Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
(OT) Steve Jobs.
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
(OT) Steve Jobs.
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. 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? 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. Apple didn't need to shore up its OS in the same way. It tore down the old structure and built its OS upon a new core that had been proven to be better designed for connectivity (earthquakes). These two ways of getting to the same result were necessary because one was a hardware company and the other was a software company. -- "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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
(OT) Steve Jobs.
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
(OT) Steve Jobs.
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. 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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
(OT) Steve Jobs.
In article , -
William Clark spouted ! 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 ;-) Hey I never said it was well crafted.... 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. Actually that's what I'm forced to use at work. Microsoft had a choice between an extensive rebuild to Windows to Windows 7, or disaster. 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. So OSx is backward compatable with previous Apple OS ? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
(OT) Steve Jobs.
My snail mail November 2011 Popular Mechanics magazine has an article
comparing Apple MacBook Pro vs. HP Pavilion DM4 laptop computers. In essense, Popular Mechanics magazine says to save your money and buy the Windows computer.It will get the job done. Get your hands on that magazine and read that article yourself.It might be on the internet right now. http://www.popularmechanics.com cuhulin |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 08:16:33 -0400, William Clark
wrote: 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. Not always. My wife has a couple of games that no longer work with Lion besides her USB floppy drive which we don't use anyway. -- "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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
(OT) Steve Jobs.
"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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
(OT) Steve Jobs.
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. -- "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 |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Obama creates 200 new jobs! | Shortwave | |||
Obama creates 200 new jobs! | Shortwave | |||
Disabilities and jobs in broadcasting | Broadcasting | |||
Obama creates 30,000 jobs with $787 Billion tax dollars | Shortwave | |||
American Trauma: Jobs and the Economy | Shortwave |