Ooooo...lookie here...Isn't this just cute?
- Thread starter chemistry_geek
- Start date
twyg
Back to Mac Baby!
Oh c'mon azosx...
You rankled these folks up and now they're showing you examples of microsofts arrogance. How is that difficult to keep up on?
Btw, what chemistry geek means is educate yourself on exactly what the argument is. For example, read up on the console wars.
I laugh in Microsoft's face HARD when it comes to Xbox. Too bad college doesn't teach what the real world does. Experience.
In class it makes perfect sense to look at sony, and nintendo and all the others and say "See, look at that, the games are what make the money." Simply changing widgets for games and gadgets for consoles doesn't work in the real word. Works awesome in calculations, but horrible outside. Why you ask? Because the world doesn't really trust Microsoft. It's all they know.
Shove something down someones throat enough, and they're bound to not know anything else.
That is what you guys in business school call marketing. You could market ice to Eskimos. How friggin' useless is that? But if you're good at marketing, (and a whole bunch of other concepts) it doesn't matter if what your selling is completely useless, and poor.
Keep 'em wanting. That's what Bill knows, it's just he looses quality in favor of "newness."
No one really likes Windows. No one really likes computers actually. When you get out in the real world you'll meet people who literally get sweaty palms when they sit in front of a computer. "Oh, oh, I don't want to touch it... I'll break it." Now take them and ask them what operating system is out there. "Microsoft something."
My point is this. Microsoft does have a genius behind it, but he suffers from it as well. His calculations are brilliant, his marketing even better. "Keep givin' them something better, something new, we'll fix those other problems later..." Think that's a fib? Meet the two software engineers and accountant I know who are ex-Microsoft employees. The accountant told me that more money was spent outsourcing poor code repair than any other technology company she's ever worked for. The software engineers were both "appalled" and "couldn't take much more, so I left." What were they appalled about? What couldn't they take much more of? Simple. Microsoft at that time (1996-1997) were sending out their products one third tested. It was all about getting the customer something new, something great.
So I ask you this, if they're so great, and their products is so wonderful, why, why must they continue to go forward so fast even though they don't fix the mess they make?
That's the core of my MS complaint. Great, they're big and wonderful. Terrific Bill Gates is a genius. But I don't like that they give the consumers "fluff." I can't tell you how much extra crud is in something like Microsoft IE that I never use. Who here uses Auction Manager? Who here uses PageKeeper. Where is the one person who uses Scrapbook? This is the most efficent program I've seen to date on the Mac side from Microsoft.
So what chemistry_geek was saying is, get out there. Get out from behind your teachers and your books. Remember what they've taught you! But... The real business world works different.
Oh, and the dotcoms are really what made us crash. Not a personal jab here, but 90% of them were led by business school grads who hadn't a lick of experience... That's again, not a jab, just the facts. It seems that Bill is hiring too many unexperienced folks. Getting into Apple on the other hand is like using the internet in China. Damn near impossible.
Most of that was a rant, so thanks for bearing w/ me.
You rankled these folks up and now they're showing you examples of microsofts arrogance. How is that difficult to keep up on?
Btw, what chemistry geek means is educate yourself on exactly what the argument is. For example, read up on the console wars.
I laugh in Microsoft's face HARD when it comes to Xbox. Too bad college doesn't teach what the real world does. Experience.
In class it makes perfect sense to look at sony, and nintendo and all the others and say "See, look at that, the games are what make the money." Simply changing widgets for games and gadgets for consoles doesn't work in the real word. Works awesome in calculations, but horrible outside. Why you ask? Because the world doesn't really trust Microsoft. It's all they know.
Shove something down someones throat enough, and they're bound to not know anything else.
That is what you guys in business school call marketing. You could market ice to Eskimos. How friggin' useless is that? But if you're good at marketing, (and a whole bunch of other concepts) it doesn't matter if what your selling is completely useless, and poor.
Keep 'em wanting. That's what Bill knows, it's just he looses quality in favor of "newness."
No one really likes Windows. No one really likes computers actually. When you get out in the real world you'll meet people who literally get sweaty palms when they sit in front of a computer. "Oh, oh, I don't want to touch it... I'll break it." Now take them and ask them what operating system is out there. "Microsoft something."
My point is this. Microsoft does have a genius behind it, but he suffers from it as well. His calculations are brilliant, his marketing even better. "Keep givin' them something better, something new, we'll fix those other problems later..." Think that's a fib? Meet the two software engineers and accountant I know who are ex-Microsoft employees. The accountant told me that more money was spent outsourcing poor code repair than any other technology company she's ever worked for. The software engineers were both "appalled" and "couldn't take much more, so I left." What were they appalled about? What couldn't they take much more of? Simple. Microsoft at that time (1996-1997) were sending out their products one third tested. It was all about getting the customer something new, something great.
So I ask you this, if they're so great, and their products is so wonderful, why, why must they continue to go forward so fast even though they don't fix the mess they make?
That's the core of my MS complaint. Great, they're big and wonderful. Terrific Bill Gates is a genius. But I don't like that they give the consumers "fluff." I can't tell you how much extra crud is in something like Microsoft IE that I never use. Who here uses Auction Manager? Who here uses PageKeeper. Where is the one person who uses Scrapbook? This is the most efficent program I've seen to date on the Mac side from Microsoft.
So what chemistry_geek was saying is, get out there. Get out from behind your teachers and your books. Remember what they've taught you! But... The real business world works different.
Oh, and the dotcoms are really what made us crash. Not a personal jab here, but 90% of them were led by business school grads who hadn't a lick of experience... That's again, not a jab, just the facts. It seems that Bill is hiring too many unexperienced folks. Getting into Apple on the other hand is like using the internet in China. Damn near impossible.
Most of that was a rant, so thanks for bearing w/ me.
evildan
Super Moderator
azosx,
You're obviously going to see a lot of flame in posting a "pro-microsoft" side on these boards.
I would like to consider myself open minded enough to see your point... which I think is, MS is just as bad as Apple... so don't bash one without knowing the other is just as bad.
Which is true, to some extent.
The original post in this thread was kind of taking a shot at Bill Gates and you stepped in and defended him and bashed Steve Jobs.
So to be fair you are kind of guilty of doing exactly what your complaining about. But please don't miss understand my post, I have no intension of pointing out your mistakes anymore then I would like you to point out mine.
Both Steve Jobs and Bill Gates have been known for their tempers. The one thing Bill Gates has is a greater success in business (no one can deny this, he's one of the richest men in the world). But one thing Bill cannot buy is style... he just seems to be in need of an image make-over. (perhaps he could go on one of those day-time TV shows). Not that I don't want him to have style, but common... look at the picture of him on that couch as an example...
It looks like he's going to fall off... he doesn't look like he is enjoying or relaxing himself at all.
Of course I am an avid Apple lover, and while that's the case, I cannot say that Apple is not without it's faults.
In fact, it's my responsibility to point out those faults and demand that Apple recognize the consumer's vote. Or else what is to stop Apple from becoming another Microsoft.
Steve is a bit of a tyrant, isn't he? I think so. But the average consumer probably thinks he is running the show pulling all the strings, and maybe building a few Macs on his lunch hour.. and this is not the case.
Apple and MS could do just fine without Steve or Bill... but they would see major marketing points lost with their departures.
Apple people want a visionary to associate with their computer company, someone who will break a few standards, create a little revolution, etc... and Steve is a one man show when it comes to that.
Microsoft people want a no nonsense technical thinker to represent their software company. Conformity, and the knowledge that their running the same thing as everybody else is very important to them. Bill Gates has packaged a very marketable product, because it is everywhere and everyone has it.
While Apple was worrying about pleasing customers, MS was worrying about computer manufactures carrying their product.
But with all that said and done... In my opinion, Apple just makes a better OS... I'm sorry, I've been on just about every OS I can get my hands on, and none of them even come close.
There was an inventor (no one famous) who was on the Discovery Channel (or TLC), and he was talking about the philosophy of development.
He said the company he runs has a goal to improve the everyday products that consumers use.
He spoke of a toothpaste tube cap that his company designed. He said,Here's a product that is far more superior then the current caps we use in our homes.
Our cap pops off, but remains with the tube, it also prevents the toothpaste from spilling out of the tube while the tube is being opened.
But during test results, people took a full second longer to open the cap because everybody knows you twist off the cap from a tube of toothpaste, you dont pop it off. So the product failed in test results as being an easier cap to open.
He went on to say... it's moments like this when you have to look at the possibility that some things cannot be re-invented... despite how good they may be. Because you can't just grit your teeth and say "stupid customer!"
I think we can learn this point when it comes to OS's... I think Apple has a better OS, but I don't expect it to be #1 anytime soon. Consumers go with what they know... and everyone knows windows because they positioned themselves very well.
Look at Mac Osx a great operating system... I feel its much better then XP, having had the experience to use both, but where are my my osx commercials? I cant get that Madonna song out of my head from the MS commercials, but wheres Apples catchy toon? They dont have one... Conclusion, Apple wants to be #2 in marketing... But #1 in quality.
Just because the majority of people use something doesnt make it the best. Or the people who promote it better. (Lest we forget the Packard Bell computer which was the #1 selling computer).
But it is important to remember that no company is perfect, Apple or Microsoft, and any claim of such is nonsense.
Go with what you know and what you like... And hey did you guys see that picture of Bill Gates looking silly? Yeah I did too... He looks silly doesnt he? I think so... silly silly silly Bill Gates.
You're obviously going to see a lot of flame in posting a "pro-microsoft" side on these boards.
I would like to consider myself open minded enough to see your point... which I think is, MS is just as bad as Apple... so don't bash one without knowing the other is just as bad.
Which is true, to some extent.
The original post in this thread was kind of taking a shot at Bill Gates and you stepped in and defended him and bashed Steve Jobs.
So to be fair you are kind of guilty of doing exactly what your complaining about. But please don't miss understand my post, I have no intension of pointing out your mistakes anymore then I would like you to point out mine.
Both Steve Jobs and Bill Gates have been known for their tempers. The one thing Bill Gates has is a greater success in business (no one can deny this, he's one of the richest men in the world). But one thing Bill cannot buy is style... he just seems to be in need of an image make-over. (perhaps he could go on one of those day-time TV shows). Not that I don't want him to have style, but common... look at the picture of him on that couch as an example...
It looks like he's going to fall off... he doesn't look like he is enjoying or relaxing himself at all.
Of course I am an avid Apple lover, and while that's the case, I cannot say that Apple is not without it's faults.
In fact, it's my responsibility to point out those faults and demand that Apple recognize the consumer's vote. Or else what is to stop Apple from becoming another Microsoft.
Steve is a bit of a tyrant, isn't he? I think so. But the average consumer probably thinks he is running the show pulling all the strings, and maybe building a few Macs on his lunch hour.. and this is not the case.
Apple and MS could do just fine without Steve or Bill... but they would see major marketing points lost with their departures.
Apple people want a visionary to associate with their computer company, someone who will break a few standards, create a little revolution, etc... and Steve is a one man show when it comes to that.
Microsoft people want a no nonsense technical thinker to represent their software company. Conformity, and the knowledge that their running the same thing as everybody else is very important to them. Bill Gates has packaged a very marketable product, because it is everywhere and everyone has it.
While Apple was worrying about pleasing customers, MS was worrying about computer manufactures carrying their product.
But with all that said and done... In my opinion, Apple just makes a better OS... I'm sorry, I've been on just about every OS I can get my hands on, and none of them even come close.
There was an inventor (no one famous) who was on the Discovery Channel (or TLC), and he was talking about the philosophy of development.
He said the company he runs has a goal to improve the everyday products that consumers use.
He spoke of a toothpaste tube cap that his company designed. He said,Here's a product that is far more superior then the current caps we use in our homes.
Our cap pops off, but remains with the tube, it also prevents the toothpaste from spilling out of the tube while the tube is being opened.
But during test results, people took a full second longer to open the cap because everybody knows you twist off the cap from a tube of toothpaste, you dont pop it off. So the product failed in test results as being an easier cap to open.
He went on to say... it's moments like this when you have to look at the possibility that some things cannot be re-invented... despite how good they may be. Because you can't just grit your teeth and say "stupid customer!"
I think we can learn this point when it comes to OS's... I think Apple has a better OS, but I don't expect it to be #1 anytime soon. Consumers go with what they know... and everyone knows windows because they positioned themselves very well.
Look at Mac Osx a great operating system... I feel its much better then XP, having had the experience to use both, but where are my my osx commercials? I cant get that Madonna song out of my head from the MS commercials, but wheres Apples catchy toon? They dont have one... Conclusion, Apple wants to be #2 in marketing... But #1 in quality.
Just because the majority of people use something doesnt make it the best. Or the people who promote it better. (Lest we forget the Packard Bell computer which was the #1 selling computer).
But it is important to remember that no company is perfect, Apple or Microsoft, and any claim of such is nonsense.
Go with what you know and what you like... And hey did you guys see that picture of Bill Gates looking silly? Yeah I did too... He looks silly doesnt he? I think so... silly silly silly Bill Gates.
I understand what you're saying but my point wasn't to flame Steve Jobs. It was to show that you can find the same flaws in anyone, be it Bill Gates, Steve Jobs or yourself.
My problem with anti-anything threads is that they are counter productive, mind numbing, and if you think you've learned something from them, chances are it was false.
I would defend Apple or anyone else the same way if someone were to place a silly picture of Steve Jobs in a thread and comment on how smug and unintelligent he is for no other reason than to be a troll.
The last of the dotcoms died out about a year ago, slowing down our economy and put us in a recession for one quarter. They continue to die but none with any great amount of captial. A quarter later the recession was over but unfortunately, 9/11, Enron, WorldCom and Global Crossing continue to drag our stock market down thus impacting our economy. All those silly dotcoms really never got big enough to have a lasting impact, that's why the recession was so short. Intel and other tech companies didn't help by releasing a new processor or product every three days either.
I don't know what I was missing about the console wars. Console are produced at a loss so that the games can hopefully recoupe the expenses and generate profit. Sony and MS follow this business model for sure while Nintendo tends not to lose money on their consoles to such an extent. Sony is winning the big console war, Nintendo has claimed the portable and the XBox is kind of lost at the moment.
It's absurd to blame MS for not wanting to XBox to run Linux. Nintendo wouldn't allow it either. They chose PC hardware to build their console because that's what they knew and to get a jump on the decade advantage Sony and Nintendo had.
I consider myself well versed in computer technology, history and the arts so pretty much my heads full of useless crap.
My father has been the President of a corporation he founded for the last 40 years. I speak from that experience, not from what I've read in countless textbooks.
I like Microsoft and I like Apple and I have an especially soft spot in my heart for General Motors. Seriously though, I think they all make great products in their own right. Microsoft flubs up here and there but they also have a much bigger piece of the pie to take care of. Apple flubbed up a better part of the 90's but what's the point in blaming them now?
I seriously believe Apple has never taught there user base to communicate with anybody but themselves. Everything has become so Mac-centric and close minded. I seriously attribute their 3% market share to Mac users inability to be open minded and forgiving of someone or something other than Steve Jobs and Apple. It's hard being the underdog, trust me, I know, and maybe when Apple gains some market share, their users will get a better taste of what it's like to be incorporated into a bigger picture, with Windows users and all.
I enjoy the Apple website discussion forums and was made a "Helper" there. Anti-MS, AOL or anything is not tolerated and for good reason. It's not professional and to be taken seriously and grow and a website devoted to Mac or any platform, you can't have it.
If you look at all the threads on this website, how many are anti-something and only for the sake of slander? Imagine if this wasted energy was used for something productive like learning more about OS X, Darwin, the economy or anything. The same can be said for MS and Linux users as well.
I like this site but I think MS troll threads only farm FUD and distance users even more from learning about Macs and computer technology in general.
Anyway, I appriciate your insight and certainly meant no harm or disrespect to chem geek or anyone else. When these discussions get heated I take small jabs. Most do it in one way or another, mine are just more apparent. If you knew me better you'd know I don't mean anything by them. Ed's had a field day with my use of the word bullsh*t. I will watch that in the future as well.
My problem with anti-anything threads is that they are counter productive, mind numbing, and if you think you've learned something from them, chances are it was false.
I would defend Apple or anyone else the same way if someone were to place a silly picture of Steve Jobs in a thread and comment on how smug and unintelligent he is for no other reason than to be a troll.
The last of the dotcoms died out about a year ago, slowing down our economy and put us in a recession for one quarter. They continue to die but none with any great amount of captial. A quarter later the recession was over but unfortunately, 9/11, Enron, WorldCom and Global Crossing continue to drag our stock market down thus impacting our economy. All those silly dotcoms really never got big enough to have a lasting impact, that's why the recession was so short. Intel and other tech companies didn't help by releasing a new processor or product every three days either.
I don't know what I was missing about the console wars. Console are produced at a loss so that the games can hopefully recoupe the expenses and generate profit. Sony and MS follow this business model for sure while Nintendo tends not to lose money on their consoles to such an extent. Sony is winning the big console war, Nintendo has claimed the portable and the XBox is kind of lost at the moment.
It's absurd to blame MS for not wanting to XBox to run Linux. Nintendo wouldn't allow it either. They chose PC hardware to build their console because that's what they knew and to get a jump on the decade advantage Sony and Nintendo had.
I consider myself well versed in computer technology, history and the arts so pretty much my heads full of useless crap.
My father has been the President of a corporation he founded for the last 40 years. I speak from that experience, not from what I've read in countless textbooks.
I like Microsoft and I like Apple and I have an especially soft spot in my heart for General Motors.
Seriously though, I think they all make great products in their own right. Microsoft flubs up here and there but they also have a much bigger piece of the pie to take care of. Apple flubbed up a better part of the 90's but what's the point in blaming them now?I seriously believe Apple has never taught there user base to communicate with anybody but themselves. Everything has become so Mac-centric and close minded. I seriously attribute their 3% market share to Mac users inability to be open minded and forgiving of someone or something other than Steve Jobs and Apple. It's hard being the underdog, trust me, I know, and maybe when Apple gains some market share, their users will get a better taste of what it's like to be incorporated into a bigger picture, with Windows users and all.
I enjoy the Apple website discussion forums and was made a "Helper" there. Anti-MS, AOL or anything is not tolerated and for good reason. It's not professional and to be taken seriously and grow and a website devoted to Mac or any platform, you can't have it.
If you look at all the threads on this website, how many are anti-something and only for the sake of slander? Imagine if this wasted energy was used for something productive like learning more about OS X, Darwin, the economy or anything. The same can be said for MS and Linux users as well.
I like this site but I think MS troll threads only farm FUD and distance users even more from learning about Macs and computer technology in general.
Anyway, I appriciate your insight and certainly meant no harm or disrespect to chem geek or anyone else. When these discussions get heated I take small jabs. Most do it in one way or another, mine are just more apparent. If you knew me better you'd know I don't mean anything by them. Ed's had a field day with my use of the word bullsh*t. I will watch that in the future as well.
chemistry_geek
Registered
Slashdot has a new article here about Palladium (M$ DRM built into a PC):
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/07/12/1310253&mode=thread&tid=109
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/07/12/1310253&mode=thread&tid=109
I hope you don't believe everything you read in the "news." Slashdot is hardly a reputable news site either. It suffers from the same bias towards Microsoft this site does.
Until this technology is actually released, how can one actually pass judgement on it?
Apple itself tried it's damnednest for years not to allow Linux to run on Mac hardware. Are they now the enemy as well?
chemistry_geek
Registered
The bias against M$ is justified. M$ is greedy, crooked, controling and manipulative. I can't say the same thing about Apple. There are plenty of corporate M$ emails and documents circulating around the internet to substantiate this. Even the DOJ found evidence of this in emails subpoenaed from M$.
Apple didn't try to prevent Linux from running on their computers, they just didn't cooperate with the Linux developers. Apple has only recently returned to proitability. When Linux developers were porting Linux to the Mac, Apple was bleeding badly from every oriface, self-inflicted wound, and numerous battle wounds. People have no idea how close Apple came to going under. It's interesting how they migrated toward a UNIX-type OS anyway. Apple simply didn't have the resources to assist in developing Linux on the Mac. It happened anyway, I have Linux PPC 2000. It works great - fast and stable.
And to correct you, Slashdot is a pretty reputable news source. They don't post rumors or hearsay. The articles posted there have merit and accuracy, even references, it's just the user base that is biased, and rightly so. The Feds have convicted and upheld that M$ is monopolistic, even to this day. I invite you to find a non-credible article on Slashdot.
Apple didn't try to prevent Linux from running on their computers, they just didn't cooperate with the Linux developers. Apple has only recently returned to proitability. When Linux developers were porting Linux to the Mac, Apple was bleeding badly from every oriface, self-inflicted wound, and numerous battle wounds. People have no idea how close Apple came to going under. It's interesting how they migrated toward a UNIX-type OS anyway. Apple simply didn't have the resources to assist in developing Linux on the Mac. It happened anyway, I have Linux PPC 2000. It works great - fast and stable.
And to correct you, Slashdot is a pretty reputable news source. They don't post rumors or hearsay. The articles posted there have merit and accuracy, even references, it's just the user base that is biased, and rightly so. The Feds have convicted and upheld that M$ is monopolistic, even to this day. I invite you to find a non-credible article on Slashdot.
Here you go. I had to go all the way back two days ago to find one but here it is.
http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/02/07/10/0017206.shtml?tid=181
Yes, everything they are "guessing" may actually happen but that certainly doesn't substantiate it, especially coming from a non-credited rumors site. 50% of Slashdot is unsubstantiated hearsay. And it's gotten 700% worse since 1996.
I'm not going to argue with you. You're right, everything pubished is the truth. At least everything published about Microsoft is.
Yes, Microsoft is a monopoly. Just like AT&T, AOL/Time Warner and many other companies you might enjoy on a daily basis.
So what? They've been convicted and just like every other monpoly convicted in the US, they'll get their come-up ins soon enough.
Apple tried to save it's ass because Linux threated to wipe them out. How is that any different than what Microsoft is trying to do? They control the market but it only takes one wrong move to bring their empire crashing down. It's human nature to protect yourself at all cost.
I'm not saying that's what Pallidium is for, but Microsoft has every right to protect themselves legally by other means. Until I get a Pallidium enabled PC and unable to install Linux on it, then will your claims be substantiated, but not until then.
Business is not fair. Nobody gets to the top by "playing nice." Motorola could have been considered a monopoly at one time as well when they were on top of the world but one wrong move brought them crashing down.
Apple's no different. The "stole" the GUI from the Xerox PARC. Yes, they paid in stock to have another peak at it but Xerox said they never expected them to steal their ideas right out and computer engineers as well. Apple got into the market this way and was on top for nearly a decade. Cut throat tactics, no different that anybody else.
Jobs went after both Apple and the PC with NeXT. He failed but his mission was to destroy them. There's nothing wrong with this, it's the American way. It's called Capitalism.
Yes, I hope they strike down on Microsoft hard and do whatever is needed to insure they don't act illegally again but realize, that's big business, and don't think for one second Apple, GM, Pepsi Cola or Sony have not all acted illegally at one point. They've just yet to be caught.
http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/02/07/10/0017206.shtml?tid=181
Yes, everything they are "guessing" may actually happen but that certainly doesn't substantiate it, especially coming from a non-credited rumors site. 50% of Slashdot is unsubstantiated hearsay. And it's gotten 700% worse since 1996.
I'm not going to argue with you. You're right, everything pubished is the truth. At least everything published about Microsoft is.
Yes, Microsoft is a monopoly. Just like AT&T, AOL/Time Warner and many other companies you might enjoy on a daily basis.
So what? They've been convicted and just like every other monpoly convicted in the US, they'll get their come-up ins soon enough.
Apple tried to save it's ass because Linux threated to wipe them out. How is that any different than what Microsoft is trying to do? They control the market but it only takes one wrong move to bring their empire crashing down. It's human nature to protect yourself at all cost.
I'm not saying that's what Pallidium is for, but Microsoft has every right to protect themselves legally by other means. Until I get a Pallidium enabled PC and unable to install Linux on it, then will your claims be substantiated, but not until then.
Business is not fair. Nobody gets to the top by "playing nice." Motorola could have been considered a monopoly at one time as well when they were on top of the world but one wrong move brought them crashing down.
Apple's no different. The "stole" the GUI from the Xerox PARC. Yes, they paid in stock to have another peak at it but Xerox said they never expected them to steal their ideas right out and computer engineers as well. Apple got into the market this way and was on top for nearly a decade. Cut throat tactics, no different that anybody else.
Jobs went after both Apple and the PC with NeXT. He failed but his mission was to destroy them. There's nothing wrong with this, it's the American way. It's called Capitalism.
Yes, I hope they strike down on Microsoft hard and do whatever is needed to insure they don't act illegally again but realize, that's big business, and don't think for one second Apple, GM, Pepsi Cola or Sony have not all acted illegally at one point. They've just yet to be caught.
chemistry_geek
Registered
MSNBC ran an article either yesterday or the day before stating that the iMac G4 will have a 17 inch flat screen. I also read about this from some Wallstreet analyst that tracks computer technology. It sort of let the secret out when it said Apple was purchasing 17 inch flat panel LCD displays. Everyone "knew" it was very likely to go into a revised iMac G4. The iMac G4 should have been introduced with 17 inch flat panel display from the beginning.
15" is still the norm for flat panel displays while 19" is becoming the norm for CRTs.
17" iMacs would be sweet as long as they can keep the price down. Their 17" Studio Display is $1000. Hopefully this outrageous cost doesn't go into the new iMacs.
I wish they would get some DDR memory and faster system bus in their desktops.
They really need to can Motorola and go with someone else for processors. AMD x86 wouldn't be bad if they could incorporate Pallidium like technology into the motherboards so only OS X could run on their hardware. Their 64-bit chips are going to rock Intel come 2003.
When and if the G5 ever sees the light of day, it really isn't going to be that state of the art next to AMD and Intel's offerings.
I'm wondering if it's actually going to sink Apple. I actually think it's been ready for some time. The problem is the production yield is crap and the cost is through the roof. Apple would never cut into their profit margins so either they'll wait or just release the G5 at $700 a chip.
I know the iMac is killing their PowerMac line because there is little difference anymore between the two other than L3 cache and SMP.
I'm guessing that's why they raised the iMacs price despite claims of manufaturing costs rising. The decline in PowerMac sells must have been sharp and they had to recoupe profits some how.
17" iMacs would be sweet as long as they can keep the price down. Their 17" Studio Display is $1000. Hopefully this outrageous cost doesn't go into the new iMacs.
I wish they would get some DDR memory and faster system bus in their desktops.
They really need to can Motorola and go with someone else for processors. AMD x86 wouldn't be bad if they could incorporate Pallidium like technology into the motherboards so only OS X could run on their hardware.
Their 64-bit chips are going to rock Intel come 2003. When and if the G5 ever sees the light of day, it really isn't going to be that state of the art next to AMD and Intel's offerings.
I'm wondering if it's actually going to sink Apple. I actually think it's been ready for some time. The problem is the production yield is crap and the cost is through the roof. Apple would never cut into their profit margins so either they'll wait or just release the G5 at $700 a chip.
I know the iMac is killing their PowerMac line because there is little difference anymore between the two other than L3 cache and SMP.
I'm guessing that's why they raised the iMacs price despite claims of manufaturing costs rising. The decline in PowerMac sells must have been sharp and they had to recoupe profits some how.
edX
mac shaman
this statement bothers me in some ways.
it bothers me that you make it sound like this is the way it is so we should just accept it. That only businesses that cheat, succede. and we if we don't like that, too bad. Frankly i don't believe that at all. I do believe that a lot of big businesses do things that they shouldn't - things that really aren't in anyone's best interest but their own. But i also believe we can do something about it once we are aware of it and that we should. I also believe that companies that sell inferior products or harm the consumers should fail in the market place and not be able to strangelhold their positions - that is capitolism.
i add the following quote from the mozilla thread to support the above interpretaion of your latest "that's big business"
well, i have a partial answer - consumers should all have a little "FUD, Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt ", because without it, they are gleefully participating in the crimes of these companies. You continue to use that concept as something evil and ignorant, whereas i see it as the first step to awareness. and just to be sure you know, i think we should all have a little of it for our beloved apple as well. no one should be immune unless they can prove their innocence to us. and those examples you gave of monopolies in the past - they were all broken and we have all been better off for it. not that some of the offspring haven't committed crimes of their own, but their powers are not near as encompassing as the original monopolies. and the economy has rebounded from it every time. let m$ go the way of the other criminals. any claims that it will do more harm than good are just a bully whimpering when he finally gets cornered by his victims.
oh and i forgot to respond to one of your comments in the other thread -
i meant to say thanks.
I never suggest that we all go along with it. I just pointed out that it exists in everything, not just Microsoft.
To me, your amount of FUD boarders on paranoia, yet seems to turn a cheek to Apple all together. Your whole Mozilla argument was like 6 degrees seperation. Apple can be tied just as closely to Microsoft as Mozilla is to AOL. Any business can be tied to an evil entity.
For your argument to hold any merit with me, you'd pratically have to live in a cave and eat off the land to not support monopolies such as MS and AOL. That which you don't do. Yes, that is extreme but if you were truly concerned with the monoplistic enfluences MS has on others, you'd run Linux over OS 9 or X.
You pick and choose, and to me that's not fair. You don't practice what you preach on all accounts. I should not only hate Microsoft but Apple as well because at one point in time they sold out to MS and let IE and Office kill Netscape and AppleWorks.
I'm not going to hurt myself, my business and the people I love just because Microsoft did a bad thing. I need my PC. I do in Windows what I can't do in OS X or Linux.
Until that changes I'm stuck and I'm certainly not going to take food out of my family's mouth just to be a martyr.
This isn't the case for everyone but it certainly reflects many people's struggle.
Until you show me that you honestly live without the influence of Microsoft or any other potential monopoly, this would mean dropping Apple, I'm not going to buy into a word you say concerning this issue.
To me, your amount of FUD boarders on paranoia, yet seems to turn a cheek to Apple all together. Your whole Mozilla argument was like 6 degrees seperation. Apple can be tied just as closely to Microsoft as Mozilla is to AOL. Any business can be tied to an evil entity.
For your argument to hold any merit with me, you'd pratically have to live in a cave and eat off the land to not support monopolies such as MS and AOL. That which you don't do. Yes, that is extreme but if you were truly concerned with the monoplistic enfluences MS has on others, you'd run Linux over OS 9 or X.
You pick and choose, and to me that's not fair. You don't practice what you preach on all accounts. I should not only hate Microsoft but Apple as well because at one point in time they sold out to MS and let IE and Office kill Netscape and AppleWorks.
I'm not going to hurt myself, my business and the people I love just because Microsoft did a bad thing. I need my PC. I do in Windows what I can't do in OS X or Linux.
Until that changes I'm stuck and I'm certainly not going to take food out of my family's mouth just to be a martyr.
This isn't the case for everyone but it certainly reflects many people's struggle.
Until you show me that you honestly live without the influence of Microsoft or any other potential monopoly, this would mean dropping Apple, I'm not going to buy into a word you say concerning this issue.
edX
mac shaman
let me repeat your quote -
is it just me, or are you not saying that my recourse for not liking criminal business practices, abuse of economic power, and Big Brother tactics is to move? which would imply that if i continue to live here, i should just accept it. this is just the long version of
next-
frankly m$'s relationship with apple is one of the great disappointments to me. the same with their relationship with ibm. but these were/are survival relationships forced upon apple by people who naively buy into the pc myths of compatibility and these companies domination of a market apple needed to be a part of. To this day i am advocate of apple cutting those ties as thouroughly as possible. but like me (my bank and credit cards insist i use ie), this can only be done to a certain extent in the current political climate. No one is a saint. me included. we all do things out of necessity that we would rather not do.
i've said this before but i'll repeat it - i agree. i cannot afford the luxury of closing myself off from the world as tempting as that sounds at times. but that would hardly solve the problems. it would only leave me living in a world in which injustices could occur without my input. and then how long before the power of money chooses to force me out of my cave and takes my land? that doesn't really take the merit out of my desire to change what i see as wrong.
yes, i was taught long ago to pick my battles because you just can't win them all. fair or not, that's the best i can do at this point in my life. it beats not fighting any battles at all.
i agree up to a point. but i would love to hear your list of the important money making things you can do in windows that you can't do on a mac. There have plenty of threads about this subject and nobody has ever put together a long list of these. But you're right about being stuck in a situation that is pretty lousy because you and others are forced to participate in m$'s domination because they have convinced the average joe that he can't live without them.
i'm not really concerned it you "buy into a word" i say or not. but you might be wise not to throw the baby out with the bathwater if you would like to see a better world, rather than just shrug and say "that's the way it is." perhaps you will learn with time how important picking your causes and battles can be. and know where to fight them. maybe even how.
the minute you start believing that you can't do anything about things because you are just one person, is the day you don't do anything about things at all. When lots of individuals start voicing a unified position, they can have an effect. The world has been changed for the better many times when this has happened. Most recently and vividly in my mind was the ending of apartheid, partially thru economic boycott of S. African companies.
but maybe i'm wrong - maybe you think that a company should be able to destroy the rainforest or old growth redwoods just because they have the money and power to do it. maybe they should be able to dictate to us what information we can have and how we can obtain it. after all, that's how capitolism works, right?
and just in case you missed my saying this a half dozen other times in the past, let me repeat it as well - i am not one of those who wants to see apple switch places with m$. I don't want to see apple acheive more than 20% of the market share. i want to stay a minority platform. i do not worry about apple attracting more customers or how they appear in the eyes of joe blow. i would prefer that the majority of people not know what they are missing. apple is currently able to offer a great product and provide for the userbase they have. as long as they are simply successful enough to do that, i'm happy. Happy enough to have paid a bit more and get a mac. i will continue to pay the price for the benefits it brings me so long as it is the best of all evils. (place tongue against inner wall of mouth)
I still make no suggestion of giving into the criminal behavior of big business. There comes a point where you have to take the bad with the good. There is evil in everything.
I respect your efforts to try an not feed the evil, but as long as the US remains a democracy driven by capitialism, control by big business will always exist.
Many like yourself have made a conscious decision not to support big business the best you can. I made the same decision as well long ago. It's the reason I run Linux and support organizations like Mozilla as often as I can. I'm just not quite the extremest you are, and I feel I can understand and seperate certain business relationships, like AOL/Netscape/Mozilla more fairly than you do.
Apple's goal is to not control 20% of the market, it's to control 100%. That's any businesses goal. It probably wont happen but if they were to gain 30, 40 or even 50% market share, they could easily find themselves in Microsoft's position so I do understand why you'd want them to remain small.
I'm writting this right now in the middle of 400 year old sequoias, so no, I don't think big business should destroy the rain forest or any other forest, but until our country moves to a communist or fascist dictatorship, there is nothing we'll be able to do about it. I'm not saying we should accept it but there so much more to life than worrying about big business.
We live in the greatest country in the world and are afforded more freedoms than anyone else. The kind of control you suggest would not only come at the expense of big business, but to us as well. Trust the invisible hand. This is one of the few cases where what you can't see really wont hurt you.
machagintosh
Registered
I can imagine a Jim Reeves soundtrack as a backdrop to some of this moralising....
Which one? I'm not sure, possibly one which has yet to be recorded.
So, I've been enlightened to the notions that Business can be self-seeking, corrupt & may provide shoddy products & service. Get REAL!
I MUST get a new 17" flat panel to help me understand more of this, oh & then there's the solitaire!
Please help me keep my Macs, they are such a comfort here is this rubber room so far removed from unreality.
It used to be so simple, there was Good Guy Steve, & Bad Guy Gates, now I'm told we have notsoBad guy Gates & notsogood guy Steve. A possible scenario for a Silicon Babble-on?
I have a spare white hat.........should it be red?
Which one? I'm not sure, possibly one which has yet to be recorded.
So, I've been enlightened to the notions that Business can be self-seeking, corrupt & may provide shoddy products & service. Get REAL!
I MUST get a new 17" flat panel to help me understand more of this, oh & then there's the solitaire!
Please help me keep my Macs, they are such a comfort here is this rubber room so far removed from unreality.
It used to be so simple, there was Good Guy Steve, & Bad Guy Gates, now I'm told we have notsoBad guy Gates & notsogood guy Steve. A possible scenario for a Silicon Babble-on?
I have a spare white hat.........should it be red?
Annihilatus
Banned
The only time that it has been PROVEN that Microsoft purposely made competing programs less stable is with Windows 3.1 running on Digital Research DOS. Microsoft was pushing MS-DOS so the superior DR-DOS was its biggest threat. I can understand why they did it, but that doesn't make it right.
Andre
