BILL & HP copy APPLE Design

[cellfish]

Originally posted by hulkaros
Yeah... I bet that you can find Firewire2, Airport Extreme, Bluetooth, similar to iLife apps, PCI 64 bits, high quality boxes (not just design), Gigabit ethernet, DVI/ADC output or if you prefer double monitor support, Rendezvous, 2d/3d GUI, really THAT easy networking with UNIX, MACs, LINUX, WINDOWS, etc. OSes, DVD playback support, AAC & MP3 support,

This paragraph proves the ignorance of Mac users. While Firewire 2 is not on PC's (not that anyone really cares), Airport Extreme is just 802.11g which first appeared on the PC, Bluetooth as well first on PC, iLife nobody cares, PCI 64 will be on the PC first, Gigabit Ethernet was PC first, DVI output is practically standard now on the PC on top of the VGA output, double-monitor support has existed on the PC since the Matrox G450 was released in 1999, 2D/3D gui is nonexistant on the Mac (3d acceleration does not make OS X a 3D OS and 3D acceleration is not necessary for Windows considering how fast it is). To be completely honest about your last comment, I find networking WAY easier on the PC than on the Mac.

[cellfish]

Originally posted by tsizKEIK
firewire iPOD and iTunes on my computer!!! combine all of these and u can get fast and portable music in your mp3 player with great ease (thanx to iTunes).... Where is MICROSOFTS innovative mp3 player ???

Let's think a bit. How will a Microsoft portable music player improve the quality of the OS? Why do MAc users constantly support the 'quality' of OS X by mentioning things that aren't even included in it? the iPod is an OPTION and it is an option that is available for Windows as well. In fact, you can use a great variety of MP3 players that cost less than the iPod and be sure that it'll work properly with Windows. You can't be that sure with OS X. If you want an MP3 player that'll work fine in OS X, don't try to save money, just go to Apple's product. It's fun to have Big Brother Jobs force me down to one choice.

[binaryDigit]

Originally posted by tsizKEIK
dear binarydigit ,
in comparison to other ppl on this forum, my knowldedge on computers is very very limited. thats one reason why i liked the mac. its easy to use!!! ....

Yes, I did take the time to read your post

I just want to make it clear (I'm just clarifiying here, I don't want it to sound like I'm upset). Never did I say that Apple was not innovative. Never did I say that Apples didn't do many things better than Wintel. Never did I say that Wintel was "better" than Apple. Reread my posts, I NEVER make these statements.

I merely said that Apple also borrows many things from the Wintel side. That there is certainly innovation going on on both sides of the fence. My post merely responds to those who would claim that it is ONLY coming from the Apple side.

I'm sure that for you the Mac is the superior solution. As well, I know that my usage pattern is a lot different because of my level of knowledge vs other people. But it is my experience, specifically with both Apple and Wintel boxes that makes me get a bit riled up when people take such a one sided (and usually incorrect) view of the computing world.

The Mac is a wonderful system, I'm typing this now on my Pismo. I have more Macs in my house than most people have ever had, or will have. But I also use PC's and can see the uses for it. And I've been around long enough to have seen the good and bad sides of both platforms. So by defending the PC, I am not slamming the Mac. I know that's how many people like to read it, but that's the sad part. That's like having someone rave about the superior aerodynamics of the Ferrari formula 1 car, then I say "did you know that Lotus ushered in the modern era of ground effects" and the reply suddenly being "why do you hate Ferrari, despite what you say, they are innovative". Hey, never said they weren't, just trying to bring some history, knowledge, and perspective.

Anyway, i'm sure this entire thread will get moved since it's obviously gotten way beyond it's original topic. So, are Apples excellent computers that are showcases for some excellent design and engineering, yup, without a doubt. Does the current Mac still owe a lot of what it is to the Wintel world, yup. Is there innovation going on in the Wintel camp, yup. Is there some "borrowing" going on in the Wintel camp, yup. Is the Mac the end all be all of computing, nope. Are Wintels the end all be all of computing, nope.

[binaryDigit]

Originally posted by cellfish
This paragraph proves the ignorance of Mac users. While Firewire 2 is not on PC's (not that anyone really cares), Airport Extreme is just 802.11g which first appeared on the PC, Bluetooth as well first on PC, iLife nobody cares, PCI 64 will be on the PC first, Gigabit Ethernet was PC first, DVI output is practically standard now on the PC on top of the VGA output, double-monitor support has existed on the PC since the Matrox G450 was released in 1999, 2D/3D gui is nonexistant on the Mac (3d acceleration does not make OS X a 3D OS and 3D acceleration is not necessary for Windows considering how fast it is). To be completely honest about your last comment, I find networking WAY easier on the PC than on the Mac.

Just want to point out that dual monitor support has been around since way before the G450. I was doing dual monitors on my Millenium I's. The G450 was the first mass produced card that allowed you to go dual head with a single card. The old way was to simply have two cards. It still worked perfectly though (well, not really "perfectly" as the windowing behaiour was/is weird, at least in my book, but it worked).

Oh and PCI64 is very common on many server/highend workstation PC's. As well as 66mhz PCI. The Intel server that I have has 6 64bit/66mhz hot swappable PCI slots. Not that it really matters as other than SCSI cards and gigabit ethernet cards, I don't know of any other 64bit PCI cards (or anything that would truly benefit, since the only other candidate is graphics and that has become the domain of AGP).

And I think his gigabit comment has more teeth in that Apple has made gigabit "standard" on their tower machines. AFAIK, no other manuf. is doing this on anything but their highest end boxes. So they do have a leg up, I'd love to have gigabit running at home, though the cost of gigabit hubs is way too high right now. BTW, I do have two gigabit PCI cards, it actually swamps one of my test mule PC's, it's only an Athlon 700 and it actually is the limiting factor when it's being fed by a much faster machine, very sweet. But like I said, until the availability of cheaper hubs/switches, it's not really practical for me (and many businesses, who are perfectly happy with 100Mb).

[Anim8r]

Originally posted by cellfish
This paragraph proves the ignorance of Mac users. While Firewire 2 is not on PC's (not that anyone really cares), Airport Extreme is just 802.11g which first appeared on the PC, Bluetooth as well first on PC, iLife nobody cares, PCI 64 will be on the PC first, Gigabit Ethernet was PC first, DVI output is practically standard now on the PC on top of the VGA output, double-monitor support has existed on the PC since the Matrox G450 was released in 1999, 2D/3D gui is nonexistant on the Mac (3d acceleration does not make OS X a 3D OS and 3D acceleration is not necessary for Windows considering how fast it is). To be completely honest about your last comment, I find networking WAY easier on the PC than on the Mac.

This is the problem with these silly arguments. erroneous information.

While G and Bluetooth hardware may have been available from 3rd party vendors earlier than that which was integrated on the Mac... did you ever try and use either on the PC? Bluetooth in particular was a joke.

Oh, and there are quite a few companies very interested FW2. Particularly in the video industry... but for a lot of other uses.

Dual monitor support has been available on the mac since... well the SE (80's). In fact the macs back then supported up to 6 monitors. You just plug in another card. They don't even have to be from the same manufacturer. Ever try that on Windows?

It is pretty obvious that you don't understand half of the points you have made.

OSX is a 3D OS. Each element is a layer in OGL. MS has said this will be a part of Longhorn, but it is currently not implemented.

I liked your comment about networking. It made me laugh. I have 2 XP machines here that won't see each other, well... sometimes they decide to work. The macs on the other hand see each other as well as my PCs. Oh and GB ethernet was also a Mac first.

If you want to verify any of this I suggest going to PC magazine's website and looking it up. Even the PC mags gush over Apple's innovation and they seem pretty impressed with what Apple has had to offer these past couple of years.

[Ugg]

Given the success of the entire Mac line there's no doubt that people will try to emulate it as much as possible. There have been numerous attempts to create something other than the "beige box". None of those attempts has succeeded. I can't think of any one brand that has any kind of long running design success. Every time I go to Costco it seems as though there is an entirely new line up of wintel boxes. All of them trying to distinguish themselves visually.

It is interesting that Bill is showing an interest in the design side of computers and that he is beginning to push a cohesive "digital" whatever. Up til now M$ has had a less than stellar lineup when it comes to a digital hub. I can't think of any one product or line of products that has taken the pc world by storm.

Apple has the definitive advantage in that it controls the hardware and the software.

[binaryDigit]

Originally posted by Anim8r
T...Dual monitor support has been available on the mac since... well the SE (80's). In fact the macs back then supported up to 6 monitors. You just plug in another card. They don't even have to be from the same manufacturer. Ever try that on Windows?...

Six display cards in an SE !?! Now that would be a sight Guess the cards were velcroed to the exterior of the case and chained together with a ribbon cable That and the speed would have been atrocious since the cpu wouldn't even have come close to being able to keep up with all that info. Now daisy chaining six SE's with Appletalk, now that was/is doable and having some amount of screen synchronization. You could do some cool video wall effects with that, even back then.

One of the biggest problems with Windoze has been it's too tight integration with it's video drivers. This allows for some very impressive performance numbers, but it makes writing good quality drivers more difficult and makes extending the display subsystem substantially harder (hence the up till now rarity of going dual displays and the impossibility to do it in a heterogenous video card setup). But then again, from a software design standpoint, the lack of clear delineation between various levels of functionality is a general weakness of the entire platform (e.g. IE).

[binaryDigit]

Originally posted by Ugg
...
It is interesting that Bill is showing an interest in the design side of computers and that he is beginning to push a cohesive "digital" whatever. Up til now M$ has had a less than stellar lineup when it comes to a digital hub. I can't think of any one product or line of products that has taken the pc world by storm.

Apple has the definitive advantage in that it controls the hardware and the software.

Actually I think that there are three primary reasons that Billy Boy is taking a keen interest in hardware design recently:

1 - Linux. The more you ingrain the software with the hardware, the more difficult it is for other OS's to offer similar levels of functionality in a timely fashion.

2 - Less Pressure From the Feds. Now that the govt has basically screwed the pooch with this whole M$ monopoly thing, they don't feel they have the IBM spector above their heads (i.e. IBM got slammed mightily for controlling both software and hardware, hence the rise of M$ to begin with). They no longer fear the govt and therefore have no problems with letting those tentacles reach a little further.

3 - Sony. M$ is losing the console wars, badly. If Sony is ever successful in pushing the Playstation platform beyond the console, then M$ needs to be able to respond, and XBox ain't it.