Don't worry, Counsler .NET isn't completely finished. I find it ironic, though, that such overwhelming rejection of Hailstorm is what happens when Bill Gates decides to try to innovate something. But they're very committed to it; .NET will be around in a few years, I'm sure. You might have to update your certification and patch your data with the new, but .NET will be around. The biggest problem I can see with .NET comes from discussing the system with a friend of mine who works for Microsoft. It's kind of cultish, the way his eyes glaze over and he starts talking about how cool the system is for developers. In other words, Microsoft, so addicted to business institutions, is designing an operating system not for the daily users, but for the people who will be selling stuff to them. It's all a matter of focus. Gates has forgotten that you need to put out a good product first and foremost. He wants a profitable product, and what's curious is that I can actually accept all of the praise he gives Microsoft products if I consider it from a financial perspective. Thus, the biggest problem I can see with .NET is its fundamental perspective. But since Microsoft is huge, .NET will eventually be around in a functional form (2005, maybe?). Good luck with that. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
"Mac users generally don't need floppy disks. We use networks." Well, no network, no help. If you want to transfer something between computers that aren't on a network, say... at another house, then you're out of luck? I can see *maybe* that there could be some sort of intuitive way to transfer between computer over the internet, but I doubt Mac has thought of that. No internet and you need a disk. What if you don't want to switch on AOL (plausable for many mac users)? Disks are very useful. I'll tell you that Mac didn't expect to use networks instead of floppy disks. They EXPECTED zip disks to REPLACE the floppy disk. THAT is the reason. Zip disks are too expensive to be good for convnetional use like that. "it must be a user error or a lack of updates." I doubt double clicking on a shortcut is a user error. A computer should not crash because it thinks it needs upgrading. An old computer should work just as well now as it did before. "Apple cannot be held responsible if a user doesn't wish to patch their applications." That is a terrible excuse. Why does something need to be upgraded? "It's an idea." .... How profound. The idea sucks in that case. "I get a showdown with XP tomorrow. I have to go fix a friend's system." Have you ever actually used PC systems for more than 5 minutes at a time? I kinda doubt that trying to fix someone's system with 0 knowlege about it is going to prove anything. "the more you tamper with it, the worse you'll screw it up; they're designed to give it their best--unlike a Windows machine, you don't have to coax it out" Windows is made TO be customizable, to fit with the users needs. I'll admit that their organization for customizing sucks terrible ass, but I looked at OSX and its much a copy of windows organization. Mac is made to be untouched, messing with things degrades it, thats so dumb. The "best" is an opinion, whats best for one is worst for another. "To the other, if XP is that easy to use and fix, I'll consider it a lesson learned" That won't prove anything. How do you have any way to compare the magnitude of the problem to the mac systems. You can't really. If she hit the computer with a sledge hammer, saying you can't fix it doesn't prove the system is bad now does it?
The problems of the "Gospel of Bill" It's a basic difference of philosophy. For instance, why is there a 56k modem on an iMac? Because no matter how badly Apple would like everyone to have broadband, they aren't powerful enough to make it so. Using a Mac without a network is a little like using a gun without bullets. For instance, our .Mac service: the only thing that can possibly give me problems at, say, another house, is if that computer has no internet access. Since even Windows boxes are optimized for network use, I consider this a user issue. The manufacturers are giving us the opportunities; don't blame Apple if a PC user doesn't want network access. Besides, if .NET hadn't blown, Microsoft users would be aware of this idea, finally. Despite the amount of cooperation between Netscape/AOL and Apple, I cannot see why anyone would want AOL to be their primary internet access. This is, admittedly, a personal opinion, but in terms of "Where do you want to go today?" are you going to answer that question yourself or let AOL answer it for you? It was part of their expectation, but FireWire, Rendezvous, and the seemingly-conspicuous lack of a floppy drive all testify to Mac's optimization for a network. There are also CDR's, CD-RW's, and other technologies available. Hell, my 100-gb hard drive is designed to travel. Furthermore, why waste a floppy drive on, say, notebook computers? Tell it to the software designers. You know, people like Bill Gates, who, despite the advances in processor speed don't provide much faster a user experience because it's designed to be larger instead. You might ask any software manufacturer who sells a product before it's ready why it needs updating. Among Apple updates are frequently "Carbon Library" updates, which allow software manufacturers who don't want to program Apple-native applications to port their products to the platform. One of the reasons we update is to accommodate the software manufacturers. It's something I've noticed about the PC market in general--people advertise very strange ideas. Like Gateway, proudly pointing out the faster startup time of its Profile computers in their competition with iMac. Fine with me; my computer is not intended to restart. Our operating system, strangely, is designed to function that way. In the meantime, it's not the user's act of double-clicking. It's the other things the user has set. Did you set up the computer yourself? What switches did you modify? Did your IT set up the computer? What switches did they modify? Are you connecting with a Windows network? I can't explain that; it's a Microsoft issue. Apple has done everything they can to communicate with Windows boxes. Even our house LAN administrator can't explain why Windows won't do what he says it will. My iMac can see the network, and can serve the network. However, since our LAN administrator is a Windows user, he insists that the server should be a Windows box. It's a sad thing. I can easily make my Mac serve a PC--I just plug the PC into the network. Microsoft, however, does not like to serve Macs. Ask the software manufacturers. I don't know, ask Microsoft. It's not like they haven't had to patch a plethora of security failures in their operating systems.
i think its fitting and quite apt that this comp discussion took place in this forum. it is certainly more in keeping with the times Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Good point, Spookz Strange how it seems that way, doesn't it? Good point, Spookz. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Frencheneesz--for the record For the record, the problem was software updates. The applications on the hard drive, coming out of the box, needed patching. Seems easy enough to do in XP, but it still seems quicker on a Mac. Which reminds me ... I need to run my own updates ... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Well, I still point out the difference between update and upgrade. But you're now welcome to ask that question of Microsoft. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Tiassa: Ok, surprisingly (to me), you actually have good points. Maybe I just hate Macs because I'm used to PCs. In no way do I think PCs are the essence of perfection, I think computers are made in stupidly disorganized fassions most probably associated with the discovery of computer science and the way computers were first assembled with complecated and ill-understood logic pathways and punchcards. Plug and play is very nice. I havn't had a problem with any of that ever on windows except that time I bought a joystick and the plugs the thing used didn't exist on my computer. Its what you get for buying $5 equiptment. I have never had any problem with drivers for anything ever except for a printer that I didn't have the instalation software for. I suppose it is counterintuitive to have a separate driver for every product, but what can I say; it usually works. And I'm sure you can agree that most software is offered on PCs... I happen to use floppy disks a lot. I remember wanting to transfer somthing onto or off of that Imac and couldn't because it didn't have a floppy disk thing, standard everywhere exept on a mac. "I cannot see why anyone would want AOL to be their primary internet access." Me neither. We had AOL for a while, which sucked. Now we have cable which really isn't as good as it seems and almost not worth the extra money. For half a year it was actually SLOWER than AOL. The company went out of bussiness and was bought by another company; needless to say the problem is over and I have gotton 100 kb/sec since then. "Did you set up the computer yourself?" No, I didn't touch it, but I fail to see how changing a few setting could make the computer freeze... "I'm a Windows user, so I'll spend the day downloading drivers." I've never downloaded a driver for windows. I've TRIED downloading linux drivers to make the system work, but it never panned out. That was annoying. "It is much easier to get work done if you're sitting in front of an OS and a computer that is harmonious." That is way too much opinion to argue against. Old macs were the most ugly computers I have ever seen. They had black and white desktops and were asthetically agravating. The new ones are filled with eye-candy that I don't appreciate as much as others might. Windows systems have long had the ability to customize the visuals of the OS. Only new macs have comparable visual customizablity. "Windows XP is a visual rip-off of OSX. " I can agree or at least I won't contest that windows stole original ideas from Apple, but I would like to respectfully disagree with the above quote. I have seen that windows has far surpassed mac in the area of visual stimulation until recently. Windows looks much more like older versions than mac's OSX looks like its predecessors. It is true that both systems have gotten more "pretty". Thats the way it is with competition, each side wants to better the other and in many cases this makes both products more and more similar with each side stealing the other's good points. "Macs are designed to operate at their best coming out of the box. Unlike Windows machines, you don't have to spend time begging the thing to deliver. " As I have said, making the computer customized to the way you like it should in no way impede the computer's usefulness. The nature of computers is that there is not "best", each system works well for something and not as well for others. "After a few hours he could make the camera work very well on the PC." The thing didn't come with instalation software? Strange. "I just tell my computer to burn a CD, and it burns." Ha! IT SO PISSED ME OFF: I got some cds from the company "great quality" and NONE of the cds from them worked! This wasn't anything wrong with updates or anything. I tried it on three quite different cd burners and they still didn't work. This is how a company looses business. Stupid frys didn't let me return them, so I have 49 spare frisbees. Why can't we recycle these things? Mostly my cd burner works that way. After installation, it has no problems. For some reason, noone has heard of software that can delete (no not overwrite) a whole cd in like 2 minutes... It came with mine. By the way, XP works fine on my 5 year old computer: 128 mb ram, 400 Mhertz.
More drivel for everyone! Frencheneesz I put these two quotes together so I could ask one facetious question for effect: Installation software? What's that? Now, more realistically: Two digital cameras in the house and neither one requires its own installation software to run on my Mac. Any digital camera with a USB or FireWire connection will operate with my Mac; the only thing I would want the manufacturer's software for is their photo-treatment suite, which is already covered by iPhoto and Adobe Photoshop. Admittedly, Photoshop costs a buttload, but that's why we have iPhoto--because we're Apple users and the company literally cannot imagine us without this software. Too bad no PC users were watching that one: Apple and Adobe almost went to war because of the amount of time (over a year) it took Adobe to get Photoshop to the users. (It's beautiful, though, and worth the wait.) In the meantime, Apple gave us iPhoto, to even the odds against inadequate software. On the other hand: One of the things I had to fix for my friend was Roxio Toast. I don't fault Windows; I don't use Roxio because their Mac version never ran right for me, though this is partially because the manufacturer, after getting the right to put a Mac symbol on a CD-burner box, chose to not actually support Macintosh. But when products come out of the box inoperable ...? Thankfully, Roxio was a bonus of buying the CD-burner. I don't actually need it because, as with the photo software issue, Apple wants to make sure its users are covered: we have iTunes, and the PC mp3 market has struggled to catch up. As an ironic point, what every Windows user tells me when they get a new mp3 player is "look at the visuals". Why? Because the iTunes visuals pissed off Windows users. Much like OSX's "Aqua" overlay led to the presentation of XP. Imitation is one thing, but what makes iTunes valuable is that it is my music-service needs. If Apple thought they could make it our file-trader as well and not get sued by the record industry, they would. I've come to prefer USB, but we have cable. I like the bandwidth of cable, but AT&T can't provide reliable service. Oh, well. If it's reasonable, get a patch cable. If not, use the internet. PC users do not have the excuse of a "stand-alone" system, since after all, your Internet Explorer is "part of the operating system". A Windows box is supposed to be on a network, or else Bill Gates lied under oath. While I'm certain the latter is the case on a number of things, this one's so critical to Microsoft's position that they have to deliver: PC's are designed for networking. It's pretty hard with a Mac. You have to do something like ... well, here, let me take a look for a minute at my system. 25 icons in my System Preferences; 24 plus Kensington Mouseworks, the only known external driver I use. Desktop: Not much here to bring down a system. Dock: Not much here to bring down the system; even though my G3-400 is underpowered, Apple managed to fix their early-release problem that comes from a G3's lack of respectable graphics performance. However, there is no switch here that will cause problems anymore. (Such as hiding the dock and menus.) General: Nothing dangerous here. International: The only danger here is character sets and languages. Login: Here you can stack up too many programs to run on startup; I have no idea what that number is. It's a matter of how much operating RAM you want. My Account: I can botch my password here or screw up my user identity. Screen Effects: Who uses screen savers? I just use a monitor shutdown. Not much here to screw up the system, though. I can manipulate the Energy Saver, and in fact one of the reasons my Mac was behaving badly several months ago was because I had accidentally set its sleep time to "never". I had to do this by hand; it was not an automatic accident. CD/DVD: Hmmm ... it looks like the consequences of this menu are entirely quantified in how many mouse-clicks you want to go through before you burn or play a CD or DVD ColorSync: You can screw up your display here if you try really hard. Energy Saver: Has its own menu, in addition to an access route through Screen Effects. Keyboard: Nothing here to damage system performance; you can, however, implement other keyboard functions if you have cause to use them. Mouse: Not dangerous at all; tracking speed and double-click speed. Sound: Effects, output, microphones. Nothing critical here, but if your computer isn't making noise when you expect it to, this is one of the places you look. Internet: Controls .Mac, iDisk, Email, and Web connections. I am also looking at my Apple-based network drive; it gives me my user statistics for it. Default mail client ... um ... Web defaults, including default browser. Comment: If MIE was really part of the Operating System, as Bill Gates has claimed, it would respect the preference settings regarding the default browser. Microsoft products do not, in fact, do this. Nice job, Bill; get your foot out of your mouth. Network: This is a dangerous one. (E.g.--Configure using DHCP, IP address, Subnet Mask, Router, DHCP Client ID, Ethernet address, PPP/oE (if you use it), AppleTalk (still the best way to network two Macs), Proxies (e.g. FTP Proxy, HTTP Web Proxy, Secure Web Proxy, Streaming Proxy, Gopher Proxy, SOCKS Firewall, selective Bypass. This is a place where treating a Mac as if it was a Windows PC can cause you problems. If you let a Mac, it will take care of itself; the only data I've ever needed to enter by hand ... crap, I don't think I've had to. QuickTime: Kiosk mode, MIME settings, cache, playback, connection speed options, multi-streaming, transport protocols; QT Music, media-key settings, QuickTime software update including automatic update. Sharing: I use a secondary firewall (freeware) out of habit; the earliest copies of OSX I used were developmental, so we supported the firewall with another product. But we've got the Computer ID, the Rendesvouz ID, the network address, service settings (File Sharing, Web Sharing, Remote, FTP, Remote Apple Events, and Print-Sharing), system firewall (I ought to try it out), additional internet sharing options. Accounts: User ID's. Incidentally, I limit my own access so that I cannot accidentally destroy vital files. It was quite easy, in fact. Even I have my stupid moments; best to protect against them. Much can be screwed up here if the ID isn't set up properly. Classic: Application-compatibility layer for old operating systems. (There is no Macintosh program ever written that won't run on a new iMac right now.) A single box can start the classic layer on startup, which will slow performance. Sure, we'd all like compatibility without a compatibility-layer, but it sure beats the Windows way of canceling back-compatibility and fostering a cottage industry to support those needs. More importantly, though, performance can be slowed from this menu. Date & Time: There's nothing unusual about this menu, as you might imagine. Date & Time, Time Zone, Network Time service, Menu-bar clock properties. Software Update: Allows manual check for updates, allows automatic settings for update. Logs all software updates executed. Speech: Speech-recognition settings. While I've never used these, it would seem that computer performance can be slowed here by running this portion of the OS unnecessarily. Startup disk: Choose your OS, effective on restart. Universal Access: To accommodate disability. If you don't need these, they should be turned off. Kensington MouseWorks: I never actually use it. It's just ported over to Macs as a courtesy, insofar as I can tell. Theoretically, I can customize my mouse with it, but I haven't that need. Even though Macs come with a one-button mouse, they do know already how to deal with 2, 3, and even more-button mouses. In addition, there are plenty of resources available for users who are experiencing problems. I admit that Apple is elitist in the sense that a user must have pre-existing knowledge of a computer before using one; specifically, a user must know how to plug a computer into the wall and how to push a power button. Beyond that, Apple is prepared to make your user experience that much better: see if this page works--AppleCare Knowledge Base Document 106704--How to Update Software. I don't expect a Windows machine should have any problems displaying this, though there are some Apple pages (such as my .Mac account) that don't work well on PC's. I can get my Mac.com email from a PC if I need, I know that much, except that I've chosen to keep it locally so some of it won't be available via the internet. Point being, a user has to do something to cause certain problems. Whether you're trying to run conflicting firewalls (my computer wouldn't let me) or have just put bad data into the one or two places you need to enter it by hand (custom-assigned network addresses, for instance). Short of a hardware failure, if it's an Apple product, you have to try to screw it up. Every once in a while they miss something in an update, but they're generally fixed before the bulk of Mac users know about it. Opinion, I'll grant. But product quality sometimes demands aesthetic sacrifices. It's one of the things Apple has worked to fix. Which is funny because Mac users all laughed when we saw XP. Whenever I sit down in front of XP for anything, all I can think of is a line from Ren & Stimpy's "Space Madness"--The shiny, candy-light button!. Yes, seeing that much magenta and pastel-yellow on anyone's desktop ought to be illegal. Customize the visuals of the OS? Yeah, I know. What's funny is that in ... a decade (at least) of using Windows, I never found a visual scheme I liked. Turns out it wasn't the colors, it was the whole appearance. Well, as you pointed out, the old system was black & white. But it seems to me that in OS 9 I could change the appearance of my desktop. What I couldn't do, of course, was make my application title bars display in 72-point chartreuse characters. I always wondered about that with Windows; it seemed a waste of memory. Do you remember Windows 3.x? Windows95 = MacOS, but only ten years later. Windows XP = MacOSX, but in a mad rush to get the product out to the general market first Windows follows. They put bells and whistles on it to impress the simple people who want bells and whistles and shiny candy-lights. That's part of the point. This is a new operating system. Just as we got nearly 20 years out of the old OS, the new is designed to grow and change to meet our needs. Like I said, Apple isn't just a product, it's an idea. That's a shallow version of competition. Apple wants to give you a working product. Microsoft just wants your money. The problem with Microsoft is that it must meet its lowest common denominator. The same thing would happen to OSX if you tried to make it the only viable operating system. I don't see the issue. Give me an example. Well, it does depend on your needs. But Apple aims to meet them. I don't see the issue, really. I see it in theory, but it's not a question with a Mac. As to the CD's ... they make excellent coasters. I'm not kidding. It's what I do with all the AOL front-ends that show up at the house. Also, they make subtle decorations, and provide hours of amusement if you use them to direct light from a halogen lamp in order to freak out your pets. Now that is weird. My CD-burner is by AcomData. It was a gift. While I appreciate it, I find it quite interesting that none of the Mac OS software worked. Matter of updates, of course, but they chose not to update their software. Oh, well. It works anyway. I just find it hilarious that some of the software listed on the box, in the documentation, and on the CD-face itself was not included. Of course, the person who gave it to me couldn't be bothered to go to an Apple store. Despite the number of drivers he has to download despite product software, he still thinks that everything should work the first time. However, the software is unnecessary. The CD-burner works just fine. If I want all the bells and whistles, such as a different aesthetic, I might just bother complaining to Roxio about how stupid they are. Other than that ... hell, my computer works. It can handle it. Rather than worrying about whether or not it has the appropriate driver, my computer simply asks itself--Okay, can I talk to this device? Yes? Great! One should never come to a Mac simply because they are sick of Windows. I like the switch campaign, but many people seem to expect the same thing out of an iMac as they do out of their Windows boxes. In that case, they shouldn't bother, because why are they switching if they want the same thing? The thing is this: The only time my iMac has ever confused me, it was because I was expecting too little of it. How many times have I gotten frustrated at a problem that I can't fix only to look around the computer and say, "Oh, well ... that explains it; it's already taken care of." Sorry to carry on so long, but if I could find away to connect this drivel to the topic, I would. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
"Installation software? What's that?" I do wonder why every peice of equipment needs software. Drives should be standard, but Since computers are mady by programmers, they make it easy for them to make, easy for them to use, hard for everyone else. "I've come to prefer USB, but we have cable." You realize "USB" is not a form of internet... "If it's reasonable, get a patch cable. If not, use the internet. " If I, say, wanted to take something on a disk, and I did not know what computer I would use, then what is the mac solution? If I want to take it to a computer at my school, what do I do (lets assume they have macs)? If a computer doesn't have internet and you don't want to string a mile-long cable between them, what then? "PC's are designed for networking." PC's are designed for numbercrunching. That is why everything else may seem a bit disorganized, because everything is based around numbercrunching. Any networking stuff is an add on that is effectively not incorperated into the design. Computers work off of 20 year old ideas, mac or PC. "a user has to do something to cause certain problems." Well, any input to the computer can do ... anything. If your definition of a user is "one who inputs the information", then yes the user is at fault. Yet there are litteraly thousands of ways a computer modefies itself and this is one of older OSs problems, it is why problems compound over time. "Whenever I sit down in front of XP for anything" I remeber seeing Imacs for the first time. What does the blue plasticy stuff remind you of? They tried to be WAY too artistic, what with the round mouses and pretty colors. "Do you remember Windows 3.x?" Never seen it. "They put bells and whistles on it to impress the simple people who want bells and whistles and shiny candy-lights." Thats the way I view macs... You seem to contradict yourself when you said that windows offered only sickening color schemes, yet now you cite candy-lights and impressive shiny bells and whistles? The simple people are the ones using macs. ALL of the people on that Mac switch rally looked either like complete idiots or stoned complete idiots. The teenaged people looked particularly steriotypical (in the eyes of someone older and completely out-of-it) who seemed to say (in their appearance) "hey I'm stoned, You're stoned, lets buy a mac! The shiny colors will help the halucination never stop." I think of user friendlyness as easy to use. Mac people think of it as easy to learn. I'd rather spend 20 minutes learning how to use my system than have a system that takes 1 minute to learn and an excess amount of time to actually carry out what you want to do. Windows has all sorts of organizing shortcuts and alternate ways of working, I haven't seen any such pattern in mac systems.
What do you think creates all those neat little office work representations on your screen or those flash game icons? Work and Games require a ton of number crunching, supercomputers are made for the numbercrunching power of maybe 1000 normal computers.
Supercomputer? So does Apple. So do I. But to be a little more serious about it, it's symptomatic of the nature of the computers Windows is designed to run on. With no hardware standardization, the multitude of drivers. That's part of what Apple is trying to fix. But what's funny is that people complain that Apples aren't hard enough to use. Yes, three letters. DSL ... duh. • Burn a CD/RW if you must. But if you insist on using a Mac in a manner it's not designed for (e.g. stand-alone) you have to be prepared to do something like get a zip-disk. But if I really need to transfer something to to a computer I can't access by network, I can use a CD/RW. In the meantime, a contemporary PC without a network is like a house without a bathroom. (No, it's not a shite metaphor, really; it's a functional metaphor.) I would kindly propose that you explain that to Bill Gates, who has testified before Congress that computers are designed to be networked in order to foster his "Browser is the operating system" argument, in order to excuse himself for treating consumers and businesses poorly. Win98, at least, but if you use Win2k or WinXP, your OS is designed for networking. Tell me about it ... my OS is dressed-up, user-friendly Unix. Come on. Weren't we just, a couple posts ago, talking about preference settings? Jesus H. Baldheaded Freaking Christ ... I don't know what to say if you've forgotten that already. That was largely a Windows problem for the users. If it's a problem for Macs, we avoid it by ... being on a network so we can update our systems. And the rest of the market followed. Operating system shells, computer cases, even the George Foreman Grill for criminy sakes! This answers a lot of questions for me, then. Microsoft sort of started the "GUI Wars". After everybody stole their ideas from Xerox, a number of computers had desktops that looked like the Mac's. The Atari ST's, the Commedore Amiga, as I recall. But Microsoft wanted to be different. The horrifying culmination of that effort was called Windows 3, which, while it had its merits for being solid, was not particularly intuitive or otherwise friendly. All because they wanted to be different. That's why Apple needled Microsoft over Win95. Microsoft was only ten years late getting to the appearance, and they never did get it entirely right. Um ... • Yes, the color schemes of Win3.x, Win95, Win98, Win98+, and Win2K (I know I missed a couple of versions) were awful. XP is the screaming candy-light button. Easy enough? Microsoft let you change your title bar colors and so forth so easily because people once thought that sort of thing was important. Well, be sure to thank them the next time you buy a music CD, or watch a DVD; there's a reason the people other people want to be--singers, writers, directors--use Macs. Because they work. People talk about Apple's small market-share. But they don't realize how important that market-share is to their lives. Well ... is your computer just for "using"? What I'm after here is that people have computers for various reasons. My computer is not just a tool, it is a part of my life; a Y-connector hooks it to my stereo so I can hear any of the seven days' worth of music I have on a hard drive, It is part of my communication system. It is part of my working life. It is part of my upcoming parental life. It is a tool, a resource, and can, should I ever decide to learn how, be used as a weapon. It won't wash my dishes, it won't blow the air around like a ceiling fan, but I can live with that. Besides, give Steve Jobs a couple more years and the damn thing will wash my dishes and run my environment. Now, I'm not talking the customized way that can be done right now. I'm talking about as an expected part of my software suite, so that you can take your Mac out of the box and have it run your HVAC. It's coming. We're patient. Like with .Mac; we know it's not a straight answer to .NET, but at least ours is in place, ours works, and by the time .NET can be fully implemented, it will be taking its cues from Apple, just like XP did, just like Win95-2k did. What is your computer for? Seriously, if you just want a boss game deck, fine ... get the $400 Gateway. It's the smarter choice. If you want just an e-mail computer, get the cheap ePC. Need something for the kids to write a report on? Go on, dude, get a Dell. But I still think of that dumb slogan: "Where do you want to go today?" Microsoft has never delivered on that. You'll have to give me some examples. Really. I haven't a clue what you're talking about because I cannot honorably presume that your thinking would be as wrongly-oriented as it seems. Also, I would prefer examples because if I presume what you're talking about, and you feel that is somehow beneath your intellectual level ... so help me out a little here, because there's a couple of places I can think of where you'd be flat wrong. Well, more and more game developers are coming over to use Apples. Oh, wait ... I forgot--the G4 is a Supercomputer. Sorry ... but that's such old news to us Apple users that I completely forgot about it. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
"Yes, three letters. DSL ... duh." Um, DSL runs on phone lines, not USB cables.... "Tell me about it ... my OS is dressed-up, user-friendly Unix." Sure sure. But The basic structure, or shall we say foundation, of a computer is blueprinted from OLD stuff. You have a motherboard that has so much remiedial crap on it, so much complication that could be relatively easily fixed. Not to mention the structure of the logic circuits and tini little thing you can't see on the surface of a computer. Those are OLD stuff. The evolution of computers shows simply why this is so. A computer is made in "layers" of complexity. You have, in effect, many crappy 80's computers in your computer. They built logic circuits when transisters were first invented. From these logic circuits they constructed a simple computer. The Logic cirut complexes were then put together to create an even more powerful yet more complex computer. By today this has compounded into a computer with many levels of complexity that might eventually be upgraded into a modern computer with only one or two levels of complexity. That is what I mean. The equipment is new, but the peices are not. "If it's a problem for Macs, we avoid it by ... being on a network so we can update our systems." Updating the system only changes the WAY a computer modefies itself. It in no way helps the computer stop modefying itself. "And the rest of the market followed. Operating system shells, computer cases, even the George Foreman Grill for criminy sakes!" I have not yet seen a PC other than Macs have a turtle shell, candy coating, or any other such artsyness. "The horrifying culmination of that effort was called Windows 3, which, while it had its merits for being solid, was not particularly intuitive or otherwise friendly. All because they wanted to be different." You seem to be contradicting youself again. You have said that windows is bad BECAUSE it isn't different.... whats that about? Let me remind you that macs weren't that pretty or easy to use either. "You'll have to give me some examples. " There are thing I assume I can do in windows that just can't be done as easily on a mac. When opening a file or saving something, you can't manipulate other files, its open/save and ONLY do that. I can't think of very many examples sinse I don't have a mac here to consult. "Well ... is your computer just for "using"? " I still don't know what you're getting at. All the things you listed are when you are USING your computer. It IS only for using, or do you consider it decoration? When I wear a watch, it's for utility. Sacrifising eventual ease of use for ease of learning is not a good idea in my book.
"Yes, three letters. DSL ... duh." Um, DSL runs on phone lines, not USB cables.... "Tell me about it ... my OS is dressed-up, user-friendly Unix." Sure sure. But The basic structure, or shall we say foundation, of a computer is blueprinted from OLD stuff. You have a motherboard that has so much remiedial crap on it, so much complication that could be relatively easily fixed. Not to mention the structure of the logic circuits and tini little thing you can't see on the surface of a computer. Those are OLD stuff. The evolution of computers shows simply why this is so. A computer is made in "layers" of complexity. You have, in effect, many crappy 80's computers in your computer. They built logic circuits when transisters were first invented. From these logic circuits they constructed a simple computer. The Logic cirut complexes were then put together to create an even more powerful yet more complex computer. By today this has compounded into a computer with many levels of complexity that might eventually be upgraded into a modern computer with only one or two levels of complexity. That is what I mean. The equipment is new, but the peices are not. "If it's a problem for Macs, we avoid it by ... being on a network so we can update our systems." Updating the system only changes the WAY a computer modefies itself. It in no way helps the computer stop modefying itself. "And the rest of the market followed. Operating system shells, computer cases, even the George Foreman Grill for criminy sakes!" I have not yet seen a PC other than Macs have a turtle shell, candy coating, or any other such artsyness. "The horrifying culmination of that effort was called Windows 3, which, while it had its merits for being solid, was not particularly intuitive or otherwise friendly. All because they wanted to be different." You seem to be contradicting youself again. You have said that windows is bad BECAUSE it isn't different.... whats that about? Let me remind you that macs weren't that pretty or easy to use either. "You'll have to give me some examples. " There are thing I assume I can do in windows that just can't be done as easily on a mac. When opening a file or saving something, you can't manipulate other files, its open/save and ONLY do that. I can't think of very many examples sinse I don't have a mac here to consult. "Well ... is your computer just for "using"? " I still don't know what you're getting at. All the things you listed are when you are USING your computer. It IS only for using, or do you consider it decoration? When I wear a watch, it's for utility. Sacrifising eventual ease of use for ease of learning is not a good idea in my book.
Well, duh! All computer crunch numbers, and do nothing else. But the PC system/development has been driven by games and office applications for 15 years. Last year the computer gaming industry pulled in 550 billion dollars. Games and office applications are driving PC devlopment. Specific jobs are being done by those CPUs. They are not designed for high-powered number crunching. This is why the designs are going moldular, with each component having its own purpose-built processor and memory. For dedicated number crunching, you use supercomputers.
"This is why the designs are going moldular, with each component having its own purpose-built processor and memory." Ok I see your point.
