 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / April 2006End is Near: MacIntels to Run Windoze
It's true. We'd better get to the store and stock-up. Start bottling water.  Signature:) JR PowerMac G4 MDD 1.25 SP Mac OS X 10.4.5 > It's true. > > We'd better get to the store and stock-up. Start bottling water. It does appear to be so. They're all hot and bothered. > It's true. > > We'd better get to the store and stock-up. Start bottling water. Saw a review this morning. If you do run Windows on your Mac it leaves you open to all the problems that Window users have (viruses, malware, etc.) The reviewer did say, however, that during his trial the programs ran great, and very fast. > It's true. > > We'd better get to the store and stock-up. Start bottling water. Yep - Apples last desperate attempt to survive in the computer business. If you can't beat em, join em eh? - surprised it took them that long to catch on, then again, having said that they've been pretty slow to catch on in the PC industry for many a year, so it's not all that surprising that they've only just woken up and smelt the roses. Lets just hope it's not too late for them to catch up with the rest of us :) > Yep - Apples last desperate attempt to survive in the computer business. Sure, that makes sense. Their computer business has been extremely profitable for years -- the only other computer company for which that is true is Dell. Apple is doing *better* than almost anyone else in the computer business. This isn't an "attempt to survive", it's a smart move -- now, a sysadmin who needs a building full of computers, some of which must run Windows and some of which must run OS X, can spec *one* vendor for the entire purchase and use the machines for either. The college Autocad lab gets a Windows install, and the graphic design lab gets OS X, and you don't have to worry about supporting hardware from multiple sources. > Lets just hope it's not too late for them to catch up with the rest of us :) That's pretty funny, too. WinXP is like banging two rocks together by comparison to just about any other modern OS. I honestly can't even imagine why anyone would subject themselves to it by choice. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > > Yep - Apples last desperate attempt to survive in the computer business. > > Sure, that makes sense. Their computer business has been extremely > profitable for years -- the only other computer company for which that > is true is Dell. Apple is doing *better* than almost anyone else in > the computer business. It's not a valid argument to compare them as a manufacturer - because the hardware they manufacture has also traditionally been tied to exclusive software to create the macintosh "platform" - and it's that platform that's failing (With their traditional proprietary approach, how successful would they be as a manufacturer if market share drops to 0%). If it truely were advantagous with a much lower TCO (as some here are trying to have me believe) then you'd be seeing the market share for that platform increasing, and yet the undeniable reality is that (for the most part) that market share is decreasing - it's failing. At last count it's been hovering around the 2 to 5 percent range - pretty close to that steep part of the curve where it's uneconomic for developers to put resources into developing for a 5% market when they can develop for one that's over 10 times that size. It's reached the point where 95% (or more of the market) has said "we don't want to run a Mac" - so in desperation they've now admitted defeat and in a last-ditch desperate attempt have come up with a way to save the hardware - and that's by allowing the industry-leading OS to run on it. > That's pretty funny, too. WinXP is like banging two rocks together by > comparison to just about any other modern OS. I honestly can't even > imagine why anyone would subject themselves to it by choice. And I use it day in and day out with zero problems - I can't see why someone would want to run Apple rubbish. > It's not a valid argument to compare them as a manufacturer - because the > hardware they manufacture has also traditionally been tied to exclusive > software to create the macintosh "platform" - and it's that platform that's > failing Except that it's not "failing". Nothing could be further from the truth, unless your particular definition of "success" is "completely dominating the market", in which case, only one company in any industry can *ever* be defined as "successful". > If it truely were advantagous with a much lower TCO (as some here are > trying to have me believe) then you'd be seeing the market share for that > platform increasing, That's a flawed assumption. You're assuming that TCO is what people are looking for in a computer, and it's not. The TCO *is* lower, but that's never going to lead to market dominance, which is (quite obviously) not Apple's goal anyway. (What was it Steve Jobs said when he returned to Apple, then flailing after the disastrous mistake of licensing Mac clones? "The PC war is over. Microsoft won it a long time ago. Move on." Something like that.) > and yet the undeniable reality is that (for the most part) that market share > is decreasing No, it's not, according to basically everyone who looks at such things. (It's pretty funny how so many folks describe a 5% market share as "failing", when it would be considered an enormous success in any other industry.) >> That's pretty funny, too. WinXP is like banging two rocks together by >> comparison to just about any other modern OS. I honestly can't even >> imagine why anyone would subject themselves to it by choice. > > And I use it day in and day out with zero problems - I can't see why someone > would want to run Apple rubbish. Then don't. I don't care. But the crap you are spewing is flat-out wrong. You don't know what you're talking about. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> Yep - Apples last desperate attempt to survive in the computer business. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > comparison to just about any other modern OS. I honestly can't even > imagine why anyone would subject themselves to it by choice. Dude, that's some really funny stuff you wrote there. Not good enough to make money as a comic, but then if you only got paid 5% of what a decent comic makes I suppose it'll make you happy. Now how many OS's have they produced? That is funny all by itself. Here's a company that spec'd the hardware, designed the OS to run on them, yet they all had "special features" for which you paid a high price for the privilege of running them, many "features" were never done away with they just came out with another OS and each time there was less and less native software to run on them. Your "great idea" that an IT dept only has to choose one vendor and just put on the OS of choice and that it is somehow beneficial shows you lack of knowledge and economy of operations. People could already do that, it was never beneficial cost wise. What was it that Bill said? oh yeah, "there's a sucka born every minute." Bill Barnum that is. :) Its a great thing that there are people like you in the world, else ugly women would never get married. windows total cost of ownership was cheaper than linux and unix cos linux and unix gurus cost more cos they're fewer of them and they have to be smarter. >> It's true. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Lets just hope it's not too late for them to catch up with the rest of us :) Wasn't that Microsoft's last attempt to survive in the computer biz? > Wasn't that Microsoft's last attempt to survive in the computer biz? Last time I checked MS were doing pretty darn well in the computer business - would probably do a darn site better if the government beaurocrats would stop trying to usurp their income and technology. >> Wasn't that Microsoft's last attempt to survive in the computer biz? > > Last time I checked MS were doing pretty darn well in the computer > business - would probably do a darn site better if the government > beaurocrats would stop trying to usurp their income and technology. Last I checked, unix is better than windows in every way, except eye candy. > Last I checked, unix is better than windows in every way, except eye candy. OS X is Unix, and it's got eye candy pretty much covered. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> Last I checked, unix is better than windows in every way, except eye candy. > > OS X is Unix, and it's got eye candy pretty much covered. OS/X is mach. don't kid yourself. > OS/X is mach. don't kid yourself. OS X is Unix in every way that matters. It's not *certified*, but then, neither is almost any other Unix system, and no one pays attention to that anyhow. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> OS/X is mach. don't kid yourself. > > OS X is Unix in every way that matters. It's not *certified*, but then, > neither is almost any other Unix system, and no one pays attention to that > anyhow. I'd beg to differ. >> OS X is Unix in every way that matters. It's not *certified*, but then, >> neither is almost any other Unix system, and no one pays attention to that >> anyhow. > > I'd beg to differ. Go ahead. I guess if you're one of those people who insist that Linux isn't a Unix system, then you wouldn't consider OS X one, either. Or, let me guess, FreeBSD isn't Unix because it was based on 4.4 Lite, which had the AT&T code removed, and without the AT&T code, it can't be Unix? SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >>> OS X is Unix in every way that matters. It's not *certified*, but then, >>> neither is almost any other Unix system, and no one pays attention to that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > FreeBSD isn't Unix because it was based on 4.4 Lite, which had the AT&T code > removed, and without the AT&T code, it can't be Unix? Any geek worth their soul knows unix is soon to be free. > Any geek worth their soul knows unix is soon to be free. And the rest know it has been for a while already... SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >>OS/X is mach. don't kid yourself. > > OS X is Unix in every way that matters. It is by far the most un-UNIX-like OS other than Windows that I have ever used. Greg Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons >>> OS/X is mach. don't kid yourself. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Greg It's linux with drm and... >> OS X is Unix in every way that matters. > > It is by far the most un-UNIX-like OS other than Windows that I have > ever used. Then you haven't really used it (or you haven't really used Unix). SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >>>OS X is Unix in every way that matters. >> >>It is by far the most un-UNIX-like OS other than Windows that I have >>ever used. > > Then you haven't really used it (or you haven't really used Unix). I've been using OS X for 4 years now and I've been using Solaris/HP-UX/Sco-UNIX/Linux/Irix/OpenBSD for over 10 years. OS X uses a Mach kernel, Apple has it's own executable format and ABI (Solaris, Irix, Linux and the BSDs all use ELF), OS X does not use an X compatible window manager. The only thing UNIX-like about is the BSD subsystem and one doesn't need it to run a Mac. Greg Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons >>Wasn't that Microsoft's last attempt to survive in the computer biz? > > Last time I checked MS were doing pretty darn well in the computer > business - would probably do a darn site better if the government > beaurocrats would stop trying to usurp their income and technology. Indeed. F### the Justice Department. Screw the trust busters~ Yes! Let's get back to ATT, USSteel and all the good old monopolies. SignatureJohn McWilliams >>>Wasn't that Microsoft's last attempt to survive in the computer biz? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Indeed. F### the Justice Department. Screw the trust busters~ Yes! Let's > get back to ATT, Uh, if it weren't for AT&T, OS/X as we know it would not exist. Remember that its code base is traceable to Bell Labs. But the trust busters that you so greatly admire killed the hell out of _that_ golden-egg-laying goose. > USSteel and all the good old monopolies. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > >>Wasn't that Microsoft's last attempt to survive in the computer biz? > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Indeed. F### the Justice Department. Screw the trust busters~ Yes! Let's > get back to ATT, USSteel and all the good old monopolies. Having a monopoli isn't a crime - the morals are in what the monopolist does with it - and I've never had an issue with anything Microsoft has done. And, we'd probably have much lower cost products from them if they didn't have to keep spending millions to get the government thiefs off their backs. Nobody is holding a gun to the consumers head - they're free to choose any one of a number of platforms, yet most choose to choose Microsoft products. What the government is doing is nothing short of a "success tax". Perhaps if the governments were to follow their business oriented examples then they wouldn't be screwing up the economies so badly. >> >>Wasn't that Microsoft's last attempt to survive in the computer biz? >> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Having a monopoli isn't a crime Well, actually in the US it pretty much is under the Sherman Antitrust Act unless the monopoly is licensed and regulated, which AT&T was. > - the morals are in what the monopolist > does with it - and I've never had an issue with anything Microsoft has [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > if the governments were to follow their business oriented examples then > they wouldn't be screwing up the economies so badly. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>Last time I checked MS were doing pretty darn well in the computer >>>>business - would probably do a darn site better if the government [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Well, actually in the US it pretty much is under the Sherman Antitrust Act > unless the monopoly is licensed and regulated, which AT&T was. AT&T's phone/communications businesses were subject to all kinds of regulation, but the shear size of its businesses caused it to be split up. >>- the morals are in what the monopolist >>does with it - and I've never had an issue with anything Microsoft has >>done. Clearly. Are you now, or have you ever, been employed by said company, or any of its subsidiaries or sub-contractors? SignatureJohn McWilliams >>>>>Last time I checked MS were doing pretty darn well in the computer >>>>>business - would probably do a darn site better if the government [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > regulation, but the shear size of its businesses caused it to be split > up. Actually MCI wanting a piece of the action and squeaking loud enough to get some grease caused it to be split up. >>>- the morals are in what the monopolist >>>does with it - and I've never had an issue with anything Microsoft has [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Are you now, or have you ever, been employed by said company, or any of > its subsidiaries or sub-contractors? Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>Are you now, or have you ever, been employed by said company, or any of >>its subsidiaries or sub-contractors? Said company being Microsoft. Signaturejpmcw We used to be troubled by multiple personalities, but we're O.K. now.... >>>Are you now, or have you ever, been employed by said company, or any of >>>its subsidiaries or sub-contractors? Uh, there is nothing there that J. Clarke wrote. > Said company being Microsoft. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>Are you now, or have you ever, been employed by said company, or any of >>>>its subsidiaries or sub-contractors? > > Uh, there is nothing there that J. Clarke wrote. Ever so cute; ever so evasive. Will you now kindly answer the question, or resort to more evasion or total avoidance? SignatureJohn McWilliams "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein >>>>>Are you now, or have you ever, been employed by said company, or any of >>>>>its subsidiaries or sub-contractors? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Will you now kindly answer the question, or resort to more evasion or > total avoidance? OK, you caught me, I'm really Bill Gates. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > > Indeed. F### the Justice Department. Screw the trust busters~ Yes! Let's > > get back to ATT, USSteel and all the good old monopolies. > > Having a monopoli isn't a crime - the morals are in what the monopolist does > with it - and I've never had an issue with anything Microsoft has done Actually, having a monopoly is a crime in most countries except where the government maintains licensed or protected monopolies. You can fined and even imprisoned for monopolistic trade practices. Whether monopoly should be a crime is a different issue, of course. But as things stand now, it is a crime. > > It's true. > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Yep - Apples last desperate attempt to survive in the computer business. Maybe. Or else it is Apple's attempt to grab a larger market share while Microsoft is vulnerable. Anyone who buys a Mac and runs Windows on it is going to notice two things: 1) Windows looks and feels antiquated. 2) OS X does everything that Vista promises to do, does it better, and does it now. Vista has been promised since 2004. It is now delayed to 2007 and still needs (according to Microsoft) 60% of its code re-written. It may never be released (at least it will not be as bullet proof and useful as Microsoft claims it will be). > If you can't beat em, join em eh? - surprised it took them that long to > catch on, then again, having said that they've been pretty slow to catch on > in the PC industry for many a year, so it's not all that surprising that > they've only just woken up and smelt the roses. > > Lets just hope it's not too late for them to catch up with the rest of us :) It is an interesting marketing strategy, very risky. It remains to be seen whether Apple can grab an increased market share or whether it is a step toward becoming just another PC manufacturer. One could envision that the next logical step would be to allow Dell to install OS X on their machines. Hmmmmm. Very interesting. > Maybe. Or else it is Apple's attempt to grab a larger market share > while Microsoft is vulnerable. You could be right - lets face it - their market share really can't get any worse - drop another 5% and it's game over. >Anyone who buys a Mac and runs Windows > on it is going to notice two things: > 2) OS X does everything that Vista promises to do, does it better, and > does it now. You're telling me that OS X can run unported, native, applications that have been written for Wndows 2K/XP? >> Maybe. Or else it is Apple's attempt to grab a larger market share >> while Microsoft is vulnerable. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > You're telling me that OS X can run unported, native, applications that have > been written for Wndows 2K/XP? the implication is that they can run most, if not all, portable things > It's true. > > We'd better get to the store and stock-up. Start bottling water. Interesting step in a sideways direction IMO. Thing is, I've been able to run windows in an emulator for years and if I were a Mac user I'd prefer to run windows within my Mac works space over rebooting my PC. THE REAL SMART MOVE on Apples part would be to allow OSX to support ANY Intel based platform. This way as an IT manager, I can just buy OSX and put it on the hundreds of Dell PCs I already own. Certainly reduces the cost of ownership and I'd have a REAL choice. Until this happens Apple will always be second best to Microsoft in the business/consumer market. Problem is ol' Steve Jobs just can't seem to give up control over the hardware. The stubbornness on his part has kept his company second rate for years. What a shame; he's got a better product. SignatureRob "A disturbing new study finds that studies are disturbing" No, it just makes Dell and the other computer makers look like crap because their cheap pieces of junk only do one thing. > It's true. > > We'd better get to the store and stock-up. Start bottling water. Although the original Apple I & II were hobby machines. Following the Lisa Apple went commercial every possible effort was made to keep the technology as "magic" . The first Mac's could only be opened with a hex spline on a long extension inserted into the handle grip at the top. Different connectors, software, interfaces, hardware and mindset were all employed to ensure that Apple users continued to think that they were in [the walled garden] in heaven, but in the end Apple users started to notice that while PC users had lots of technical problems, their machines went miles faster and were usually a release or two ahead on the software... > Different connectors, software, interfaces, hardware and mindset were all > employed to ensure that Apple users continued to think that they were in > [the walled garden] in heaven, but in the end Apple users started to notice > that while PC users had lots of technical problems, their machines went > miles faster and were usually a release or two ahead on the software... And Windows since version 1 has sucked donkey dick. > > Different connectors, software, interfaces, hardware and mindset were all > > employed to ensure that Apple users continued to think that they were in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And Windows since version 1 has sucked donkey dick. "Not that there's anything wrong with that ..." >> Different connectors, software, interfaces, hardware and mindset were all >> employed to ensure that Apple users continued to think that they were in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > And Windows since version 1 has sucked donkey dick. Quite a feat for a piece of software. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > > Different connectors, software, interfaces, hardware and mindset were all > > employed to ensure that Apple users continued to think that they were in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And Windows since version 1 has sucked donkey dick. I'll take your word for it, being the expert on donkey dick sucking as you are. > I'll take your word for it, being the expert on donkey dick sucking as you > are. I think it sucks because it...uh...reminds me of other stuff that sucks. In fact, I think it sucks in ways that other stuff hasn't sucked before. >> I'll take your word for it, being the expert on donkey dick sucking as >> you are. > > I think it sucks because it...uh...reminds me of other stuff that > sucks. In fact, I think it sucks in ways that other stuff hasn't sucked > before. You mean it reminds you of a vacuum cleaner? A pump? A cephalopod? Monica Lewinsky? Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) Xerox (Palo Alto research center ... did phenomenal research and failed to gain from it) to Apple to Gates (the real truth about the core technology transfer) and now Apple caves in! Oh, and don't forget that IBM set Gates up in the first place by paying for an operating system that Gates did not invent and also gave him the rights to it! Gates has to be the most phenomenal technolgical whore of all times (a "whore" here is one who has it and sells it and still has it). The IPod is pretty cool, though, and thanks to Steve Jobs Apple is still Apple (Beatles be damned ... can you believe they still are paying for that name). The bottom line is the bottom line. Might makes right and big balls will defeat intelligence, most of the time (Gates has both, by the way, and you can check his personal worth to verify this and he also has a generous side and has done many good works). Case closed. > Case > closed. It's never closed, having big balls has nothing to do with valid lucid commentary. If you want to produce advancement for the human race read instead of exerting your opinions..... thats my commentary. SignatureWould thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere in the middle. "Me who is part taoist and part Christian". >> Case >> closed. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > for the human race read instead of exerting your opinions..... > thats my commentary. WTF are you talking about? I made a comment about "big balls" in regard to an industry leader who has not (as of yet) commented on this thread. If you are saying that I am not valid and not lucid, then just say so ... but please don't conveniently use a tiny piece of my post to shore up your contrived point. The lack of literacy that you demonstrate is appalling! Are you a journalist? "> "Little Green Eyed Dragon" <AShadeosPerceptionvanishez@myplace.com> wrote in > message > news:AShadeosPerceptionvanishez-0C0809.19094707042006@news.isp.giganews.com... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > contrived point. The lack of literacy that you demonstrate is appalling! > Are you a journalist? NY Times or CBS I would guess.... T.W. > "> "Little Green Eyed Dragon" <AShadeosPerceptionvanishez@myplace.com> > wrote in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> appalling! Are you a journalist? > NY Times or CBS I would guess.... I saw this film starring Tim Robbins who was a ruthless tech entrepreneur. After watching it for 20 mins i was supposed Bill Gates didn't sue. > > Are you a journalist? > NY Times or CBS I would guess.... > T.W. Beep - 'wrong". SignatureWould thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere in the middle. "Me who is part taoist and part Christian". > Are you a journalist? Sorry you have no competition from me. SignatureWould thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere in the middle. "Me who is part taoist and part Christian". |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.