pdjudd
Oct 7, 04:57 PM
Have you actually READ the link you posted?
Times have changed a bit since then, you know ...
Yes, I have. Several times. Things have changed, but the base premise of the article still applies - Microsoft Got Lucky - there is no way to suggest that Apple can pull that off in this day in age when the world depends too much on Microsoft. The article deals with past actions affecting the present. Its very relevant. Its point is that MS got successful because of how it parlayed successes over time, not because it embraced an "open strategy". They did that years ago. Read the whole thing. Grueber makes a point that still applies today because marketshare in the OS world has changed very little.
Due to Apple's grown popularity (if not ubiquity) it can be safely assumed that quite a few more people would install Mac OS if it were officially supported on non-Mac hardware. A highly significant number of people? Good question. To Apple's benefit? Probably not.
Popularity is irrelevant. Going up against Microsoft is suicide. Period. Their market share is too large and Apple's success is too dependent on hardware sales. Microsoft's objective is to rule the roost. They did that way back in the early 90's and they are too well entrenched to be taken out directly. They are just too big. You are simply conjecturing without any basis in reality. Apple tried the cloning market and it failed because people by in large do not want to undertake the massive pains to go to a completely different platform without somewhat of a safety platform. People want Windows because the stuff they run on depend on it. Thant and competing with Microsoft directly is a folly - going up against MS is going to be very bloody. You have better luck elephant hunting with a pea shooter.
Take a look at any other market that involves hardware and software. The article makes a good point about video games. They are totally incompatible with each other and are very closed systems. They remain successful because they can take one success and transition it to another - like the Mario franchise. MS did the same thing with computers years ago (with the objective of being really lucky thanks to boneheaded decisions by IBM). Apple did not. Of course Apple's objectives were far different back then, but Apple operates differently than MS does.
While Apple could get a few more customers, it just wouldn't last. There is no reason to think that it would or that they could sustain it. Its about making a good choice.
You cannot say that Apple's market strategy would gain them more money from copying MS business strategy, you just can't because they aren't the same. You cannot make a flawed assumption and think that Microsoft got achieved success by doing things the way the market was meant to be. They didn't. Microsoft got real lucky and rode on the coat tails of IBM business mentality and got massive market share because of that - way back in the 80's. That's just how things ended up. Doesn't mean that it works that way all the time and there is no reason to suggest that Apple is gonna want to chance it.
At this point in the game Microsoft has won - Jobs has admitted that years ago. Microsoft makes billions from the business market that by in large has no interest in making a risky and expensive change that going to Mac entails. Microsoft provides a very prediction, safe route that has massive industry support. Apple would have needed this kind of success really early on - but back in that day, they were adopting practices that were fundamentally different.
It doesn't matter that Apple's system is better - the lions share of the market made their choice years ago and that market doesn't tolerate direct competition. In Microsoft's world - they are the only game in town. And I say that the reason is that Apple is still around because they don't encroach into Microsoft's big markets. They don't license their software out to Microsoft's partners, they don't sell office software to PC's. There is a reason - Microsoft is far too big.
Times have changed a bit since then, you know ...
Yes, I have. Several times. Things have changed, but the base premise of the article still applies - Microsoft Got Lucky - there is no way to suggest that Apple can pull that off in this day in age when the world depends too much on Microsoft. The article deals with past actions affecting the present. Its very relevant. Its point is that MS got successful because of how it parlayed successes over time, not because it embraced an "open strategy". They did that years ago. Read the whole thing. Grueber makes a point that still applies today because marketshare in the OS world has changed very little.
Due to Apple's grown popularity (if not ubiquity) it can be safely assumed that quite a few more people would install Mac OS if it were officially supported on non-Mac hardware. A highly significant number of people? Good question. To Apple's benefit? Probably not.
Popularity is irrelevant. Going up against Microsoft is suicide. Period. Their market share is too large and Apple's success is too dependent on hardware sales. Microsoft's objective is to rule the roost. They did that way back in the early 90's and they are too well entrenched to be taken out directly. They are just too big. You are simply conjecturing without any basis in reality. Apple tried the cloning market and it failed because people by in large do not want to undertake the massive pains to go to a completely different platform without somewhat of a safety platform. People want Windows because the stuff they run on depend on it. Thant and competing with Microsoft directly is a folly - going up against MS is going to be very bloody. You have better luck elephant hunting with a pea shooter.
Take a look at any other market that involves hardware and software. The article makes a good point about video games. They are totally incompatible with each other and are very closed systems. They remain successful because they can take one success and transition it to another - like the Mario franchise. MS did the same thing with computers years ago (with the objective of being really lucky thanks to boneheaded decisions by IBM). Apple did not. Of course Apple's objectives were far different back then, but Apple operates differently than MS does.
While Apple could get a few more customers, it just wouldn't last. There is no reason to think that it would or that they could sustain it. Its about making a good choice.
You cannot say that Apple's market strategy would gain them more money from copying MS business strategy, you just can't because they aren't the same. You cannot make a flawed assumption and think that Microsoft got achieved success by doing things the way the market was meant to be. They didn't. Microsoft got real lucky and rode on the coat tails of IBM business mentality and got massive market share because of that - way back in the 80's. That's just how things ended up. Doesn't mean that it works that way all the time and there is no reason to suggest that Apple is gonna want to chance it.
At this point in the game Microsoft has won - Jobs has admitted that years ago. Microsoft makes billions from the business market that by in large has no interest in making a risky and expensive change that going to Mac entails. Microsoft provides a very prediction, safe route that has massive industry support. Apple would have needed this kind of success really early on - but back in that day, they were adopting practices that were fundamentally different.
It doesn't matter that Apple's system is better - the lions share of the market made their choice years ago and that market doesn't tolerate direct competition. In Microsoft's world - they are the only game in town. And I say that the reason is that Apple is still around because they don't encroach into Microsoft's big markets. They don't license their software out to Microsoft's partners, they don't sell office software to PC's. There is a reason - Microsoft is far too big.
bradl
Mar 11, 01:55 AM
God Bless everyone there. I am watching this live, and saw the surge just overrunning everything inland, including cars on the highway that couldn't move out of the way.
Hawaii is under a tsunami watch, but not the West Coast yet. There is a refinery on fire that is ready to explode and am seeing on the TV that people are on tops of roofs of houses flagging the helicopter for help. 4 million people w/o power. Just incredible, not in a good way.
Hawaii, Indonesia, Philippines, Taiwan, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands are all under tsunami watch.
This one is BIG, and I seriously hope no major loss of life occurs. :(
BL.
Hawaii is under a tsunami watch, but not the West Coast yet. There is a refinery on fire that is ready to explode and am seeing on the TV that people are on tops of roofs of houses flagging the helicopter for help. 4 million people w/o power. Just incredible, not in a good way.
Hawaii, Indonesia, Philippines, Taiwan, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands are all under tsunami watch.
This one is BIG, and I seriously hope no major loss of life occurs. :(
BL.
bobsentell
Mar 18, 08:45 AM
I see nothing wrong with AT&T cracking down. You signed a contract that specifically said you had no interest in tethering. But if you use it, then you lied when you signed your contract which means AT&T has the right to modify it.
Hey, it's better then them blackballing you and making you pay the remainder of your phone's cost.
Hey, it's better then them blackballing you and making you pay the remainder of your phone's cost.
~loserman~
Mar 20, 07:25 PM
Not to the holder of the copyright.
Agreed.
If these people who argue against copyright were having their creations stolen and it was affecting their living they would feel differently.
Agreed.
If these people who argue against copyright were having their creations stolen and it was affecting their living they would feel differently.
pourhadi
Mar 18, 11:37 AM
This is just going to hurt Apple in the eyes of the music industry.
The argument that, "It's gonna happen anyway, so they shouldn't complain" is rhetorical nonsense-- this is the RIAA we're talking about, people.
The argument that, "It's gonna happen anyway, so they shouldn't complain" is rhetorical nonsense-- this is the RIAA we're talking about, people.
Multimedia
Oct 31, 05:10 PM
What's funny is that the 8-core Mac Pro will be more of a stop-gap model. After all, the Clovertown is two Woodcrest CPUs on the same die, but still running off the same FSB bandwidth and the first pair of cores must utilize the FSB to transfer data to the second pair of cores and vice versa. We won't see unified quad-core CPUs until sometime next year along with the multiplexed/bonded (and faster base rate) FSB implementations. ...AMD will be shipping fully unified quad-core CPUs in mid-December to early January. Not that it matters since Apple isn't using them.
Anyway, it's just another evolutionary step... Buy what you need when you need it and that's all there is to it.Yeah I know. So are you thinking the Dual Clovertown may be a dog 'cause both sets of four cores have to share one bus each? If it won't really run faster what's the point? I hope that isn't going to be a problem for "simple" video compression work which is all I want it for.
Anyway, it's just another evolutionary step... Buy what you need when you need it and that's all there is to it.Yeah I know. So are you thinking the Dual Clovertown may be a dog 'cause both sets of four cores have to share one bus each? If it won't really run faster what's the point? I hope that isn't going to be a problem for "simple" video compression work which is all I want it for.
Hastings101
Apr 5, 08:29 PM
Things I miss from Windows:
Select an item, push shift, and select another to select those two items and everything between them.
Start Menu where you can find all of the installed programs easily and a bunch of recent or favorite programs as well (Apple's Menu Bar and the Dock try to accomplish this with recent items and stacks but it's just not as good.)
Being able to easily theme the OS.
Many applications don't quit when you push close a window on Mac. On Windows the program quits. It was a lot easier than having to go up to the menu for the application and hit quit.
When you click maximize on Windows the application takes up all of the available screen space (excluding taskbar) instead of just fitting to what the application is displaying. While I do like what OS X does I wish it wasn't the only option available.
The "Add/Remove programs" thing was also really nice. I know that all you have to do is drag and drop to the trash on Mac but sometimes not all of my applications are in my Applications folder and it's a pain to hunt for something.
I could go on and on but I think that's enough lol.
Select an item, push shift, and select another to select those two items and everything between them.
Start Menu where you can find all of the installed programs easily and a bunch of recent or favorite programs as well (Apple's Menu Bar and the Dock try to accomplish this with recent items and stacks but it's just not as good.)
Being able to easily theme the OS.
Many applications don't quit when you push close a window on Mac. On Windows the program quits. It was a lot easier than having to go up to the menu for the application and hit quit.
When you click maximize on Windows the application takes up all of the available screen space (excluding taskbar) instead of just fitting to what the application is displaying. While I do like what OS X does I wish it wasn't the only option available.
The "Add/Remove programs" thing was also really nice. I know that all you have to do is drag and drop to the trash on Mac but sometimes not all of my applications are in my Applications folder and it's a pain to hunt for something.
I could go on and on but I think that's enough lol.
the vj
Apr 15, 10:03 AM
A few months ago I deleted and started to reject all the people I knew from high school in my Facebook, well, the ones that after almost 20 years came to me to add me as a friend but they were the ones that make my life a living hell and used me and took advantaged and then they turned their back on me.
You know what... get lost!
You know what... get lost!
TheRealTVGuy
Mar 18, 01:41 AM
Option 3; STOP trying to cheat the system, and START using your iDevice the way the manufacturer designed it and the way your carrier supports it. (Is it unfair? YES! Are all of us iPhone users getting hosed, even though there's now two carriers? YES)
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
Multimedia
Oct 28, 03:10 PM
Has any one installed a Western Digital Raptor X WD1500AHFD 150GB 10,000 RPM 16MB Cache Serial ATA150 Hard Drive in one of the current systems to use as their boot drive?What's your best price on that puppy? I've been wanting to do that for a while. But my 500GB boot drive is almost full all the time. ;)
Wish they made a 500GB Raptor. :p
Wish they made a 500GB Raptor. :p
JustAGuy
Oct 12, 05:05 PM
Hi all, just thought that I'd compile and run the tests on my G4/450 and PIII/733 for comparison. VERY interesting results. I had to change the i value from 20,000 down to 5,000 to save time...
In any event, the results are 15s for the G4/450 and, get this, 55s for the PIII/733.
Further compounding these results was the fact that the G4 was running setiathome with OSX's lousy priority scheduling (nice 20 usually takes up no less than 15% CPU) and the PIII was devoting 100% of it's processor resources to the task.
The best part about one-off, anecdotal evidense is that it is just that ;)
(gcc 2.95 - cygwin - on the PC, gcc 3.1 on OSX) I'll get the java version and give it a whirl...
In any event, the results are 15s for the G4/450 and, get this, 55s for the PIII/733.
Further compounding these results was the fact that the G4 was running setiathome with OSX's lousy priority scheduling (nice 20 usually takes up no less than 15% CPU) and the PIII was devoting 100% of it's processor resources to the task.
The best part about one-off, anecdotal evidense is that it is just that ;)
(gcc 2.95 - cygwin - on the PC, gcc 3.1 on OSX) I'll get the java version and give it a whirl...
Anonymous Freak
Sep 26, 11:17 AM
Therefore current Mac Pro users may be able to upgrade to 8-core machines upon availability of the new chips
Emphasis mine. Whaddaya mean 'may'? Anandtech (http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=6) confirmed that they work.
Oh, and as for quad-core laptops? Not any time soon. Sorry. We'll see quad-core Xeons this year, maybe a quad core 'Core 2 Extreme' this year, followed by a few desktop 'Core 2 Quadro's next year.
The big problem is that the early quad-core chips are really just two dual-core chips in the same package. So not only are they big (you CAN'T fit four Conroes on a Socket 775 package, so we WON'T be seeing similar eight-core chips until a die shrink,) but they draw almost exactly twice as much power as the same GHz dual-core chip. That already will already push the Xeons and Core 2s to the thermal envelope that was hit by the NetBurst based models. So we'll have to wait for a die shrink before we see quad-core in any of the 'consumer' desktop Macs or laptops. (The die shrink is scheduled for late next year.)
Emphasis mine. Whaddaya mean 'may'? Anandtech (http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=6) confirmed that they work.
Oh, and as for quad-core laptops? Not any time soon. Sorry. We'll see quad-core Xeons this year, maybe a quad core 'Core 2 Extreme' this year, followed by a few desktop 'Core 2 Quadro's next year.
The big problem is that the early quad-core chips are really just two dual-core chips in the same package. So not only are they big (you CAN'T fit four Conroes on a Socket 775 package, so we WON'T be seeing similar eight-core chips until a die shrink,) but they draw almost exactly twice as much power as the same GHz dual-core chip. That already will already push the Xeons and Core 2s to the thermal envelope that was hit by the NetBurst based models. So we'll have to wait for a die shrink before we see quad-core in any of the 'consumer' desktop Macs or laptops. (The die shrink is scheduled for late next year.)
KnightWRX
Apr 28, 09:12 AM
Tablets like the iPad, Xoom, G-Slate, heck, even smartphones like the iPhone, Droid, Incredible, etc.. are all lower case "pc"s. As in, they are computers that are personal. They aren't upper case PCs, as in IBM PC compatible.
Servers based on Intel architecture processors like the C7000 chassis blades are not lower case "pc"s, as in, they aren't personal computer systems. They are servers (also why are we talking about servers here ? Is there even any evidence Catalyst is including those in HP's and Dell's numbers ? I doubt they are...). They are however (again, the Intel variant) upper case PCs, as in IBM PC compatible .
PC (Personal Computer) is an architecture defined in the 80s by IBM. pc is a personal computer. Learn the difference boys and girls.
Should the Tablet sales be included in charts like these ? I don't think so, this is just a very pro Apple analyst group trying to make it look like Apple is having more success in a segment they have usually lagged a bit in (though in which they are still showing quite the growth and beating expectations without the iPad).
Servers based on Intel architecture processors like the C7000 chassis blades are not lower case "pc"s, as in, they aren't personal computer systems. They are servers (also why are we talking about servers here ? Is there even any evidence Catalyst is including those in HP's and Dell's numbers ? I doubt they are...). They are however (again, the Intel variant) upper case PCs, as in IBM PC compatible .
PC (Personal Computer) is an architecture defined in the 80s by IBM. pc is a personal computer. Learn the difference boys and girls.
Should the Tablet sales be included in charts like these ? I don't think so, this is just a very pro Apple analyst group trying to make it look like Apple is having more success in a segment they have usually lagged a bit in (though in which they are still showing quite the growth and beating expectations without the iPad).
dgree03
Apr 28, 08:56 AM
Ahh. Any proof, or just making up stuff?
Best thing I could find
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Gadgets/Report/Desktop-and-Laptop-Computers.aspx
Best thing I could find
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Gadgets/Report/Desktop-and-Laptop-Computers.aspx
KingYaba
Aug 29, 06:27 PM
Not all organic foods are actually organic.
mcarnes
Sep 20, 02:02 AM
But it sure looks better than it sounds...;)
:p Good one.
:p Good one.
ender land
Apr 23, 11:20 PM
You are correct ... there are no Gods ... zero ... nada ... zilch.
I am not sure what all that other rambling on you were going on about ... most of it made no sense
Nice. You've proven my point with that one statement. Congratulations, you are my first I & R.
Thank you. I thought it was only me.
We don't have the answers, so why must we persist in this feckless inquiry??
No, we are not the centre of the Universe, as was believed not-so-long-ago, but still our delusions of grandeur carry us forward, along this path to nothingness.
*shrug*
I guess this sort of style of posting is why the question in the OP is relevant. Thanks guys for providing examples of what I was talking about in my initial posts in this thread.
For what it's worth, I enjoyed the past few hours of posting, as I greatly enjoy people challenging my beliefs and causing me to think through positions I hold and believe. Thank you to those of you who participated in the actual discussion (this includes you Mac'nCheese, in spite of your last post). If any of you honestly do care to continue this discussion, feel free to PM me.
I am not sure what all that other rambling on you were going on about ... most of it made no sense
Nice. You've proven my point with that one statement. Congratulations, you are my first I & R.
Thank you. I thought it was only me.
We don't have the answers, so why must we persist in this feckless inquiry??
No, we are not the centre of the Universe, as was believed not-so-long-ago, but still our delusions of grandeur carry us forward, along this path to nothingness.
*shrug*
I guess this sort of style of posting is why the question in the OP is relevant. Thanks guys for providing examples of what I was talking about in my initial posts in this thread.
For what it's worth, I enjoyed the past few hours of posting, as I greatly enjoy people challenging my beliefs and causing me to think through positions I hold and believe. Thank you to those of you who participated in the actual discussion (this includes you Mac'nCheese, in spite of your last post). If any of you honestly do care to continue this discussion, feel free to PM me.
mike31mets
Apr 22, 06:34 PM
I was in the same boat as the OP a few years back. My circumstances and motivations in learning OS X were a bit than the OP's. I've learned a good deal about OS X. The things it can and can't do and how it differs from Windows.
So some of the stuff in this thread I knew about, but the one that I still can't figure out is switching between all windows. Everyone says just use CMD + ~. However when I do that on my iMac, all I get is a switch between windows in a particular application. I'm using the Apple standard wired keyboard with numberpad.
In Windows, ATL + Tab switches between all windows (and it shows you the windows in a preview much like CMD + Tab does with applications).
So some of the stuff in this thread I knew about, but the one that I still can't figure out is switching between all windows. Everyone says just use CMD + ~. However when I do that on my iMac, all I get is a switch between windows in a particular application. I'm using the Apple standard wired keyboard with numberpad.
In Windows, ATL + Tab switches between all windows (and it shows you the windows in a preview much like CMD + Tab does with applications).
mscriv
Apr 6, 02:20 PM
All you have to do is press CMD+~ it's right above the tab key. I figured it out the other day. CMD+TAB to switch b/w apps, CMD+~ to switch b/w windows.
Thanks for that one. Been using a Mac for 6 years and never found it. Saves a lot of F3 and click action :).
I find no need for this shortcut as setting Expose's all windows feature to a mouse button seems to be the easiest and quickest way to shift between open windows. Have you tried that?
Thanks for that one. Been using a Mac for 6 years and never found it. Saves a lot of F3 and click action :).
I find no need for this shortcut as setting Expose's all windows feature to a mouse button seems to be the easiest and quickest way to shift between open windows. Have you tried that?
aegisdesign
Oct 26, 05:11 AM
JUST IMAGINE A COMPUTER IN WHICH EACH PIXEL IS CONTROLLED BY A SINGLE PROCESSOR.
I've used one. Back in the 1980s, beginning of the 90s. The low end model had 1024 processors and the high end model 4096 processors. It was a pig to program. When drawing on the screen you split the task at hand up into many parallel threads each drawing a part of the screen. Not quite 1 CPU per pixel but you get the idea.
I've used one. Back in the 1980s, beginning of the 90s. The low end model had 1024 processors and the high end model 4096 processors. It was a pig to program. When drawing on the screen you split the task at hand up into many parallel threads each drawing a part of the screen. Not quite 1 CPU per pixel but you get the idea.
safarka
Apr 9, 03:40 PM
Can anyone tell me what are the names of 2 games placed on the picture above the article. One is Tony Hawk i guess but the second? Thanks
flopticalcube
Apr 22, 10:51 PM
Also, the existence of a creator doesn't mean that there is an afterlife for any human.
or vice versa for that matter.
or vice versa for that matter.
blueflame
Aug 29, 10:52 AM
Boo hoo. its a business, waht do they realistically expect?
BrokenChairs
Apr 10, 07:34 AM
This shows how much Apple has learned from the past. They will not make the same mistake they did during the Mac vs. PC era by ignoring games. They're throwing the best mobile GPUs into their products and advertising gaming heavily, good for them.
Yes 'games' are what Apple are after. Until they can produce a decent gaming library and convince companies to make Mac versions (at least Blizzard has all this time) I cannot take Apple seriously when it comes to games. What I call gaming is not a 3 minute exercise for fingers swiping across the screen. But if this is a step to increase non-casual games, good luck Apple.
Yes 'games' are what Apple are after. Until they can produce a decent gaming library and convince companies to make Mac versions (at least Blizzard has all this time) I cannot take Apple seriously when it comes to games. What I call gaming is not a 3 minute exercise for fingers swiping across the screen. But if this is a step to increase non-casual games, good luck Apple.