall is normally perceived over a range that doesn't exceed about 80 dB, and speech is normally perceived over and even narrower range of about 40 dB." And, even more importantly, I don't think it affects what I wrote qualitatively all that much.
Although that sample is incorrect as well, I am reasonably sure that since Eargle (EAR-gle? Hehe!!) mentioned "perceived" (as in by humans), that the author in that case was referring to dBSPL (Sound Pressure Level). Which, believe it or not, can actually be traced to a "real-world" measurement.
No intention to be offensive, but when I slam the CD in I don't give a shit about dBSPL or whatever. All I want to do is enjoy the music as INTENDED by its creators.
As a user, I would wholeheartedly agree! But the Poster I referred to in my previous post, was obviously trying to use those "Terms of Art", and thus, held HIMself out to a different standard.
And skipping over most of the rest, because I think you misunderstood that my response was to his words and views, not yours, I note that you DO seem to be an intelligent and thoughtful listener. Just keep that going, and who gives a sh** about the rest!
Here are a few songs from "In Absentia". The audio on some of these YouTube posts doesn't do them justice; but you'll get idea of how wide their stylistic range is. You'll think a song is gonna be a straight-up rock-n-roll song; but then there's a bunch of maj7 and 6/9 chords (that don't appear in most "heavy" R&R), and what seem to be 6 and 7 part close vocal harmonies, and it's obvious these guys are pretty spectacular. And it wouldn't be anything without the musical and lyrical writing to match. It's one of the few bands I have really started to listen to the lyrics on. And the use of many different time signatures, without you even noticing...
Oh, and this music MUST be listened to LOUD! There is stuff in the mix down pretty deep, and if you just listen to PT in "muzak mode" (wallpaper level), you will miss half of the music (seriously!). Loud. Preferably alone (no distractions). It's good music. Very good. And keep in mind that I just picked a few tracks I especially like. There really isn't a stinker on "In Absentia". In fact, I've to to restrain myself from just posting links to all the tracks.
First Song on In Absentia: Blackest Eyes (as I said, the audio is kinda dull on these YouTube samples):
Yes, I looked closely, and every single sound is accounted for. IMHO, the jury is out a bit about the backing vocals; but there seem to be no obvious "overdubs". The drum part you HEAR on the video, for example, is most definitely the one being played live.. I think with the vocals, it's real-time auto harmony. Or the "mellotron" part makes you think there are more vocal parts, because the notes all intertwine, pitch-wise.
Imagine the 5.1 mix of this next cut, "Lips of Ashes":
And, last, but certainly not least, "Strip the Soul". Note the 4/4, 6/8, and 5/4 time signatures and extensive use of "non-rock" chords in this seemingly straight-up rocker...
In Absentia would be a very good place to start. As for style, I'd put them somewhere between Progressive and.. well, Porcupine Tree. They aren't consistently "metal" enough to be "metal"; and they aren't consistenly "pop" enough to be "pop", and they aren't consistently "prog" enough to be "prog". But they have elements of all of those, and more.
Everyone in the band (it actually started out as a one-man project several years ago; but at this point, it's pretty much a "band") is a stupendous musician. Very, very very good vocals. And production that is second-to-none.
In Absentia won an award as the best 5.1 mix in 2008, and I think one of their later releases (Deadwing?) won a similar award when it came out.
Pick up In Absentia. I guarantee you won't be disappointed!
This would be true, except that later that day (or perhaps the next day) a redaction was submitted, saying he was misunderstood. What he really said was "quite smooth" [businessinsider.com].
Riiiiiight. You mean that's after the PR department unanimously facepalmed, and scrambled to find a way to spin his words...
And what kind of QUANTITY do you think "smooth" represents?
Effectively the maximum level is set by the format and is generally define as 0 dB. A format also has a dynamic range, which measures how much quieter a sound the format can capture compared to the maximum. For audio CDs this is -96 dB. The loudness wars refer to taking advantage of the fact the volume the human ear perceives is proportional to the mean level and that music would be recorded with the same maximum level but lower levels mapped higher (e.g. a -40 dB sound is compressed to -20 dB) will sound louder.
This proposal, presumably, addresses this by measuring the volume of a track by measuring the something similar to the mean level. It a little more complicated than that, but I think that's the thumbnail.
Ah, yet another Slashdot "Engineer"...
First, your entire discussion of "dB" is meaningless without an additional "unit". dB, by and of itself, is a baseless unit. It's dBSPL, or dBm, or even the cheat-of-all-cheats, dBu. But NEVER just dB.
But I think you are attempting to equate dBm to "VU". But even those have a real-world signal-level equivalent. 0dBm (IIRC) is equivalent to 0.770VAC across a 600 ohm load.
So, perhaps you are talking about ATTENUATION. THAT would STILL need another unit from the dB (dBV, dBm, etc); but would at least fit your concept of the highest signal level attainable in the media as being expressed as 0dB(something)...
I thought that the overall issue is that the dynamic range of the highs & lows is being compressed. So even with a volume limit on the max loudness, would the engineers engineer the song any differently?
A second issue is that the listening environment is changing - music is being played on portable devices in noisy environments - this isn't a fine listening room. As a result, this may be a case where too much dynamic range is lost on the listening audience, as the listener just wants to be able to hear everything without having to fiddle with the volume every few seconds.
Then I propose that portable music players, and car stereos, grow a dynamic range compression algorithm. With digital media, the "compressor" has the ability to "look-ahead", thus being able to avoid the "pumping" effects of compressors that have to work in "real-time". This allows for not only much higher compression ratios; but also much, much "faster" attack and release times, So, with something like that (which really takes much less computing power than say, an EQ), the world could have its dynamic range when good listening conditions were available, and still be able to hear the "quiet parts" when on-the-go.
Of course, just like any other "effect", this would have to be switchable, and maybe even somewhat adjustable.
This reminds me of the PS3 debacle: The system was attacked after Sony removed the playground "other OS", I believe that a more open approach for iDevices (like store-independent software installation) would decrease the breaking attempts.
This is an interesting comment (for once); So I will give it a considered reply (that someone will instantly discount solely on the basis of my username). But anyway...
While what you propose is a superficially sound idea, it does not bear up under scrutiny. Why? Because as soon as you "Tear Down These Walls", and allow "sideloading" (what an ignorant term!) of non-approved apps, there is instantly a problem, and it's one that all the Anti-Apple/. Users (Not to mention the legions of ACs...) must agree with: If OS X/iOS (with it's zero self-propagating malware) is as "whole-y" as the Linux/Android (with its 863 pieces of malware, including some self-propagating Virus/Worm stuff) is, then iOS Apps would soon be as Malware-Ridden as Android Apps have become. And nobody can deny the rampant scourge of malware/phishing/slamming stuff in some Apps targeting the "Free as in Freedom" Android "ecosystem".
So, please tell me what possible benefit could that be to 99.9997% of ANY "Mobile OS's" smartphone users, let alone iOS users??? (Yes, I know: Tethering). But even that isn't (quite) enough to throw the baby out with the bathwater, security-wise.
Someone claimed that only Windows and Linux users seem to understand that the internet is "A Dangerous Place" (apologies to Adrian Belew). Since iOS has been quite popular since the introduction of the iPhone in 2007, do you really think people just haven't been bothering to attack it much for four straight years? No, it's because the entire "ecosystem" (I really DO hate that term!) really does "work" for so many types of users (some professions are still a pain, due to lack of decent tools), that there is a serendipitous strength that neither Microsoft nor any of the popular Linux distros seem to be able to pull off.
Yes, that sounds like pure, cultish, fanboi; but, it is not. Just like I don't mind a (Well-Regulated!!!) police force, I don't mind the slight restrictions on my iOS APPLIANCE. I don't have to put up with that on my Mac; but the Developer Registration requirements for iOS, and the iOS App Store "Walled Garden" isn't such a ridiculous breach of freedom on a mobile device.
Now if they do that on OS X... But they won't. OS X is not a problem, malware-wise.
Really? So so given that an app can freeze Windows, even windows7, clearly shows that Microsoft doesn't have a freakin clue given that they've had over 25 YEARS to get it right and clearly have not as of yet.
Why yes, yes it does.
By contrast, I have been running OS X since 10.0.0, and have never had an app "freeze" the OS. I had one dodgy shareware scanner app back in the 10.1 days KP my system (which kind of counts, I guess); but that was the sum-total of "apps bringing down the system".
So, if that this point, an OS designer can't keep apps from "locking up" the UI, then they need to go back home and study some more.
I think you can have quality, or wintel; but not both.
Even the admittedly nice 17" (?) Samsung Win 7 core i3-equipped laptop I was supplied with for work is so far inferior in terms of build quality and smoothness of operation to every Macbook Pro I have used that it isn't even funny.
The trackpad locks up frequently, just ignoring all user input (especially mouse-button actions) for more than a minute (then suddenly "waking up"). The display requires the perfect vertical angle to not be washed out or dark (hello? IPS anyone?). The chassis creaks and bends ominously if you pick up he laptop by a corner. I also uses an old-skool barrel connector for the power supply (which you will be needing if you stray for more than 3 hours from an AC plug). And even then, it runs noticeably slower on batteries (like nearly HALF as fast).
I'd be willing to bet that iOS development is a HUGE factor in this... because a lot of houses are wanting to jump on the iOS development bandwagon, and the only authorized way to develop for iOS (and the only way to get an app on iTunes) is by using a Mac for development.
You're insane.
Just HOW many companies do you think are actually doing iOS development?
Slashdot Mirror
Somehow, I don't expect this to create the same outrage as back when Apple did something similar...
I agree. Even though in Apple's case, they DIDN'T do what Google did.
I think it's pretty clear that Google is in bed with the DHS, NSA, FBI, CIA, et fucking CETERA.
Perhaps they need to change their motto to "Don't Get Caught At Doing Evil" (not as catchy, I agree; but infinitely more accurate).
Neat. Not even the slightest attempt to show correlation, much less start to address actual causation.
And, remarkably, Slashdot mods you up.
Why not? That's the usual modus operandi of the religious crowd, isn't it?
When questioned, their last defense is always "You've got to have FAAAAAITH".
And, BTW, where, PRAY tell, is YOUR attempt to show correlation or causation, or lack thereof?
Now, Microsoft looks like like a gentle giant compared to the Apple.
Oh. Please find me the Windows Genuine Advantage equivalent in OS X.
Where, pray tell, are the Missile Launch Codes that the OS X installer needs?
How many of your Macs can you install Apple App Store apps and OS X Lion on?
When was the last time someone had to call up Apple to get their OS turned back on?
How much DRM is REALLY in OS X to make sure you don't install it on non-Apple hardware?
How many seats is OS X Server licensed for?
How many users can be active at one time in OS X?
Those are just a few differences between Apple and Microsoft that I can think of in a few minutes. I am quite sure there are many more...
I think you mean 'conceited' and not 'conceded'. Your point still stands, however.
LOL! I vote that we change AC to AM (Anonymous Moron)...
Oh, and let's also explain exactly what a virgin is and what that's all about. Since they may ask what that is, and we mustn't lie.
Excuse me: I have a pretty good explanation of what all that's about. It seems to be nothing more (or less) that a recurring mythos in human culture.
Of course, when these myths were popularized, there wasn't the Gutenberg press, or the internet, or any sort of mass communication to raise people's awareness that "Hey! Isn't that the same as THIS story over here? What're you trying to sell us?!?" But now, people have to simply be Willfully Blind to not see the parallels in these myths.
And before the Thumpers start rationalizing "Those aren't myths. Those are simply different accounts of the same events.", keep in mind that the spread of these myths completely parallels the trade-routes of the day.
Nope. The FSM mythos is, and always has been, spread by those who have seen it as a way to bring power and wealth to themselves.
In short. A "con".
Sounds like a great idea! And don't forget that scary story about the zombie that died on a cross just to pay himself for our "sins".
Get the story straight!
He wasn't a Zombie until 3 days AFTER that.
Shrill, screeching moron.
I bet you would rather do away with school boards all together and have some imperial science council decide what people should lean. Hell, why not just control what they believe too? That would fit best into your little control freak mind.
They could hardly do worse.
In fact, having a baby point to the books he thought were pretty would hardly be a less effective method of picking public education curricula.
US still need to work a lot. 51% of americans do not believe in evolution.
Wow! That correlates quite nicely with the statistical probability that 51% of Americans are below average intelligence.
Jus' sayin'...
Apparently they had an outbreak of common sense in Texas
No, I think they realized that all eyes were on them.
They'll reverse this decision next session without a vote or public comment, in the dead of night.
This was theater. Watch.
First, your entire discussion of "dB" is meaningless without an additional "unit". dB, by and of itself, is a baseless unit. It's dBSPL, or dBm, or even the cheat-of-all-cheats, dBu. But NEVER just dB.
You're just plain wrong. In audio plain-jane decibels are useful as a relative measurement of levels. I'm a sound designer and my colleagues and I use them regularly. Even if 1dB and 120dB weren't already defined in an human aural context (which they are, look it up) -- he provides the dynamic range as -90 to 0. All of the sudden the unit-less dB is useful as a comparison of levels in reference to the stated range.
First, you did correct your typo of 90 to 96; so let's get that out of the way... ;-)
Yes, sound "pros" toss around dB without anything else all the time. But, everyone needs to know what "scale" you are talking about. Often it is obvious by context; but sometimes not.
When you're dealing strictly in the digital domain, dB on its own is pretty common, and is (as the original poster said) understood to be referenced to 0dB = the maximum signal level the format can produce. Some searching reveals this is sometimes called dBFS (for dB Full Scale), but when I was working on that stuff, I never ran into that term.
Precisely. I'm certainly not Mr. Digital Audio; and I have actually seen the term "dBFS", but it is (fortunately) not all that common to see outside of product spec sheets.
I never claimed to be an engineer. I'm, at best, a layman with a little bit of knowledge. AFAIK, dB is perfectly valid when talking about dynamic range, even in audio engineering literature. For example, Eargle, Handbook of Recording Engineering (2003): "Music in a concert hall is normally perceived over a range that doesn't exceed about 80 dB, and speech is normally perceived over and even narrower range of about 40 dB." And, even more importantly, I don't think it affects what I wrote qualitatively all that much.
Although that sample is incorrect as well, I am reasonably sure that since Eargle (EAR-gle? Hehe!!) mentioned "perceived" (as in by humans), that the author in that case was referring to dBSPL (Sound Pressure Level). Which, believe it or not, can actually be traced to a "real-world" measurement.
No intention to be offensive, but when I slam the CD in I don't give a shit about dBSPL or whatever. All I want to do is enjoy the music as INTENDED by its creators.
As a user, I would wholeheartedly agree! But the Poster I referred to in my previous post, was obviously trying to use those "Terms of Art", and thus, held HIMself out to a different standard.
And skipping over most of the rest, because I think you misunderstood that my response was to his words and views, not yours, I note that you DO seem to be an intelligent and thoughtful listener. Just keep that going, and who gives a sh** about the rest!
Seriously. I agree.
Here are a few songs from "In Absentia". The audio on some of these YouTube posts doesn't do them justice; but you'll get idea of how wide their stylistic range is. You'll think a song is gonna be a straight-up rock-n-roll song; but then there's a bunch of maj7 and 6/9 chords (that don't appear in most "heavy" R&R), and what seem to be 6 and 7 part close vocal harmonies, and it's obvious these guys are pretty spectacular. And it wouldn't be anything without the musical and lyrical writing to match. It's one of the few bands I have really started to listen to the lyrics on. And the use of many different time signatures, without you even noticing...
:
...and why not? Live::
Oh, and this music MUST be listened to LOUD! There is stuff in the mix down pretty deep, and if you just listen to PT in "muzak mode" (wallpaper level), you will miss half of the music (seriously!). Loud. Preferably alone (no distractions). It's good music. Very good. And keep in mind that I just picked a few tracks I especially like. There really isn't a stinker on "In Absentia". In fact, I've to to restrain myself from just posting links to all the tracks.
First Song on In Absentia: Blackest Eyes (as I said, the audio is kinda dull on these YouTube samples)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO3GQvye2bQ&feature=related
Then, the next song: Trains:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIM5M6FmnmY
"The Sound of Muzak" (yes, it's really a song about Muzak!). First, off In Absentia, then Live. You'll be amazed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvQ1PpZu634
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=El9DWtYvOuQ
Yes, I looked closely, and every single sound is accounted for. IMHO, the jury is out a bit about the backing vocals; but there seem to be no obvious "overdubs". The drum part you HEAR on the video, for example, is most definitely the one being played live.. I think with the vocals, it's real-time auto harmony. Or the "mellotron" part makes you think there are more vocal parts, because the notes all intertwine, pitch-wise.
Imagine the 5.1 mix of this next cut, "Lips of Ashes":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lczSfyeStuE&feature=related
Ok, time to wake back up! Here ya go; "Wedding Nails":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZn3u6XCsKs
And, last, but certainly not least, "Strip the Soul". Note the 4/4, 6/8, and 5/4 time signatures and extensive use of "non-rock" chords in this seemingly straight-up rocker...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiuyahjYrAU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBQnDNhq8Lg
Whew, that was a lotta cuttin' an' pastin'...
In Absentia would be a very good place to start. As for style, I'd put them somewhere between Progressive and.. well, Porcupine Tree. They aren't consistently "metal" enough to be "metal"; and they aren't consistenly "pop" enough to be "pop", and they aren't consistently "prog" enough to be "prog". But they have elements of all of those, and more.
Everyone in the band (it actually started out as a one-man project several years ago; but at this point, it's pretty much a "band") is a stupendous musician. Very, very very good vocals. And production that is second-to-none.
In Absentia won an award as the best 5.1 mix in 2008, and I think one of their later releases (Deadwing?) won a similar award when it came out.
Pick up In Absentia. I guarantee you won't be disappointed!
Oh yeah Android is kicking iOS arse and now everybody is quiet about the numbers.
Um, not exactly correct. On either point.
This would be true, except that later that day (or perhaps the next day) a redaction was submitted, saying he was misunderstood. What he really said was "quite smooth" [businessinsider.com].
Riiiiiight. You mean that's after the PR department unanimously facepalmed, and scrambled to find a way to spin his words...
And what kind of QUANTITY do you think "smooth" represents?
There are countless kids movies I have heard but never seen. Some are surprisingly enjoyable like that.
So is TV. It's like listening to Firesign Theatre.
Effectively the maximum level is set by the format and is generally define as 0 dB. A format also has a dynamic range, which measures how much quieter a sound the format can capture compared to the maximum. For audio CDs this is -96 dB. The loudness wars refer to taking advantage of the fact the volume the human ear perceives is proportional to the mean level and that music would be recorded with the same maximum level but lower levels mapped higher (e.g. a -40 dB sound is compressed to -20 dB) will sound louder.
This proposal, presumably, addresses this by measuring the volume of a track by measuring the something similar to the mean level. It a little more complicated than that, but I think that's the thumbnail.
Ah, yet another Slashdot "Engineer"...
First, your entire discussion of "dB" is meaningless without an additional "unit". dB, by and of itself, is a baseless unit. It's dBSPL, or dBm, or even the cheat-of-all-cheats, dBu. But NEVER just dB.
But I think you are attempting to equate dBm to "VU". But even those have a real-world signal-level equivalent. 0dBm (IIRC) is equivalent to 0.770VAC across a 600 ohm load.
So, perhaps you are talking about ATTENUATION. THAT would STILL need another unit from the dB (dBV, dBm, etc); but would at least fit your concept of the highest signal level attainable in the media as being expressed as 0dB(something)...
mainstream Rock music...like someone fucking your ear with an ice pick
I love rock music from 10, 20, and 30 years ago. Not much from the last 10 years though. That quote made me feel warm and squishy inside.
Try some Porcupine Tree. And if you have a surround system, hunt up the 5.1 versions of their albums.
I thought that the overall issue is that the dynamic range of the highs & lows is being compressed. So even with a volume limit on the max loudness, would the engineers engineer the song any differently?
A second issue is that the listening environment is changing - music is being played on portable devices in noisy environments - this isn't a fine listening room. As a result, this may be a case where too much dynamic range is lost on the listening audience, as the listener just wants to be able to hear everything without having to fiddle with the volume every few seconds.
Then I propose that portable music players, and car stereos, grow a dynamic range compression algorithm. With digital media, the "compressor" has the ability to "look-ahead", thus being able to avoid the "pumping" effects of compressors that have to work in "real-time". This allows for not only much higher compression ratios; but also much, much "faster" attack and release times, So, with something like that (which really takes much less computing power than say, an EQ), the world could have its dynamic range when good listening conditions were available, and still be able to hear the "quiet parts" when on-the-go.
Of course, just like any other "effect", this would have to be switchable, and maybe even somewhat adjustable.
This reminds me of the PS3 debacle: The system was attacked after Sony removed the playground "other OS", I believe that a more open approach for iDevices (like store-independent software installation) would decrease the breaking attempts.
This is an interesting comment (for once); So I will give it a considered reply (that someone will instantly discount solely on the basis of my username). But anyway...
/. Users (Not to mention the legions of ACs...) must agree with: If OS X/iOS (with it's zero self-propagating malware) is as "whole-y" as the Linux/Android (with its 863 pieces of malware, including some self-propagating Virus/Worm stuff) is, then iOS Apps would soon be as Malware-Ridden as Android Apps have become. And nobody can deny the rampant scourge of malware/phishing/slamming stuff in some Apps targeting the "Free as in Freedom" Android "ecosystem".
While what you propose is a superficially sound idea, it does not bear up under scrutiny. Why? Because as soon as you "Tear Down These Walls", and allow "sideloading" (what an ignorant term!) of non-approved apps, there is instantly a problem, and it's one that all the Anti-Apple
So, please tell me what possible benefit could that be to 99.9997% of ANY "Mobile OS's" smartphone users, let alone iOS users??? (Yes, I know: Tethering). But even that isn't (quite) enough to throw the baby out with the bathwater, security-wise.
Someone claimed that only Windows and Linux users seem to understand that the internet is "A Dangerous Place" (apologies to Adrian Belew). Since iOS has been quite popular since the introduction of the iPhone in 2007, do you really think people just haven't been bothering to attack it much for four straight years? No, it's because the entire "ecosystem" (I really DO hate that term!) really does "work" for so many types of users (some professions are still a pain, due to lack of decent tools), that there is a serendipitous strength that neither Microsoft nor any of the popular Linux distros seem to be able to pull off.
Yes, that sounds like pure, cultish, fanboi; but, it is not. Just like I don't mind a (Well-Regulated!!!) police force, I don't mind the slight restrictions on my iOS APPLIANCE. I don't have to put up with that on my Mac; but the Developer Registration requirements for iOS, and the iOS App Store "Walled Garden" isn't such a ridiculous breach of freedom on a mobile device.
Now if they do that on OS X... But they won't. OS X is not a problem, malware-wise.
Really? So so given that an app can freeze Windows, even windows7, clearly shows that Microsoft doesn't have a freakin clue given that they've had over 25 YEARS to get it right and clearly have not as of yet.
Why yes, yes it does.
By contrast, I have been running OS X since 10.0.0, and have never had an app "freeze" the OS. I had one dodgy shareware scanner app back in the 10.1 days KP my system (which kind of counts, I guess); but that was the sum-total of "apps bringing down the system".
So, if that this point, an OS designer can't keep apps from "locking up" the UI, then they need to go back home and study some more.
quality wintel workstations
I think you can have quality, or wintel; but not both.
Even the admittedly nice 17" (?) Samsung Win 7 core i3-equipped laptop I was supplied with for work is so far inferior in terms of build quality and smoothness of operation to every Macbook Pro I have used that it isn't even funny.
The trackpad locks up frequently, just ignoring all user input (especially mouse-button actions) for more than a minute (then suddenly "waking up"). The display requires the perfect vertical angle to not be washed out or dark (hello? IPS anyone?). The chassis creaks and bends ominously if you pick up he laptop by a corner. I also uses an old-skool barrel connector for the power supply (which you will be needing if you stray for more than 3 hours from an AC plug). And even then, it runs noticeably slower on batteries (like nearly HALF as fast).
The list goes on and on...
I'd be willing to bet that iOS development is a HUGE factor in this... because a lot of houses are wanting to jump on the iOS development bandwagon, and the only authorized way to develop for iOS (and the only way to get an app on iTunes) is by using a Mac for development.
You're insane.
Just HOW many companies do you think are actually doing iOS development?
Sorry. The reasons are a lot deeper than that.