HOW long does it takes:Microsoft eating APPLE

[chevy]

Originally posted by hulkaros
...BMW copying Daewoo or Peugeot, please? Point us there if it isn't THAT difficult...

Peugeot is MUCH older than BMW... so in any case the "discovered" the ar before BMW.

And the 206 CC is starting to be copied.

[monktus]

Originally posted by genehack
Why DID MS do this,why is APPLE doing its own Office App,why do these two companies got fed up of each other again?

Apple has had its own 'office' app for years - AppleWorks neé ClarisWorks has been around since the late eighties and was consistently better than Microsoft products. It was the first truely integrated works app and I think its still competitive today, I much prefer using it to Word, which is a terrible bit if software!

[binaryDigit]

Originally posted by tsizKEIK
u might not like the current 7 series look. thats a matter of taste. im a BMW fan and i like it.

newayz. companies like BMW tend to be far more advanced techonologically (and design-wise) ... thats why the 7 sereis is full of fibre optics... and thats why they dont use windows for their iDrive system

Agreed that beauty is in the eye, though many eyes have issue with the current BMW styling trends (7 series, upcoming M5).

And hate to break it to you, but iDrive is "powered" by Windows CE. But judging by all the complaints and problems with it, perhaps they should have went with something else (though in all fairness, I've not heard anything about the root cause either being in the OS or the iDrive app that sits on top. It sounds a lot like the app itself is badly damaged, but who knows how much of a part that CE is playing?)

Oh and as far as BMW being technologically advanced, it's a double edged sword. Have a talk with 88-93 750il (e32) owners (it was pretty advanced for it's time, lots of computer controlled stuff), they'll tell you what they think of all that wizardy (great when it works, WHEN it works).

[chevy]

I hope the new 5 series will be better. It looks great, maybe the new revision of W-CE will also be better.

[MaC hAcKeR]

Ok, why are you talking about cars? macosx.com. not ford.com... stick to the topic...

[binaryDigit]

Originally posted by MaC hAcKeR
Ok, why are you talking about cars? macosx.com. not ford.com... stick to the topic...

Well we sort of are, since this thread is about design and the "borrowing" thereof (plus how does your post add anything to this thread ?)

OK I do get your point though, back to the HP thingy. What I don't get is that I don't consider the cube form factor a very good one. You can't stick it on the floor, it takes up a lot of space on your desk. You could always stick it behind the flat screen, but then it makes it hard to get to the drives. It's not very practical, though it can look cooler than all getout (except for the HP which looks like crap).

I think that IBM actually had a very workable solution. They had a computer that had the drives integrated into the monitor, but the cpu in a separate box. So the stuff you needed to get to on a regular basis was right in front of you. But you could still have an easily expandable box sitting under your desk. With scsi this would be a no brainer since we're no longer worried about supporting floppy drives. I think if you made the box long and skinny and flat, sacrificing a bit of expandability and accessability, but getting more placement options (i.e. simply under the monitor, behind the monitor, on the floor, behind the desk) would be ideal (at least for me).

[ebolag4]

Originally posted by binaryDigit
What I don't get is that I don't consider the cube form factor a very good one. . . it takes up a lot of space on your desk.

I think a cube would take up a whole lot less space on my desk that my current G4 tower. Don't get me wrong, I love my Mac, but that tower is HUGE sitting on my desk.

I think the main problem with the cube form factor is that fact that it's so stinkin' hard to crack it open and tinker around with the innards. My G4, I just pop open the side and mess around, snap it shut and I'm done.

I guess that's part of the trade off between form and function?