"William Clark" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tankfixer wrote:

In article , - Howard Brazee
spouted !

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:38:11 -0700, Tankfixer
wrote:

In article , - Howard
Brazee
spouted !

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:47:07 -0700, Tankfixer
wrote:

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

Apple had the power to start over. It could start over twice to
change to better CPUs. And it had the power to switch its core to
BSD Unix. Microsoft couldn't do this - it did not control the
design of PC compatible computers.

Oddly enough BSD Unix runs just fine on i86 based machines, doesn't
it.

Sure. Which has nothing to do with anything I said.

Apple had to redesign it's architecture to use it's BSD/UNIX clone OS.
Microsoft didn't need to since it crafted it's OS to work with what PC
makers build.

"Crafted"? As in "Vista", I suppose ;-)


When the environment changed from stand-alone desktop computers to
computers connected with the world, Microsoft had to keep tweaking
its
core system again and again as it had to keep compatibility while
making it safe for the new environment. It's like shoring up an
existing building to make it earthquake resistant.

And no other OS company is continually improving their product ?

Huh? Again, what has that to do with what I said?

You imply that only Microsoft has to continually improve it's product.

You ever tried to use Vista? I thought not. Microsoft had a choice
between an extensive rebuild to Windows to Windows 7, or disaster.

That's pretty typical. The first release after a major rewrite is always a
disaster

Window 95 - sucked
Windows 98 - ok

Windows 2000 - sucked
Windows XP - ok

Vista - sucked
7 - ok

I predict the next major rewrite (not just an upgrade such as 98 to 98SE)
will suck.


There is an advantage in starting over using tools that other
companies have created - such as Unix. Unix has been improved over
the years and because it was designed for different purposes, it made
a safer core than simply improving the Mac operating system. Or
Windows. Since Apple controlled the hardware that its OS used, it
had the power to start over.

Maybe Windows had that power, maybe not - but Microsoft didn't go in
that direction. It would have lost a lot of customers who wanted
backward compatibility. Its primary customers are PC manufacturers.

Instead we have Apple who abandonded previous OS users.

Really? Not only do Apple's OS's stay useful much longer than
Microsoft's, upward mobility is easy and cheap. We have plenty of folk
still content with Tiger.

Seems to me that Windows XP is still going strong and plenty of folks are
still content with it, and it's been out there since October of 2001. With
official support of XP is scheduled to end April 2014, that will be a run of
about 13.5 years. With existing users probably continuing to use it for
several years more.

Indeed of the 5 computers I have, only 2 have Win7 on them, and that was
because of hardware/software requirements that mandated Win7.

Meanwhile 'Tiger" only started in April of 2005 and the last security update
that included tiger was 2009-005 on Sept 2009, So at this point Apple has
ceased support of Tiger.

That's a run of about 4.5 years

Tiger users are now at the point that XP users will be in 4.5 years. (ie 2
years without security support).

Hell at work we are STILL setting up new XP boxes. Much cheaper than Win7,
and better performance with cheaper hardware. Win/Win.

On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 11:36:46 -0700, Alan Baker
wrote:

Greater marketshare meant greater economies of scale for i86 processors.
There was nothing inferior about PowerPC.

Greater economies of scale mean more money for more factories and more
R&D to keep improving.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 10/11/2011 6:36 PM, Scout wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 10/10/2011 11:44 PM, Scout wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
...
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?

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.

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/cor...make-new-zunes



You figure out where the rest are. If it is done with their name, then
they are the manufacturer.




Yeah, thought so, this from that page:

"The original Zune, released in November, was produced using a
framework and components provided by Toshiba Corp. Reindorp said the
company hopes that by taking a more direct role in manufacturing a
second version, it will help the device gain popularity."

Yep, and you think the Mac is made by Apple?

Hate to tell you but virtually all of the components in an Mac are made
by someone else.

The Ipad is no different.

Looks like you are simply looking for something to make an issue of, and
ignoring that apple works exactly the same way.



What, you missed all the past discussions in everything now being made in
china?

I think most thought it would be necessary to stipulate MAC too ... guess
we were wrong ...

So why were you making a big issue about Microsoft then?

Why did you make it seem like Microsoft was doing anything different than
Apple?

You're the one that seems to feel a relevant difference existed. If you wish
to admit now that there isn't then we can simply ignore your comments about
Microsoft and move on.

In article , - Howard Brazee
spouted !

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:21:45 -0700, Tankfixer
wrote:

And no other OS company is continually improving their product ?

Huh? Again, what has that to do with what I said?

You imply that only Microsoft has to continually improve it's product.

No I didn't.

whatever

In article , - Howard Brazee
spouted !

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:21:45 -0700, Tankfixer
wrote:

Oddly enough BSD Unix runs just fine on i86 based machines, doesn't it.

Sure. Which has nothing to do with anything I said.

Apple had to redesign it's architecture to use it's BSD/UNIX clone OS.
Microsoft didn't need to since it crafted it's OS to work with what PC
makers build.

I'm not getting the connection here.

Times changed from when Windows and Apple's OS were designed for
stand-alone computers. What worked best then doesn't work best now.

There are two ways of moving their operating systems to fit our needs,
shoring up the existing structure, or tearing down the old system and
building a stronger foundation. A better foundation was available
for these operating systems (Unix).

Microsoft couldn't take the second option because it had tenants that
wouldn't move. Apple only had itself as a tenant, so it could take
that option.

That doesn't fly, and you know why ?
Microsoft buyers wouldn't have to replace their hardware to switch to a
Linux based OS.
It runs just fine on the same architecture.

Apple did have to switch.


So it took longer for Microsoft to modify its OS to be safe in today's
connected environment.

In article , - Alan
Baker spouted !

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.

An inability to convice white box makers to use it ?


And Linux is not used in Mac OS X at all. FreeBSD is a part of its
heritage.

To this layman the difference there is like variations of Vista or
Win7..

Apple iCloud.Too Pricey For Media Addicts?
http://www.rense.com
http://www.devilfinder.com/find.php?...dia+Addic ts?

That is one of the thingys about Apple products, Too Much Money For The
Amount Of Bread!

And Apple concentration camps (factories) in China too.
cuhulin

On 10/12/11 6:52 PM, Tankfixer wrote:
In article , - Howard Brazee
spouted !

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:21:45 -0700, Tankfixer
wrote:

Oddly enough BSD Unix runs just fine on i86 based machines, doesn't it.

Sure. Which has nothing to do with anything I said.

Apple had to redesign it's architecture to use it's BSD/UNIX clone OS.
Microsoft didn't need to since it crafted it's OS to work with what PC
makers build.

I'm not getting the connection here.

Times changed from when Windows and Apple's OS were designed for
stand-alone computers. What worked best then doesn't work best now.

There are two ways of moving their operating systems to fit our needs,
shoring up the existing structure, or tearing down the old system and
building a stronger foundation. A better foundation was available
for these operating systems (Unix).

Microsoft couldn't take the second option because it had tenants that
wouldn't move. Apple only had itself as a tenant, so it could take
that option.

That doesn't fly, and you know why ?
Microsoft buyers wouldn't have to replace their hardware to switch to a
Linux based OS.
It runs just fine on the same architecture.

Apple did have to switch.

Not entirely correct. OS X had been being built for x86 in parallel
with PPC for its entire development cycle; Apple had been planning a
switch to x86 as far back as MacOS 8 or 9 (I forget which). MacOS 7 had
been planned to be the last major PPC/68K release, but they completely
convoluted their plans for OS X and had two more interim releases in the
shape of 8 and 9 before getting OS X out the door.

- x.

On 10/12/11 3:39 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 10/12/11 17:27 , BAR wrote:

What is the real difference between FreeBSD and Linux?


Aside from features?

And overall OS architecture?

Anyone who thinks that Linux and *BSD are the same thing should also
consider Windows and VMS to be the same given the developmental (and
other) connections between the two.

http://www.windowsitpro.com/article/...t-of-the-story

- x.

On 10/12/11 21:18 , x=usr(1536) wrote:
On 10/12/11 3:39 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 10/12/11 17:27 , BAR wrote:

What is the real difference between FreeBSD and Linux?


Aside from features?

And overall OS architecture?


Precisely.