|
(OT) Steve Jobs.
In article ,
John Smith wrote: On 10/10/2011 2:30 PM, D Peter Maus wrote: On 10/10/11 16:27 , Alan Baker wrote: In , John wrote: Your post is an excellent example of what I have found about "Apple People", they have a religious devotion to the platform ... Your post is an excellent example of someone who believes that anyone who sees value where you do not must do it out of religious devotion... Personally, the only reason I use a PC, and refuse MAC's, is that I write much of the software I use ... plus, I private contract to develop software on multiple platforms (even though I am retired, for the most part) ... while most of that could be done on a MAC, it simply would not make economic sense, for me ... I mean, I am in the business to make money -- NOT pay money to apple ... apple has worked hard in being one of the most proprietary corps I have ever seen, I think they can do that without me ... In what way is the Mac more "proprietary" than Windows from your perspective? The fact that they've always sold computers with their own OS? You can write software for that platform just as you can for Windows or for Linux. Windows doesn't hold patents on the hardware, to run their software, just for starters ... and, they don't have an iphone, or even an idildo, for that matter! ROFLOL So? Apple's suddenly an evil empire because they make hardware and Microsoft doesn't? Actually, you have missed the point, gotten off track, the conversation I seen was focused on fools and overpaying for the same bang less buck will do ... It isn't that apple is evil for taking fools money, the fools always end up giving it to some one ... nor are the fools evil ... evil just doesn't really apply. If fools willingly give you money, I am not aware of any crimes which have been broken, nor evil criminals at fault ... I mean, like, DUH! Regards, JS As I said: How arrogant to assume that anyone who sees value in what you do not must be a fool... It's a cultural standard, today. Hey, I am not the one into social standards! I freely admit that a MAC can do anything a PC can do ... the PC can just do it faster, cheaper and usually better ... Really? Better in what way? Give a concrete example... -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
In article ,
John Smith wrote: On 10/11/2011 8:16 AM, D Peter Maus wrote: On 10/11/11 01:15 , John Smith wrote: On 10/10/2011 2:30 PM, D Peter Maus wrote: On 10/10/11 16:27 , Alan Baker wrote: In , John wrote: Your post is an excellent example of what I have found about "Apple People", they have a religious devotion to the platform ... Your post is an excellent example of someone who believes that anyone who sees value where you do not must do it out of religious devotion... Personally, the only reason I use a PC, and refuse MAC's, is that I write much of the software I use ... plus, I private contract to develop software on multiple platforms (even though I am retired, for the most part) ... while most of that could be done on a MAC, it simply would not make economic sense, for me ... I mean, I am in the business to make money -- NOT pay money to apple ... apple has worked hard in being one of the most proprietary corps I have ever seen, I think they can do that without me ... In what way is the Mac more "proprietary" than Windows from your perspective? The fact that they've always sold computers with their own OS? You can write software for that platform just as you can for Windows or for Linux. Windows doesn't hold patents on the hardware, to run their software, just for starters ... and, they don't have an iphone, or even an idildo, for that matter! ROFLOL So? Apple's suddenly an evil empire because they make hardware and Microsoft doesn't? Actually, you have missed the point, gotten off track, the conversation I seen was focused on fools and overpaying for the same bang less buck will do ... It isn't that apple is evil for taking fools money, the fools always end up giving it to some one ... nor are the fools evil ... evil just doesn't really apply. If fools willingly give you money, I am not aware of any crimes which have been broken, nor evil criminals at fault ... I mean, like, DUH! Regards, JS As I said: How arrogant to assume that anyone who sees value in what you do not must be a fool... It's a cultural standard, today. Hey, I am not the one into social standards! You apparently aren't into reading, either. I said nothing about social standards. I responded to the comment about the arrogance of dismissal of values not one's own. THAT is a cultural standard, today. I freely admit that a MAC can do anything a PC can do ... the PC can just do it faster, cheaper and usually better ... Which exactly explains why there are so many Windows PC's at JPL. You may not have said the exact words, but if the point that this/these argument(s)/discussion(s), for many, is centering around computers as status symbols and the ownership being regarded, by some, as some kind of social status standard, then I am at a loss for words ... as it seems quite apparent to me. Indeed, since the argument/statement(s) of MAC supporters has totally ignored the ease of upgrading, the diversity of hardware offered, the abundance of freeware supplied, the ease of codecs to play any possibly imagined media, multiple and numerous apps offered for every possible task/job/use, etc., ON THE PC PLATFORM -- while there is a noticeable lack of these, and only at a notable expense -- obtainable on the apple platform ... all we are left with is the MAC as a status symbol and ego trip ... no one really has to "say anything", one only needs to examine past text in this thread for proof of that statement. Or, simply, anyone can say anything, in the end, you can just look at it and see what it really is ... Actually, other than needing to buy Apple hardware, there is an abundance of pretty much everything else you mentioned on the Mac OS X platform. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
In article ,
John Smith wrote: On 10/10/2011 3:02 PM, Scout wrote: "Alan Baker" wrote in message ... In article , John Smith wrote: then sold them the software for exorbitant prices ... signed them into exploitative contracts, etc. Really? And they signed these contracts with the children? Because I was under the impression that schools had people who were qualified to agree to such contracts... Contracts which stipulated only apple people maintained the college hardware ... etc., etc. Games within games, really. Then they were free not to sign them, weren't they? Ergo: not strongarmed at all. Back in the late 80's and early 90's I taught at a jr. college, I seen first hand how apples predatory sales techniques worked. Clearly. Finally, at the college, a few of us wrote letters of complaint to the "higher ups" and rectified the problem ... there was also some business of "incentives" being passed about about by apple to those who controlled purchasing ... lunches, wining and dining, etc. However, digital equipment corporation also participated in such practices ... (DEC) However, one thing I did notice, the "apple room" was always full of liberal arts students while the PC sections of the computer labs always contained the math, physics, science, etc. students ... just as a casual observation ... Riiiiiiiight. Regards, JS Your post is an excellent example of what I have found about "Apple People", they have a religious devotion to the platform ... Your post is an excellent example of someone who believes that anyone who sees value where you do not must do it out of religious devotion... Personally, the only reason I use a PC, and refuse MAC's, is that I write much of the software I use ... plus, I private contract to develop software on multiple platforms (even though I am retired, for the most part) ... while most of that could be done on a MAC, it simply would not make economic sense, for me ... I mean, I am in the business to make money -- NOT pay money to apple ... apple has worked hard in being one of the most proprietary corps I have ever seen, I think they can do that without me ... In what way is the Mac more "proprietary" than Windows from your perspective? The fact that they've always sold computers with their own OS? You can write software for that platform just as you can for Windows or for Linux. Windows doesn't hold patents on the hardware, to run their software, just for starters ... and, they don't have an iphone, or even an idildo, for that matter! ROFLOL So? Apple's suddenly an evil empire because they make hardware and Microsoft doesn't? Actually Microsoft does make hardware. Mice, keyboards, headsets, webcams, and even fingerprint readers. True they don't build systems, but they do produce certain types of hardware. They even patent certain aspects of that hardware. Such as the tilt wheel mouse. Hell, back in 2008, they received a patent for the page up and page down keys. (Patent #7,415,666) Actually, the problem might be semantics, here. But, I would like to have my ignorance and false beliefs removed. So, enlighten me, where are the microsoft manufacturing plants which are making these these things -- mice, keyboards, headsets, webcams, even fingerprint readers? By that standard, where are Dell's plants? All I am aware of is microsoft lending their name to products which other companies manufacture ... except software, they do produce that, themselves ... they even hire employees to make it, the software. Regards, JS -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
"x=usr(1536)" wrote in news:j723od$47m$1
@speranza.aioe.org: On 10/11/11 11:56 AM, RD Sandman wrote: "WrongWayWade" wrote in news:j72172$d4h$1@dont- email.me: RD Sandman wrote: Alan Baker wrote in : So? Apple's suddenly an evil empire because they make hardware and Microsoft doesn't? Microsoft does make hardware. It is called a mouse. Old joke: "What can you do with your PC that I can't do with my MAC?" "Right-click." ;) Or just plug a multi-button USB mouse into the Mac; problem solved ;) (I'll admit that I've done exactly that on my desktop machine - reaching for the Control key when clicking in order to activate context menus gets old fast.) Hell, I remember when it was all command line.....even on PCs. -- Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman) Witnessing Republicans and Democrats bickering over the National Debt is like watching two drunks argue over a bar bill on the Titanic..... |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
In article ,
says... In article , BAR wrote: In article , says... In article , John Smith wrote: On 10/10/2011 4:49 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... In , Alan wrote: In articlejoednXxxSuLvPQzTnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@earthlink .com, wrote: On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 11:03:20 +0900, Brenda Ann wrote: That's not the business Apple is in; they sell a lifestyle of form [over] substance --------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- --- -- -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- --- -- -- Besides, Apple was extant in the market before PC's (the original Apple computer was something like $3000, a clone was about $2300, IIRC). Apple maintained a following and indeed an increasing market base even after PC's got so cheap that most anyone could afford one. If someone likes a product enough to pay what seems to be an exhorbitant price for it, even in the face of a much cheaper alternative, then that is what they call "market forces" in operation. The consumer, in this case, has actually set the price by buying the product. If nobody were buying it, it would either become cheaper or taken off the market. They subsidised and strongarmed their way into schools; a whole generation equated Apple with computing. It's definitely a fashion thing. I was the IT guy at a TV network west coast headquarters. All the "creative" types insisted on iMacs; they refused to work on windows machines (this is for typing-not editing). Hollywood creative types are insufferable boors. Of course... ...someone insisting on a product must be a "fashion thing". How exactly did Apple "strongarm" their way into schools. Perhaps this genius can also explain why more and more college students in science and engineering are switching to Macs? Of their own free will, that is. And not to use Windoze on them, either. What is Apple at now - 11%, third largest, up from less than 5% four years ago? Intel won. Linux is surely the equal, or better, of windows -- however, it is a tad bit more difficult to use (unbutu perhaps breaks that rule) and is just as prone to viruses and such, if used by people without proper education and/or a virus/malware scanner ... If Linux is "surely the equal, or better, of Windows", then Mac OS X is surely the superior of Windows, because it is surely the better of Linux. It offers all that Linux offers and is easier to use. Keep trying. The world runs on Windows. Keep trying - increasingly it does not. Check Apple's rapidly growing market share. More importantly, I can tell you more and more college students in technical fields like science and engineering are using Macs these days. Programming in Matlab, Maple, Mathematica is the norm now, and they all run perfectly on OS X. Plus they get all the benefits of OS X in other applications, too. When these kids hit the job market, the trend will simply continue. I can tell you that at my large international corporation we are still not embracing Apple on the desktop. We are running Windows and Linux and we will soon be running dumb tubes, throw back to the 70's, on the desktop. There is no reason to put a high dollar, high end computer on everyone's desktop to run e-mail, surfing, and spreadsheets and documents. We are embracing the iPad primarily because we can use it to get to VMs and because we can run web enabled applications. You can effectively take your desktop anywhere. These are the only two requirements of a "pad" that we need. As soon as something cheaper than the iPad is available we will officially support that and may even provide it to our users. The desktop only needs to be a tube, keyboard, and mouse with a connection to our network. |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
In article ,
says... In article , William Clark wrote: In article , BAR wrote: In article , says... In article , John Smith wrote: On 10/10/2011 4:49 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... In , Alan wrote: In articlejoednXxxSuLvPQzTnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@earthlink .com, wrote: On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 11:03:20 +0900, Brenda Ann wrote: That's not the business Apple is in; they sell a lifestyle of form [over] substance ------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ---- --- -- -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ---- --- -- -- Besides, Apple was extant in the market before PC's (the original Apple computer was something like $3000, a clone was about $2300, IIRC). Apple maintained a following and indeed an increasing market base even after PC's got so cheap that most anyone could afford one. If someone likes a product enough to pay what seems to be an exhorbitant price for it, even in the face of a much cheaper alternative, then that is what they call "market forces" in operation. The consumer, in this case, has actually set the price by buying the product. If nobody were buying it, it would either become cheaper or taken off the market. They subsidised and strongarmed their way into schools; a whole generation equated Apple with computing. It's definitely a fashion thing. I was the IT guy at a TV network west coast headquarters. All the "creative" types insisted on iMacs; they refused to work on windows machines (this is for typing-not editing). Hollywood creative types are insufferable boors. Of course... ...someone insisting on a product must be a "fashion thing". How exactly did Apple "strongarm" their way into schools. Perhaps this genius can also explain why more and more college students in science and engineering are switching to Macs? Of their own free will, that is. And not to use Windoze on them, either. What is Apple at now - 11%, third largest, up from less than 5% four years ago? Intel won. Linux is surely the equal, or better, of windows -- however, it is a tad bit more difficult to use (unbutu perhaps breaks that rule) and is just as prone to viruses and such, if used by people without proper education and/or a virus/malware scanner ... If Linux is "surely the equal, or better, of Windows", then Mac OS X is surely the superior of Windows, because it is surely the better of Linux. It offers all that Linux offers and is easier to use. Keep trying. The world runs on Windows. Keep trying - increasingly it does not. Check Apple's rapidly growing market share. More importantly, I can tell you more and more college students in technical fields like science and engineering are using Macs these days. Programming in Matlab, Maple, Mathematica is the norm now, and they all run perfectly on OS X. Plus they get all the benefits of OS X in other applications, too. When these kids hit the job market, the trend will simply continue. And more and more businesses are letting their employees choose their own computers. You don't understand the concept of economies of scale. We have two organizations that are allowed to get Apples instead of Windows. One is a company that we purchased that was 100% Apple before we bought them and the other is one of our marketing groups. |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
In article ,
says... In article , Tankfixer wrote: In article , - D Peter Maus spouted ! On 10/11/11 07:04 , BAR wrote: In , says... In , John wrote: On 10/10/2011 4:49 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... In , Alan wrote: In articlejoednXxxSuLvPQzTnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@earthlink .com, wrote: On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 11:03:20 +0900, Brenda Ann wrote: That's not the business Apple is in; they sell a lifestyle of form [over] substance -------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- --- -- -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- --- -- -- Besides, Apple was extant in the market before PC's (the original Apple computer was something like $3000, a clone was about $2300, IIRC). Apple maintained a following and indeed an increasing market base even after PC's got so cheap that most anyone could afford one. If someone likes a product enough to pay what seems to be an exhorbitant price for it, even in the face of a much cheaper alternative, then that is what they call "market forces" in operation. The consumer, in this case, has actually set the price by buying the product. If nobody were buying it, it would either become cheaper or taken off the market. They subsidised and strongarmed their way into schools; a whole generation equated Apple with computing. It's definitely a fashion thing. I was the IT guy at a TV network west coast headquarters. All the "creative" types insisted on iMacs; they refused to work on windows machines (this is for typing-not editing). Hollywood creative types are insufferable boors. Of course... ...someone insisting on a product must be a "fashion thing". How exactly did Apple "strongarm" their way into schools. Perhaps this genius can also explain why more and more college students in science and engineering are switching to Macs? Of their own free will, that is. And not to use Windoze on them, either. What is Apple at now - 11%, third largest, up from less than 5% four years ago? Intel won. Linux is surely the equal, or better, of windows -- however, it is a tad bit more difficult to use (unbutu perhaps breaks that rule) and is just as prone to viruses and such, if used by people without proper education and/or a virus/malware scanner ... If Linux is "surely the equal, or better, of Windows", then Mac OS X is surely the superior of Windows, because it is surely the better of Linux. It offers all that Linux offers and is easier to use. Keep trying. The world runs on Windows. That was not his point. Consensus is not necessarily truth, nor fact. And popularity is certainly not dispositive proof of quality. If it were, the Model T would have been the highest quality vehicle of all time. The post was about which is the better tool. Not about where the largest sale figures post. Mac's and the Apple operating system were so technologically superior that Apple adopted the i86 processor and borrowed Linux as the core for OS10 Incorrect on both counts. Greater marketshare meant greater economies of scale for i86 processors. There was nothing inferior about PowerPC. Yes there was it cost too much. And Linux is not used in Mac OS X at all. FreeBSD is a part of its heritage. What is the real difference between FreeBSD and Linux? Since Apple switched to a mature operating system as the basis of its software it has stopped throwing the bomb onto the screen. |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On 10/12/11 17:27 , BAR wrote:
In , says... In , wrote: In , - D Peter Maus spouted ! On 10/11/11 07:04 , BAR wrote: In , says... In , John wrote: On 10/10/2011 4:49 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... In , Alan wrote: In articlejoednXxxSuLvPQzTnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@earthlink .com, wrote: On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 11:03:20 +0900, Brenda Ann wrote: That's not the business Apple is in; they sell a lifestyle of form [over] substance -------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- --- -- -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- --- -- -- Besides, Apple was extant in the market before PC's (the original Apple computer was something like $3000, a clone was about $2300, IIRC). Apple maintained a following and indeed an increasing market base even after PC's got so cheap that most anyone could afford one. If someone likes a product enough to pay what seems to be an exhorbitant price for it, even in the face of a much cheaper alternative, then that is what they call "market forces" in operation. The consumer, in this case, has actually set the price by buying the product. If nobody were buying it, it would either become cheaper or taken off the market. They subsidised and strongarmed their way into schools; a whole generation equated Apple with computing. It's definitely a fashion thing. I was the IT guy at a TV network west coast headquarters. All the "creative" types insisted on iMacs; they refused to work on windows machines (this is for typing-not editing). Hollywood creative types are insufferable boors. Of course... ...someone insisting on a product must be a "fashion thing". How exactly did Apple "strongarm" their way into schools. Perhaps this genius can also explain why more and more college students in science and engineering are switching to Macs? Of their own free will, that is. And not to use Windoze on them, either. What is Apple at now - 11%, third largest, up from less than 5% four years ago? Intel won. Linux is surely the equal, or better, of windows -- however, it is a tad bit more difficult to use (unbutu perhaps breaks that rule) and is just as prone to viruses and such, if used by people without proper education and/or a virus/malware scanner ... If Linux is "surely the equal, or better, of Windows", then Mac OS X is surely the superior of Windows, because it is surely the better of Linux. It offers all that Linux offers and is easier to use. Keep trying. The world runs on Windows. That was not his point. Consensus is not necessarily truth, nor fact. And popularity is certainly not dispositive proof of quality. If it were, the Model T would have been the highest quality vehicle of all time. The post was about which is the better tool. Not about where the largest sale figures post. Mac's and the Apple operating system were so technologically superior that Apple adopted the i86 processor and borrowed Linux as the core for OS10 Incorrect on both counts. Greater marketshare meant greater economies of scale for i86 processors. There was nothing inferior about PowerPC. Yes there was it cost too much. The move from PowerPC, according Steve Jobs at the MacWorld conference, was driven by the fact that PowerPC would not take Apple to where it needed to be. There would be no G6, not in a timely manner, anyway, because the PPC architecture wouldn't take things there, and Apple needed to bring speed up to compete. PPC processors produced too much heat, which required too much power in cooling, and too much space in the chassis for isolation. And PPC architecture required more power than Apple's goals for battery life would permit. Smaller, lighter, faster, less power. PPC had to go. Cost was a minor factor in these decisions. I had PPC Apple computers. They were fine. Stable, and they were seriously powerful. And my ComEd bill reflected the hours I used them. But when my single core Intel Mini booted from a cold start in one third the time of my twin processor G5 PowerMac, it became pretty clear where the future for Apple Computers was. And Linux is not used in Mac OS X at all. FreeBSD is a part of its heritage. What is the real difference between FreeBSD and Linux? Aside from features? Since Apple switched to a mature operating system as the basis of its software it has stopped throwing the bomb onto the screen. |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
I think I do have an old PowerPC.
Watchin Mr.Hulot's Holiday on TCM right now.Later on I will look and see if I have a Power PC. cuhulin |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:31 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com