Apple firing on all cylinders
KDT
<Zara_or_whatever_sockpuppet_he_is_for_today>
But what about market share!!!!!!
</Zara_or_whatever_sockpuppet_he_is_for_today>
Priam
From the same URL:
"The next year could prove challenging in other ways as well. With the
price gap between Macs and other PCs so large, Apple probably will be
forced to cut prices to maintain sales, especially if it tries to expand
its overseas presence. Windows 7 also will present more of a challenge
to Apple's market-share growth, as consumers and corporate customers
check out Microsoft's new operating system.
Makers of smart phones also are closing in on the iPhone, with Google's
Android operating system emerging as one of the biggest threats.
Research firm Gartner is predicting that Android will overtake Apple's
iPhone by 2013 as the second-best-selling smart phone platform."
Some predict that by 2012 Android, which many manufacturers have already
adopted, will have 18% market share vs 14% for Apple.
It's always the historic problem of Apple playing the lone crusader: the
big bad industry takes time to catch up but, when it does, the poor
little underdoggy is squashed. Also the prognosis for pancreatic cancer
being what it is it is unlikely that Jooby will still be at the helm of
Apple to keep you girls wet in a few years from now.
Alan Baker
Priam <pr...@notsosure.com> wrote:
Do a little checking: there are paragraphs like that about Apple going
back years now. Predicting Apple's imminent demise (or major problems
ahead) has been a staple of technology year end reports for quite a
while.
--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)
Father Justin
Father Justin
> On 12/30/2009 12:33 AM, KDT wrote:
>
>> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/21/BUG01B6HU3.DTL&type=business
>>
>>
>> <Zara_or_whatever_sockpuppet_he_is_for_today>
>> But what about market share!!!!!!
>> </Zara_or_whatever_sockpuppet_he_is_for_today>
>
> From the same URL:
>
> "The next year could prove challenging in other ways as well. With the
> price gap between Macs and other PCs so large, Apple probably will be
> forced to cut prices to maintain sales, especially if it tries to expand
> to Apple's market-share growth, as consumers and corporate customers
> check out Microsoft's new operating system.
The tariff between the US and EU is set to start its decline onto
obivion starting in 2010.
That's main barrier of entry into EU markets.
KDT
Rob Glaser
Real Networks CEO
November 2003
''It's absolutely clear now why five years from now, Apple will have 3
to 5 percent of the player market.''
"''The history of the world, is that hybridization yields better
results. With Dell and others aiming a big push at the Christmas
season, it's even possible that Apple's market share has peaked [at
36%]."
Microsoft with its Plays4Sure DRM, half a dozen music services and
dozens of players was going to crush the lone proprietary Apple.
Six years later, PFS has been basically abandoned by MS and the iPod
market share is at 70%+.
Maurice
"KDT" <scarf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d9e34efa-13c2-4161...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Market share? Totally meaningless. Oh, that was last week.
KDT
> "KDT" <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> Rob Glaser
> Real Networks CEO
> November 2003
>
> ''It's absolutely clear now why five years from now, Apple will have 3
> to 5 percent of the player market.''
>
> "''The history of the world, is that hybridization yields better
> results. With Dell and others aiming a big push at the Christmas
> season, it's even possible that Apple's market share has peaked [at
> 36%]."
>
> Microsoft with its Plays4Sure DRM, half a dozen music services and
> dozens of players was going to crush the lone proprietary Apple.
>
> Six years later, PFS has been basically abandoned by MS and the iPod
> market share is at 70%+.
>
> Market share? Totally meaningless. Oh, that was last week.
This was in response to how Apple couldn't possibly compete with
dozens of Android phones. People fail to realize that because of
scale, Apple gets much better component prices when it comes to the
most expensive part of the phone -- the flash RAM. Apple is the
number one consumer of flash in the world. Last time I checked it
buys between 25% - 50% of the world's supply of it in any given
quarter.
Maurice
Yes - but market share is totally meaningless - like you said last week -
remember?
iPod, the McDonalds of the MP player field.
Lloyd Parsons
You bring up some good points, with the usual conclusions the 'experts'
come up with. And then of course, Apple doesn't do whatever they
concluded they will do, nor do sales drop off and profits stay high.
As to Jobs and his health, yes it is a concern because he is the face of
Apple. But this year has seen him step away a bit because of his health
and Apple is still having a bang up year.
My position with Apple and the 'experts' is that the experts seldom get
it right when it comes to Apple. That's both the positive and negative
things they say. When they get it right, it usually is more luck of the
draw than really understanding how Apple does things and what it means
to their market.
And Apple's lone crusader role has resulted in better stuff for all of
us, even those that don't use Apple products. It drives the market,
even to the point that others can get some advantage from it.
-hh
> KDT wrote:
>
> >http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/21/BUG01B6HU...
> > ...
>
> From the same URL:
>
> "The next year could prove challenging in other ways as well. With the
> price gap between Macs and other PCs so large, Apple probably will be
> forced to cut prices to maintain sales, especially if it tries to expand
> its overseas presence. Windows 7 also will present more of a challenge
> to Apple's market-share growth, as consumers and corporate customers
> check out Microsoft's new operating system.
The first half has been the standard boilerplate contrarian claim for
the past decade.
The second half has some merit, although one should keep in mind that
most of the Win7 "growth" will be from the existing captive audience
of Win XP and Vista customer base. Current trends still predominantly
show a net outflow of Windows OS users to other OS platforms. Plus
since the iPod & iPhone don't run on desktop OSs, this is a moot point
to these markets, including their potential for growth.
> Makers of smart phones also are closing in on the iPhone, with Google's
> Android operating system emerging as one of the biggest threats.
> Research firm Gartner is predicting that Android will overtake Apple's
> iPhone by 2013 as the second-best-selling smart phone platform."
One needs to read those predictions quite carefully: what the above
actually says is that their expectation is that Symbian's share will
crash, due to Android & iPhone being "neck-to-neck" vying for 2nd,
with RIM and Windows Mobile bringing up the rear in 4th & 5th.
> Some predict that by 2012 Android, which many manufacturers have already
> adopted, will have 18% market share vs 14% for Apple.
FWIW, was this prediction before or after the Christmas Day data,
which shows that Apple's downloads rose by 51% for the month, whereas
android jumped "only" 22%?
<http://www.businessweek.com/news/2009-12-28/apple-ipod-touch-
application-downloads-jump-1-000-on-christmas.html>
BTW, the main title here is the 1000% jump in Christmas Day downloads
for the iTouch, but since that's not a cellphone but more of a "Halo"
device that enables future business transitioning from the iPod
market, its implications are secondary.
> It's always the historic problem of Apple playing the lone crusader: the
> big bad industry takes time to catch up but, when it does, the poor
> little underdoggy is squashed.
Golly, those turn-of-the-Century Rail Barons really did come back to
overwhelm the underdog of Wilber & Orville's flimsy little flying
machine, didn't they? :-)
> Also the prognosis for pancreatic cancer
> being what it is it is unlikely that Jooby will still be at the helm of
> Apple to keep you girls wet in a few years from now.
No matter when it might be, Job will eventually die. And if that
occurs anytime within the next ~20 years, it will invariably be a good
stock buying opportunity, as Steve doesn't currently seem particularly
likely to ever leave Apple, and there will be a significant-enough
percentage of investors who will panic & dump Apple stock. Its not
unlike how there was a huge surge of sales of Michael Jackson albums
immediately after his death, despite the fact that none of those
records were new and had been continuously on the market for years and
years...its merely an emotional knee-jerk for some.
-hh
Priam
> Priam<pr...@notsosure.com> wrote:
>> It's always the historic problem of Apple playing the lone crusader: the
>> big bad industry takes time to catch up but, when it does, the poor
>> little underdoggy is squashed.
>
> Golly, those turn-of-the-Century Rail Barons really did come back to
> overwhelm the underdog of Wilber& Orville's flimsy little flying
> machine, didn't they? :-)
Jobs didn't invent anything new. Music was downloadable on the net
before he invented the iPod, there were wireless phones before the
iPhone. But the presentation of his stuff is good and the promotion is
outstanding. Job is a good businessman. That's all. Don't compare Jobs
and the Wright brothers.
>> Also the prognosis for pancreatic cancer
>> being what it is it is unlikely that Jooby will still be at the helm of
>> Apple to keep you girls wet in a few years from now.
>
> No matter when it might be, Job will eventually die. And if that
> occurs anytime within the next ~20 years, it will invariably be a good
> stock buying opportunity, as Steve doesn't currently seem particularly
> likely to ever leave Apple, and there will be a significant-enough
> percentage of investors who will panic& dump Apple stock.
Jobs set the tracks for business direction for the six months he left.
He also could give advice from home. Remember that last time he "left",
Apple didn't do so good. Same when Michael Dell left Dell: he had to
come back.
This will never be a problem with Droid phones: companies all over the
world use it.
There are other concerns than Jobs' departure. Now, the US economy is
under artificial life support. I'm far from sure it will survive when
the flow of governmental money dries up.
The wealthy remained wealthy during the last Stock Exchange crash. If it
will be the same during the total economic meltdown that is bound to
happen when the war in Afghanistan is lost and the pipeline from the
Asian Central Republic dream vanishes is not so clear.
Apple thrived in the US because obtaining credit was easy. It didn't do
so good in Europe because credit wasn't so easy and it didn't do good at
all in Asia because credit was very restricted.
Easy money will soon come to an end in the US and people will have to
stop buying status symbols and figure out what they get for their money.
They get less for their money with Apple.
Here's what I wrote about this on csms:
William Clarck wrote:
> Do BMW and Mercedes have any problems selling cars? No.
I answered:
Please, don't compare BMW and Apple! BMW wouldn't buy from the likes of
Lucky Goldstar. They don't manufacture in cheap Chinese sweatshops.
I could tomorrow buy all the line of crappy computers Apple sells at
twice the price to Mac Morons and it wouldn't dent my budget.
My problem is I can't afford to buy cheap: it means problems that I'd
rather not deal with.
=========
I then added:
Your Mac is not a BMW, It's lowest bidder hardware with an Apple sticker
on it. And the impression of high quality you get is just an
epiphenomenon of the smartass Moron facing the heavy PC ad. It's plain
brainwashing.
Can you dig this: John Hodgman, the Heavy PC guy and Justin Long, the
Mac smartass are having lunch together after filming the ad. Hodgman
himself runs a Mac. The only reason he doesn't find the right answer
about the PCs being subject to viruses, is that he's following the script.
Of course, since Apple manufactures about 5 different computers,
integration is good. Still, it's quite surprizing to see how often Mac
OS succeeds to not completely work with Apple's own material.
Of course, also, the lowest bidders must consider that getting a
contract from Apple is a good source of revenue and they must do their
best to provide good material, but there's just so much you can do
within a certain price range to comply to specifications. And Apple, I
suppose, does spot checking on the material. Still, it often fails.
One of the reason it fails, is Jooby wants to brag. It's easy to brag
about battery life if you set high enough the temperature for the fan to
begin to speed up. But the the nice little MacBooks begin to heat. Jooby
sends an upgrade after all magazines have made their tests and there's
no so much concern about battery life thereafter.
Jooby also wanted to brag about the superiority of the PowerPC chips
that the G5 featured. He kinda overclocked them, but they had to be
liquid cooled. Now, the liquid is leaking and though it was clearly a
bad concept, Mac users have to manage the problem if the guarantee is
over or if they have no extended guarantee, which is totally
unacceptable. The problem comes from Jooby's silly need to brag.
Then, there's the "it's so cute, it's so tiny..." phenomenon. Computers
produce heat. If the casing is too small, heating problems arise,
sometimes years later, because the computer has operated at high
temperature for too long. Standard PC casings might not look as trendy,
but the air flow is waaay better.
OS X is a good OS because it is based on FreeBSD. OTOH, Jooby, who
hasn't the slightest hint in programming, adopted the Mach kernel
because it was trendy. Microkernel architecture was to change the face
of computing. It never did.
Today, it's considered as a dead end. Even Apple, has kept little of it
and the few people who, at Debian, still believe in the Hurd operating
system, also a microkernel architecture based on Mach, are considered
heavy utopists.
OS X interface certainly looks very good. So does the Linux interface.
If you want to have those growing icons on your desktop, it's possible,
with Enlightenment, I believe. But what is most important, is that you
also have many window managers which can be supported by relatively old
and/or not so powerful hardware.
As always in Linux, you have a wide choice. If you have recent hardware
and want to have your "Spaces" rotating on a cube that's flying in the
air with windows disappering in fire, it's possible. Compiz provides
this. I have it installed but didn't venture much into configuration.
Maybe you'd like it?
As I already explained, the basic software provided in Linux is pretty
much the equivalent of the Mac's. If you want Time Machine, you just
install BackInTime.
The GIMP is not the equivalent of Photoshop, neither is KDEnLive the
equivalent of Final Cut, but they will do more than the iSeries software
for free. Working in The GIMP with no interface, all windows shaded is
just sumptuous. Once you get used to it, you never want to go back.
So, I believe it's about time Maccies stop bragging about their status
symbol. The only thing they prove doing so is what a bunch of
brainwashed Morons they are paying exorbitant prices for hardware which
runs Free software.
Unless you're a professional who absolutely needs Photoshop and Final
Cut, and that's certainly not one out of ten of those who pretend they
do, if you're using a Mac, you're just a brainwashed frickin' Mac Moron.
There's no BMW in the Mac world.
Tim Murray
>
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/21/BUG01B6HU3.DTL&typ
> e=business
>
Clearly this is a Mac fanboi site. Nothing to see here. Move along. (Just
thought I'd save MuahMan the trouble.)
Tim Murray
KDT
I did say that. There are basically three ways to chase profits.
1. Razor thin profit margins on a per unit basis but sell lots of
units.
2 High profit margins on a per unit basis but sell few
3. The hat trick: High profit margins + sell lots of units.
Apple basically sells three lines of products and the supporting
services. The Mac falls in category #2, the iPhone falls in category
two moving toward #3 and th iPod falls in category #3. Unfortunately
most of the PC industry is trying to do #1 but failing miserably (see
Dell, Lenovo, HP's computer unit, etc). In the phone industry, Nokia
falls in #1 but still making less selling phones than Apple does
selling the iPhone, Motorola and Palm are trying to do #2 but failing
miserably compared to Apple.
Maurice
So, enough said. I don't need a business economics lesson from a know
nothing like you.
.
KDT
So in the three markets that Apple competes -- computers, media
players, and cell phones -- which company out there is making more
money in any of those segments than Apple?
Maurice
There is no comparable company that sells both computers and operating
systems. If Apple had to stand alone on either - it would be gone - fast.
The computers are over priced run of the mill, and the OS is shit.
Lloyd Parsons
"Maurice" <Mauric...@aol.com> wrote:
LOL!! IF huh?
But they do what they do and make a bundle doing it. And the side
benefit is you trolls get to keep pissing and moaning about it!!
ya gotta love it! :)
Maurice
"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydp...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-8DBD...@port80.individual.net...
He asked for a comparo. There was none as he well knew. And you also.
> But they do what they do and make a bundle doing it.
Yes "THEY" make a bundle.
> And the side
> benefit is you trolls get to keep pissing and moaning about it!!
No - you get to pay through the nose. We get to ROTFLOAO.
> ya gotta love it! :)
We do.
Alan Baker
"Maurice" <Mauric...@aol.com> wrote:
Why does that invalidate the comparison, Zara?
Maurice
"Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-C4709...@news.shawcable.com...
Why are you so stupid?
Fa-groon
(in article <S%R_m.97151$We2....@newsfe09.iad>):
Projecting, again, zara?
KDT
Well whose fault is that Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc. can't develop an
operating system or have some type of value add to differentiate their
computers from their competitors so that consumers are willing to pay
more?
Why couldn't Dell make a success out of the Dell DJ line of MP3
players? Why when Dell tried to shop their cell phone around to US
carriers no one was interested (http://www.pcworld.com/article/161755/
dell_is_dull_smartphone_canceled_for_lack_of_interest.html)? You
need to be asking why are Wintel manufacturers so incapable of
innovation.
Maurice
I don't know, but, sounds like an interesting concept. Maybe for the same
reason Apple can't develope a new operating system. OSX is eleven years
old. Time for something better than retreads.
Why couldn't Dell make a success out of the Dell DJ line of MP3
players?
I don't know. Why?
Why when Dell tried to shop their cell phone around to US
carriers no one was interested (http://www.pcworld.com/article/161755/
dell_is_dull_smartphone_canceled_for_lack_of_interest.html)?
I don't know. Why?
You need to be asking why are Wintel manufacturers so incapable of
innovation.
No you need to be asking. I don't give a shit. You obviously do.
Alan Baker
"Maurice" <Mauric...@aol.com> wrote:
Can't answer the actual question, huh?
Yeah...
Fa-groon
(in article <xaU_m.8$_A...@newsfe17.iad>):
Windows is 25 years old. Time for something better than retreads - especially
retreads of something that wasn't very good in the first place - like
Windows.
-hh
> -hh wrote:
> > Priam<pr...@notsosure.com> wrote:
> >> It's always the historic problem of Apple playing the lone crusader: the
> >> big bad industry takes time to catch up but, when it does, the poor
> >> little underdoggy is squashed.
>
> > Golly, those turn-of-the-Century Rail Barons really did come back to
> > overwhelm the underdog of Wilber& Orville's flimsy little flying
> > machine, didn't they? :-)
>
> Jobs didn't invent anything new. Music was downloadable on the net
> before he invented the iPod, there were wireless phones before the
> iPhone. But the presentation of his stuff is good and the promotion is
> outstanding. Job is a good businessman. That's all. Don't compare Jobs
> and the Wright brothers.
Sorry, but your "not an inventor" claim on Jobs is very strongly
paralleled by the history of the Wright Brothers:
- their airframe & wing wasn't theirs - it was adapted from Otto
Lilienthal's gliders;
- their power used the internal combustion engine (William Barnett
patent; 1838);
- rudders came from maritime, bicycles and early automobiles;
- elevator control came also from Lilienthal;
- roll control via warping improved on Lilenthal's approach, but lost
out to ailerons (M.P.W. Bolton patent; 1868).
Thus, the historical reality is that both the Wrights and Jobs had
innovated not by being the literal inventor, but by adapting &
improving the works of others, and by integrating these parts in a new
way: this makes them into very comparable figures.
> >> Also the prognosis for pancreatic cancer
> >> being what it is it is unlikely that Jooby will still be at the helm of
> >> Apple to keep you girls wet in a few years from now.
>
> > No matter when it might be, Job will eventually die. And if that
> > occurs anytime within the next ~20 years, it will invariably be a good
> > stock buying opportunity, as Steve doesn't currently seem particularly
> > likely to ever leave Apple, and there will be a significant-enough
> > percentage of investors who will panic& dump Apple stock.
>
> Jobs set the tracks for business direction for the six months he left.
> He also could give advice from home. Remember that last time he "left",
> Apple didn't do so good. Same when Michael Dell left Dell: he had to
> come back.
Sounds like you're agreeing with me.
The problem is that our perceptions don't match reality: when we go
to review the performance of AAPL, we find that their most recent
decline doesn't match up at all with Job's actions: it started in
Sept 08 (3 months before Job's medical leave was announced) and the
bottom was 6 March 09 (3 months before Job's return). What we do find
is that when we overlay the same chart with the DOW & NASDAQ, we find
the same dip & recovery pattern - - as such, these stock prices aren't
following "Personality" overall in the long term, even though we
believe that they should.
> This will never be a problem with Droid phones: companies all over the
> world use it.
Its IMO too early to tell who will replace RIM in the Enterprise
market. Do try to keep in mind that before it was RIM, it was Palm.
> There are other concerns than Jobs' departure. Now, the US economy
> is under artificial life support. I'm far from sure it will survive when
> the flow of governmental money dries up.
Always a concerns, sure - - particularly if the corporate revenues are
coming from the Government. Oddly though, I can't recall hearing any
Press that Apple had gotten a handout, or that any of their major
buyers did so either. As such, I don't see the obvious means by which
they would be hurt.
> The wealthy remained wealthy during the last Stock Exchange crash.
Well, under that logic, since Apple is a higher-end product and
appears to have a strong marketshare amongst the mid/upper class (ie,
Princeton University being 50%+), then Apple won't be hurt.
> Apple thrived in the US because obtaining credit was easy.
I doubt this claim of causality - got anything credible to cite?
This claim appears to be in contradiction with your above assertion of
how the Wealthy is "above" the pain current economic problems.
> It didn't do so good in Europe because credit wasn't so easy and it
> didn't do good at all in Asia because credit was very restricted.
Europe has trade barrier tariffs that are coming down. For Asia, look
at Apple's performance in Japan, which has higher income levels.
Additionally, the early China iPhone sales reports don't appear to be
too shabby either.
> Easy money will soon come to an end in the US and people will have to
> stop buying status symbols and figure out what they get for their money.
> They get less for their money with Apple.
News flash: "Easy Money" ended 18 months ago. Yet Apple's sales are
up, which makes them appear to be downright immune.
> Here's what I wrote about this on csms:
>
> William Clarck wrote:
>
> > Do BMW and Mercedes have any problems selling cars? No.
>
> I answered:
>
> Please, don't compare BMW and Apple! BMW wouldn't buy from the likes of
> Lucky Goldstar. They don't manufacture in cheap Chinese sweatshops.
News Flash: BMW has a factory in China, making 3 Series. However,
due to quality concerns, these cars aren't exported into the Western
markets, unless you want to consider South Africa to be part of the
West.
> I could tomorrow buy all the line of crappy computers Apple sells at
> twice the price to Mac Morons and it wouldn't dent my budget.
But could you carry it all home in the back of a new BMW X3 that was
also paid for in cash?
Maybe, maybe not - but it doesn't matter since your statement fails to
make any point about how/if consumers find value in Apple products
that makes them worth/not worth buying in the first place.
So what's your real point? To childishly try to dick-wave about your
disposable income?
> My problem is I can't afford to buy cheap: it means problems that I'd
> rather not deal with.
Does this mean that you're willing to pay more to minimize the
Bullshit?
If so, it means that you're not as different from Apple consumers as
you might think you are.
> Your Mac is not a BMW, It's lowest bidder hardware with an Apple sticker
> on it.
The entire US Military is also "lowest bidder" with a Star painted on
it. Worst quality superpower in the world.
> And the impression of high quality you get is just an
> epiphenomenon of the smartass Moron facing the heavy PC ad. It's plain
> brainwashing.
Good thing then that you're not forced to buy one. Unlike how you are
compelled to pay US taxes which go to DoD :-)
> So, I believe it's about time Maccies stop bragging about their status
> symbol.
Thanks, but that's not what its about. What you perceive as an
overpriced status symbol isn't necessarily so. I've been through the
pain of hassles for long enough that I now buy my automobiles with
heaters for the winter and A/C for the summer. Similarly, my chair
has a cushion on it. And I put blankets on my bed so that I don't
shiver all night. Get it yet?
So if I choose to similarly do a bit extra to include more creature
comforts on my IT, that's my choice. If you prefer something along
the lines of Calvinistic theology of proving yourself worthy by
punishing yourself by only ever using the IT equivalent of a hard
wooden chair, that's your choice too.
FYI - it is also long overdue for Linux junkies to stop bragging about
how stoic they are.
And ironically, if you can indeed do as you claim ... (buying all the
Mac models without denting your budget) ... then what's your rationale
for not spending a fraction of that to accomplish your other stated
goal ("can't afford to buy cheap: it means problems")? Afterall, its
not like HP or Dell sell "100% Made in the USA" computers to be able
to avoid Chinese mass production.
-hh
Maurice
R - e - a - d s - l - o - w- l -y.
He - asked - for - a - comparo. There - was - none - as - he - well -
knew. And - you - also.
Why - are - you - so - stupid?
Get it yet?
BTW: your stuipdity glares with your stupid sig lines and obsesson with
Edwin.
KDT
> "Alan Baker" <alangba...@telus.net> wrote in message
>
> news:alangbaker-FBFC9...@news.shawcable.com...
>
>
>
> > In article <S%R_m.97151$We2.91...@newsfe09.iad>,
> > "Maurice" <Maurice504...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> "Alan Baker" <alangba...@telus.net> wrote in message
> >>news:alangbaker-C4709...@news.shawcable.com...
> >> > In article <01R_m.16048$ft1.13...@newsfe10.iad>,
> >> > "Maurice" <Maurice504...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydpars...@mac.com> wrote in message
> >> >>news:lloydparsons-8DBD...@port80.individual.net...
> >> >> > In article <tbQ_m.16041$ft1.10...@newsfe10.iad>,
Once again, whose fault is it that Dell, Lenovo, Toshiba, Sony, etc.
can't do anything to compete on the same level as Apple?
Quadibloc
> Also the prognosis for pancreatic cancer
> being what it is it is unlikely that Jooby will still be at the helm of
> Apple to keep you girls wet in a few years from now.
I find that comment in bad taste.
I do think that market share is important, since it drives the third-
party software ecosystem. But then, Microsoft's reputation of
competing aggressively in the applications area- i.e., squashing
Netscape - gives people a reason to at least consider developing for
the Mac.
When Apple does lose Steven Jobs - which, of course, _will_ happen
some day, even should he live to a ripe old age - while it may not be
able to find someone else who can come up with "insanely great" new
ideas at the rate he has, I would however think that the stockholders
and board of directors learned from their experience with John
Sculley, and they will find someone who can work with Apple's
strengths instead of driving it into the ground.
Selling the Apple OS in a cardboard box as software and getting out of
the hardware business... would be suicide for Apple today, but it's
probably what they should have done back in 1984. Apple would be
Microsoft today if they did that. Now, it's too late; they would be Be
if they did that now.
Becoming Dell isn't an option for Apple either. Making Windows PCs
(hey, we offer a bonus disk that lets you install OS X in another
partition if you're interested!) that are price-competitive but which
lack [meaningful support for] the Macintosh OS... hey, it might be a
profitable business, but only if you get the PCs made in China at rock-
bottom prices.
If I curse the price differential between the Mac and the PC, I don't
complain if the low end models cost $X extra. There has to be a charge
for the Mac OS, even if development costs were reduced by going to OS
X. There has to be a charge for the fact that Macintosh computers
embody innovative design. There has to be a charge for the fact that
they're made in the U.S.. Well, OK, some Apple manufacturing
apparently is offshored; I think I read something about the iPhone and
iPod Touch being made by one of the better Chinese firms.
No, what I curse is that the price differential grows as a multiplying
factor when you buy a box with more memory or a fancy CPU. Those CPUs
and memory don't cost Apple a penny more than they cost any PC maker -
so that is a gratuitous charge. A discretionary decision by Apple to
get its development costs from those who can "afford" it.
That would make sense if:
a) Apple sold mainframes, or
b) it didn't result in the Mac generally being underpowered.
Be that as it may, the Macintosh is picking up steam. Apple consumer
products like the iPhone are where the buzz may be. If the current
rumors are right, Apple may define and establish the tablet computer
very soon - showing that it can be done, after attempts to make
Windows tablet PCs have fizzled.
John Savard
Maurice
Once again, perhaps the costs of writing a new OS are prohibitive, as they
seem to be with Apple. No new Apple OS in what is it now, eleven years?
Maurice
"-hh" <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:55daa1df-2111-4083...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
I would have read it but it seemed too wordy. But if it follows the usual
gibberish, I doubt that I missed anything.
Quadibloc
> Well whose fault is that Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc. can't develop an
> operating system or have some type of value add to differentiate their
> computers from their competitors so that consumers are willing to pay
> more?
Microsoft's fault. Until recently, any PC maker that tried, say, to
include a Linux CD with their computers, or preinstall Linux in a
second partition after Windows, would have not been able to sell
Windows - or at least would have had to pay a higher price for it.
I mean, sure, they could have tried to do what Apple did, and make
their own computer with their own operating system. They have enough
sense to know that doing so would be just plain nuts.
Apple licensed critical elements of its GUI to Microsoft - but sued
GEM Desktop out of existence. Maybe it deserved it... and maybe Apple
is not to blame for stunting the growth of the Atari ST and the
Amiga... but, in any case, those systems were the last gasp of real
competition in the computer field.
Maybe it isn't Apple or Microsoft that is to blame. It is the consumer
- the greedy consumer that wants to have the biggest pool of
applications software to choose from, with a buyer's market filled
with hungry vendors competing for his purchase, and with a large pool
of users of the same platform, so that development costs are split
over lots and lots of people.
Give the consumer a good reason to choose some other computer system
over Windows? How? Apple, with the first and best GUI, quality
machines and a great cool factor, somehow barely manages this
impossible task. Dell and the others are, quite properly, not stupid
enough to think they could pull it off better, or even as good, as
Apple. They're companies that followed where Compaq led.
Hey, when the nocompete clause with Lenovo runs out, maybe IBM will do
something. Or, seeing how the PC market burned it the last time, maybe
they will stay far, far away. But I think they're about the only
company that has the resources to even try this.
But then I never expected the Eee from Asus to run on Linux. So there
could always be surprises.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> I don't know, but, sounds like an interesting concept. Maybe for the same
> reason Apple can't develope a new operating system. OSX is eleven years
> old. Time for something better than retreads.
Oh, my. Time flies.
But why break backwards compatibility?
PCs can run MS-DOS software from 1981.
Buy a current Mac, and it can't run software from 1984.
Yes, have all the exciting new features of OS X - and the current OS X
isn't behind Vista or Windows 7 in exciting new features, so what's
the problem - but they should have been integrated into the classic
Mac operating system - instead of access to older apps being limited
to people who upgraded from the old OS to OS X.
John Savard
KDT
>
> - Show quoted text -
And Windows 7 is based on the NT kernel that goes back to '94. Your
point being?
But maybe if some other PC manufacturer invested money in R&D they
might be as profitable and/or have the market cap of Apple.
KDT
Try running a DOS program from '81 that tries to directly access the
hardware and see how far you get. In fact, try running in a command
shell full screen on most computers.
Tim Murray
> Buy a current Mac, and it can't run software from 1984.
You can, using SheepShaver.
KDT
> On Dec 29, 11:25 pm, Priam <pr...@notsosure.com> wrote:
> I do think that market share is important, since it drives the third-
> party software ecosystem. But then, Microsoft's reputation of
> competing aggressively in the applications area- i.e., squashing
> Netscape - gives people a reason to at least consider developing for
> the Mac.
What does the general consumer do with their computer these days?
1. Web Browsing -- internet explorer is the only major browser that
isn't available on the Mac and seeing that it is by far the worse and
slowest browser for Windows, that's really no great loss.
2. General Productivity -- Office is available for the Mac (what 90%
of PC users use) as well as three ports of Open Office.
3. Manage media -- iTunes and the iPod are by far the most popular
media management + media player on Windows and of course it runs on
the Mac.
4. Games -- The PC gaming market has been declining for years in favor
of consoles. Besides, you can look at the average computer that
Windows users are buying. Most of the lowend crap they are buying is
still using Intel's integrated graphics which is four to five times
slower than the graphics even on the Mac Mini.
5. Internet related apps -- Bit Torrent, Skype, etc. -- all available
on the Mac.
> Becoming Dell isn't an option for Apple either. Making Windows PCs
> (hey, we offer a bonus disk that lets you install OS X in another
> partition if you're interested!) that are price-competitive but which
> lack [meaningful support for] the Macintosh OS... hey, it might be a
> profitable business, but only if you get the PCs made in China at rock-
> bottom prices.
>
Why would Apple want to be Dell? Apple is worth more than 6.5x as
much as Dell and has enough cash in the bank to buy every outstanding
share and still have $8 Billion left over.
> b) it didn't result in the Mac generally being underpowered.
>
Mac underpowered? Have you seen the crap that most PC manufacturers
sell? 802.11g, 10/100 ethernet, low end Pentium Dual Core systems,
DDR2 800Mhz RAM on 1033 FSB, Intel integrated graphics, etc?
Maurice
Unix 1974 with actual origins going back to the sixties.. Quite long in the
tooth.
Lloyd Parsons
<cdf131ec-919b-4092...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Dec 30, 7:40�pm, "Maurice" <Maurice504...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't know, but, sounds like an interesting concept. �Maybe for the same
> > reason Apple can't develope a new operating system. �OSX is eleven years
> > old. Time for something better than retreads.
>
> Oh, my. Time flies.
>
> But why break backwards compatibility?
>
> PCs can run MS-DOS software from 1981.
>
that's part of the problem that MS runs into with windows.
> Buy a current Mac, and it can't run software from 1984.
>
And who exactly would want to?
Alan Baker
"Maurice" <Mauric...@aol.com> wrote:
> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:alangbaker-FBFC9...@news.shawcable.com...
> > In article <S%R_m.97151$We2....@newsfe09.iad>,
> > "Maurice" <Mauric...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
> >> news:alangbaker-C4709...@news.shawcable.com...
> >> > In article <01R_m.16048$ft1....@newsfe10.iad>,
> >> > "Maurice" <Mauric...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydp...@mac.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:lloydparsons-8DBD...@port80.individual.net...
> >> >> > In article <tbQ_m.16041$ft1....@newsfe10.iad>,
> >> >> > "Maurice" <Mauric...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "KDT" <scarf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> news:74423d61-d39d-4e6c...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.co
> >> >> >> m..
> >> >> >> .
W - h - y?
--
Alan Baker
"Maurice" <Mauric...@aol.com> wrote:
> "KDT" <scarf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:96c48fbd-1ff7-45a2...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 31, 9:30 am, "Maurice" <Maurice504...@aol.com> wrote:
> > "Alan Baker" <alangba...@telus.net> wrote in message
> >
> > news:alangbaker-FBFC9...@news.shawcable.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > > In article <S%R_m.97151$We2.91...@newsfe09.iad>,
> > > "Maurice" <Maurice504...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> "Alan Baker" <alangba...@telus.net> wrote in message
> > >>news:alangbaker-C4709...@news.shawcable.com...
> > >> > In article <01R_m.16048$ft1.13...@newsfe10.iad>,
> > >> > "Maurice" <Maurice504...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> >> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydpars...@mac.com> wrote in message
> > >> >>news:lloydparsons-8DBD...@port80.individual.net...
> > >> >> > In article <tbQ_m.16041$ft1.10...@newsfe10.iad>,
> > >> >> > "Maurice" <Maurice504...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> >> >> "KDT" <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >> >> >>news:74423d61-d39d-4e6c...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.c
> > >> >> >>om..
> > >> >> >> .
> > >> >> >> On Dec 30, 4:19 pm, "Maurice" <Maurice504...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >> >> >> > "KDT" <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > >> >> >> >news:23795e24-e2eb-427b...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.
> > >> >> >> >com.
> > >> >> >> > ..
But the point is that Apple is *more* successful financially than Dell
et al. That pretty much shoots down the idea that the costs of an OS are
a problem.
--
Maurice
Microsoft is much more successful than Apple. They have much greater sales,
and they make much more profit per dollar than Apple.
And if you think that the costs to develop an OS are minimal, then you are
far more stupid than I originally thought.
Alan Baker
"Maurice" <Mauric...@aol.com> wrote:
Failure to answer the question noted.
Priam
> Sorry, but your "not an inventor" claim on Jobs is very strongly
> paralleled by the history of the Wright Brothers:
>
> Lilienthal's gliders;
> - their power used the internal combustion engine (William Barnett
> patent; 1838);
> - rudders came from maritime, bicycles and early automobiles;
> - elevator control came also from Lilienthal;
> - roll control via warping improved on Lilenthal's approach, but lost
> out to ailerons (M.P.W. Bolton patent; 1868).
>
> Thus, the historical reality is that both the Wrights and Jobs had
> innovated not by being the literal inventor, but by adapting&
> improving the works of others, and by integrating these parts in a new
> way: this makes them into very comparable figures.
So, Job is an inventor? No problem, Job is an inventor. Still, he's
screwing you.
>> This will never be a problem with Droid phones: companies all over the
>> world use it.
>
> Its IMO too early to tell who will replace RIM in the Enterprise
> market. Do try to keep in mind that before it was RIM, it was Palm.
Yep. And before the Droids, it will be Apple.
>> Apple thrived in the US because obtaining credit was easy.
>
> I doubt this claim of causality - got anything credible to cite?
> This claim appears to be in contradiction with your above assertion of
> how the Wealthy is "above" the pain current economic problems.
You don't understand that credit is easier in the States where macs sell
the most than in France, Finland, Russia, China, India, etc.? If so, I'm
afraid it would be impossible to explain anything to you.
> News flash: "Easy Money" ended 18 months ago.
It's still way too easy.
>> Here's what I wrote about this on csms:
>>
>> William Clarck wrote:
>>
>>> Do BMW and Mercedes have any problems selling cars? No.
>>
>> I answered:
>>
>> Please, don't compare BMW and Apple! BMW wouldn't buy from the likes of
>> Lucky Goldstar. They don't manufacture in cheap Chinese sweatshops.
>
> News Flash: BMW has a factory in China, making 3 Series. However,
> due to quality concerns, these cars aren't exported into the Western
> markets, unless you want to consider South Africa to be part of the
> West.
Oops! One day they'll import them. How does that explain that Jooby is
not screwing you?
>> I could tomorrow buy all the line of crappy computers Apple sells at
>> twice the price to Mac Morons and it wouldn't dent my budget.
>
> But could you carry it all home in the back of a new BMW X3 that was
> also paid for in cash?
I could but, because of health concerns, I don't have a licence. So, I'd
have to use a taxi... or maybe Apple offers delivery. I bought a TV on
boxing day and it was delivered to my door for not a red cent more. I
thought that was nice.
> Maybe, maybe not - but it doesn't matter since your statement fails to
> make any point about how/if consumers find value in Apple products
> that makes them worth/not worth buying in the first place.
Read my answers fo JF Mezei in csms. I proved this tens of times. You
just want to make me lose my time.
Enough!
Edwin
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/21/BUG01B6HU3.DTL&type=business
>
> <Zara_or_whatever_sockpuppet_he_is_for_today>
> But what about market share!!!!!!
> </Zara_or_whatever_sockpuppet_he_is_for_today>
"Apple has slammed the brakes on shipments of its much coveted 27 inch
iMac after users were driven cross eyed by flickering screens and other
problems with the machines."
"The problems with the machines have been detailed on imac.squeaked.com,
where Mac apostles have been forced to openly question their faith."
Priam
Linux kernel 2.6.0 was introduced in Dec 2003. It's now at version
2.6.32. And it keeps on going without any major revision that would
justify to change from 2.6 to 2.8. Solid!
Priam
You're cutting a bit too short here:
The imac.squeaked website reports users have been experiencing problems
including cracked glass, flickering displays, yellow tinged screens and
noisy screens. It also mentions drive failures.
Flickering displays are the most popular problem, so to speak, with
users reporting bars appearing across their screens, dead pixels, and
blackouts.
――――――――――――
Lowest bidder stuff. Apple will fix the problems, but it will still be
too darn expensive crap.
Fa-groon
(in article <jQ8%m.91$%P5...@newsfe21.iad>):
>
> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:alangbaker-8197D...@news.shawcable.com...
>> In article <_O6%m.158$rL7...@newsfe23.iad>,
>> "Maurice" <Mauric...@aol.com> wrote:
<snip long string of replies for brevity>
>> But the point is that Apple is *more* successful financially than Dell
>> et al. That pretty much shoots down the idea that the costs of an OS are
>> a problem.
>
> Microsoft is much more successful than Apple. They have much greater sales,
> and they make much more profit per dollar than Apple.
Are you sure about that, or are you just guessing, zara?
> And if you think that the costs to develop an OS are minimal, then you are
> far more stupid than I originally thought.
He didn't say that the costs were minimal. Please try to keep up.
Fa-groon
(in article
<cdf131ec-919b-4092...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):
> On Dec 30, 7:40ï¿œpm, "Maurice" <Maurice504...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't know, but, sounds like an interesting concept. ï¿œMaybe for the same
>> reason Apple can't develope a new operating system. ï¿œOSX is eleven years
>> old. Time for something better than retreads.
>
> Oh, my. Time flies.
>
> But why break backwards compatibility?
>
> PCs can run MS-DOS software from 1981.
>
> Buy a current Mac, and it can't run software from 1984.
>
> Yes, have all the exciting new features of OS X - and the current OS X
> isn't behind Vista or Windows 7 in exciting new features, so what's
> the problem - but they should have been integrated into the classic
> Mac operating system - instead of access to older apps being limited
> to people who upgraded from the old OS to OS X.
>
> John Savard
It's not a problem for most users. I've been a Mac user since 1984 and I
certainly never looked back when OSX came out. Looked at another way,
backward compatibility holds Windows back . Microsoft can't effect any
paradigm change in basic way that Windows works without losing that backward
compatibility, so the system remains, largely stagnant.
Fa-groon
(in article
<5b14fad5-c112-4ab7...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>):
> On Dec 31, 2:35ï¿œpm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> On Dec 30, 7:40ï¿œpm, "Maurice" <Maurice504...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know, but, sounds like an interesting concept. ï¿œMaybe for the same
>>> reason Apple can't develope a new operating system. ï¿œOSX is eleven years
>>> old. Time for something better than retreads.
>>
>> Oh, my. Time flies.
>>
>> But why break backwards compatibility?
>>
>> PCs can run MS-DOS software from 1981.
>>
>> Buy a current Mac, and it can't run software from 1984.
>>
>> Yes, have all the exciting new features of OS X - and the current OS X
>> isn't behind Vista or Windows 7 in exciting new features, so what's
>> the problem - but they should have been integrated into the classic
>> Mac operating system - instead of access to older apps being limited
>> to people who upgraded from the old OS to OS X.
>>
>> John Savard
>
> Try running a DOS program from '81 that tries to directly access the
> hardware and see how far you get. In fact, try running in a command
> shell full screen on most computers.
Of course, you CAN with the Mac, but I don't know why anyone would want to.
Maurice
Your stupidity noted. I feel fatigued in dealing with a cretin like you.
Catch you on another thread - maybe.
Tim Murray
>
> PCs can run MS-DOS software from 1981.
So can a Mac.
KDT
> "Alan Baker" <alangba...@telus.net> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <_O6%m.158$rL7...@newsfe23.iad>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
How is Apple -- a hardware company -- doing compared to all of the
other hardware companies? Sun also sold computers with their own
OS's. How is Sun doing these days? What about Silicon Graphics?
KDT
>
> - Show quoted text -
How "solid" is their ABI? Can you take a device driver targeted at
2.6.0 and use it for 2.6.32 without a recompile?
-hh
> > innovated not by being the literal inventor, but by adapting &
> > improving the works of others, and by integrating these parts in a new
> > way: this makes them into very comparable figures.
>
> So, Job is an inventor? No problem, Job is an inventor. Still, he's
> screwing you.
Sorry, but I don't see the proof of that claim.
> >> This will never be a problem with Droid phones: companies all over the
> >> world use it.
>
> > Its IMO too early to tell who will replace RIM in the Enterprise
> > market. Do try to keep in mind that before it was RIM, it was Palm.
>
> Yep. And before the Droids, it will be Apple.
Perhaps, and time will tell. Currently, such a claim sounds a lot
more like a fanboi grade of wishful speculation, where the only
motivation is to see someone else get torn down, and not clearly based
on delivering a better value paradigm for the buyer. The reality in
Enterprise is that Operations will never be risked on an unproven
product, so Google will have to prove that it can not only reliably
deliver the goods, but also that it is clearly advantageous over the
installed base (eg, RIM).
> >> Apple thrived in the US because obtaining credit was easy.
>
> > I doubt this claim of causality - got anything credible to cite?
> > This claim appears to be in contradiction with your above assertion of
> > how the Wealthy is "above" the pain current economic problems.
>
> You don't understand that credit is easier in the States where macs sell
> the most than in France, Finland, Russia, China, India, etc.? If so, I'm
> afraid it would be impossible to explain anything to you.
Actually, what I'm pointing out is that the "wealthy" don't need to
borrow money to buy a computer. As such, your point has no particular
relevance.
> > News flash: "Easy Money" ended 18 months ago.
>
> It's still way too easy.
And Apple sales are for some reason UP. Gosh, maybe its because their
customer base doesn't need to finance a $1K purchase...?
> >> William Clarck wrote:
>
> >>> Do BMW and Mercedes have any problems selling cars? No.
>
> >> I answered:
>
> >> Please, don't compare BMW and Apple! BMW wouldn't buy from the likes of
> >> Lucky Goldstar. They don't manufacture in cheap Chinese sweatshops.
>
> > News Flash: BMW has a factory in China, making 3 Series. However,
> > due to quality concerns, these cars aren't exported into the Western
> > markets, unless you want to consider South Africa to be part of the
> > West.
>
> Oops! One day they'll import them. How does that explain that Jooby is
> not screwing you?
Ooops...you didn't know what BMW's doing in China and stupidly
initiated Ad Hominem attacks instead of honestly answering the
question.
> Read my answers fo JF Mezei in csms.
No, because that wasn't here - - and I'm not interested in trying to
go Google it.
As the writer, it is your responsibility to make it easy - - not hard
- - for your readers.
> I proved this tens of times.
And I'm of English Royal Blood; proved it while I was at Stonehenge
earlier this month. Want to see a photo?
> You just want to make me lose my time.
Actually, I was somewhat interested in your comments to see if they
had any merit.
Unfortunately, you failed, since all it appears is that you believe
that Apple products are a rip-off and that it is somehow Steve Job's
fault that the UK has a hefty import tariff on top of its VAT, etc,
etc. The only thing that I can offer to make it up to you is that the
next time that I'm staying in downtown London at the Strand, I'll tell
you that its OK for you to swing by so that I can give you one of the
discount coupons they hand out :-)
-hh
Priam
> How "solid" is their ABI? Can you take a device driver targeted at
> 2.6.0 and use it for 2.6.32 without a recompile?
Unfortunately, I'm afraid that porting device drivers to years old
kernels is not a priority. Given the numerus security updates and the
addition of numerous kernel modules, it is instead suggested to update.
Isn't it weird?
OTOH, contrary to OS X, efforts are directed towards providing support
to computers that are more than 3 years old.
For instance, the 2.4 series which began on 04-Jan-2001 23:45 is still
updated. Last update was on 02-Dec-2008 08:13.
Best regards!
Now, buzz off.
Maurice
"Fa-groon" <fa-g...@mad.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C7626630...@news.giganews.com...
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:37:24 -0800, Maurice wrote
> (in article <jQ8%m.91$%P5...@newsfe21.iad>):
>
>>
>> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
>> news:alangbaker-8197D...@news.shawcable.com...
>>> In article <_O6%m.158$rL7...@newsfe23.iad>,
>>> "Maurice" <Mauric...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> <snip long string of replies for brevity>
>
>>> But the point is that Apple is *more* successful financially than Dell
>>> et al. That pretty much shoots down the idea that the costs of an OS are
>>> a problem.
>>
>> Microsoft is much more successful than Apple. They have much greater
>> sales,
>> and they make much more profit per dollar than Apple.
>
> Are you sure about that, or are you just guessing, zara?
Oh I'm positive about that. I would bet the ranch on it, George.
>
>> And if you think that the costs to develop an OS are minimal, then you
>> are
>> far more stupid than I originally thought.
>
> He didn't say that the costs were minimal. Please try to keep up.
What you clipped: "That pretty much shoots down the idea that the costs of
an OS are
a problem."
The implication is fairly clear. The question to ask; Where is OSXI?
Maurice
AH! More goalpost movement.
Maurice
Are you having a problem with that? Maybe you don't know what you're doing.
No one I know seems to have an issue. Do you even run a PC with Windows? I
sincerely doubt it.
Maurice
"Priam" <pr...@notsosure.com> wrote in message
news:hhj889$gjo$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Haven't you noticed how the MacFreaks ignore this subject completely?
Chance Furlong
"Maurice" <Mauric...@aol.com> wrote:
> How is Sun doing these days? What about Silicon Graphics?
What about them?
KDT
> "KDT" <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Rght so when you ty to run a program written for DOS that wants direct
access to the hardware Windows just let's it work? On every PC I have
(a Sony, a Dell, and a Toshiba), if I try to use a DOS program that
needs to run full screen I get an error "This system does not support
full screen mode".
Fa-groon
(in article <iHn%m.570$ap2...@newsfe18.iad>):
The question to ask, zara, is when is Microsoft going to stop repackaging NT
over and over and over and over again and retire that tired and ancient
kludge in favor of a really innovative, modern and useful OS? The answer to
your same old zara question, the one that you and every one of your socks has
asked time and and time again, is that there will likely NEVER be an OS
ELEVEN, because OSX is not a version number but an OS NAME.
Maurice
"Chance Furlong" <T-B...@megakatcity.com> wrote in message
news:T-Bone-119B1E....@news.giganews.com...
You're asking the wrong troll. It's KDT's question, Dumb Fuck.
Maurice
I don't have that problem. And I'm running several very old custom DOS apps
and a few very old "off the shelf" DOS apps that I like. Both on XP and WIN
7.
Maurice
So what is 10.6.5? Everything written says it's a version number. What
planet are you currently residing on?
BWAHAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Lloyd Parsons
"Maurice" <Mauric...@aol.com> wrote:
Ah, I see english is your second language.... :)
10.6.5 IS a version number, the NAME of the OS is OSX.
KDT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Press Alt-Enter at the CMD prompt and see what happens.
http://www.agigames.com/forum/index.php?topic=10585.0
http://www.experts-exchange.com/Gamers/Computer_Games/DOS/Q_24081206.html
and so on.......
Tim Murray
> ...there will likely NEVER be an OS ELEVEN, because OSX is not
Actually trademark is pronounced oh ess ten.
Maurice
http://www.agigames.com/forum/index.php?topic=10585.0
http://www.experts-exchange.com/Gamers/Computer_Games/DOS/Q_24081206.html
and so on.......
I doesn't matter what those links link to. I don't have a problem and
neither does anyone else I know who is running old DOS apps.
KDT
> Press Alt-Enter at the CMD prompt and see what happens.
>
> http://www.howtogeek.com/forum/topic/this-system-does-not-support-ful...
>
> http://www.agigames.com/forum/index.php?topic=10585.0
>
> http://www.experts-exchange.com/Gamers/Computer_Games/DOS/Q_24081206....
>
> and so on.......
>
> I doesn't matter what those links link to. I don't have a problem and
> neither does anyone else I know who is running old DOS apps.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Have you tried running any DOS app that requires full screen mode or
that requires direct access to the hardware?
Quadibloc
> The implication is fairly clear. The question to ask; Where is OSXI?
System 7, System 8, and System 9 were all successive releases of the
same operating system.
But since OS X was a completely new operating system, even though it
had the next number after System 9 - X being, as you note, the Roman
numeral for ten - naturally, Apple is worried that people might get
the idea that OS XI, if they came out with it, might be _incompatible_
with OS X. So, they're designating the new releases as dot releases
instead to prevent this confusion.
It doesn't mean that the successive releases of OS X haven't contained
significant improvements and added functionality.
I mean, I suppose that Apple _could_ have followed OS X 10.1 with
System '02 (10.0.2, Jaguar), then My Macintosh (10.3, Panther), then
Macintosh Really Good Performance (10.4, Tiger) and then Macintosh
Horizon (10.5, Leopard), and then Macintosh System 11 (10.6, Snow
Leopard). But why would you want them to imitate the other guys?
John Savard
Steve Hix
Tim Murray <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote:
And yet, it is still the name of the product, not its number.
Maurice
A few posts up I said:, "I don't have that problem. And I'm running several
very old custom DOS apps
and a few very old "off the shelf" DOS apps that I like. Both on XP and WIN
7.
Are you desperately trying to extend this thread?
Maybe it's all the clipping you're doing.
Possibly you are confusing yourself . Your quotes are broke. That's why
Jimmy answered me instead of you.
I'm fatigued . You are boring me into a coma.
Fa-groon
(in article <lloydparsons-EA72...@port80.individual.net>):
He IS an idiot, isn't he?
KDT
> "KDT" <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Right... *my quotes* are broken when *you* reply. I see you couldn't
answer the question. What happens when you press alt-enter from a
command prompt and try to go full screen?
Steve de Mena
> On every PC I have
> (a Sony, a Dell, and a Toshiba), if I try to use a DOS program that
> needs to run full screen I get an error "This system does not support
> full screen mode".
That is a big problem for those that require that. It broke in Vista.
I'd probably try running Windows XP under Virtual PC, Fusion,
Parallels or VMWare Workstation and see if it works.
Steve
Steve de Mena
> On every PC I have
> (a Sony, a Dell, and a Toshiba), if I try to use a DOS program that
> needs to run full screen I get an error "This system does not support
> full screen mode".
>
> I don't have that problem. And I'm running several very old custom DOS apps
> and a few very old "off the shelf" DOS apps that I like. Both on XP and WIN
> 7.
Maurice,
Full Screen command prompt functionality was removed starting in
Windows Vista.
Steve
Steve de Mena
Alt-Enter doesn't do anything on my Windows 7 machine.
Steve
Maurice
"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:39659fca-269c-4be6...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 1, 7:31 am, "Maurice" <Maurice504...@aol.com> wrote:
> The implication is fairly clear. The question to ask; Where is OSXI?
System 7, System 8, and System 9 were all successive releases of the
same operating system.
But since OS X was a completely new operating system, even though it
had the next number after System 9 - X being, as you note, the Roman
numeral for ten - naturally, Apple is worried that people might get
the idea that OS XI, if they came out with it, might be _incompatible_
with OS X. So, they're designating the new releases as dot releases
instead to prevent this confusion.
They are termed "upgrades" - by everyone.
Maurice
What happens when you try to run Snow Leopard on a three year old PPC Mac?
Tim Murray
Yes, upgrades. (I figure you meant "update" but effed up as usual.) And I
fixed your quotes.
KDT
Weren't we talking about running old programs on newer systems?
The last PPC based Mac was officially terminated in August 2006, so
there is no such thing as a PPC based Mac that is only three years
old. Even the Mac Mini would be faster than any PPC Mac except for the
dual-dual core G5.
Maurice
A three year old system is considerd "newer".
The last PPC based Mac was officially terminated in August 2006, so
there is no such thing as a PPC based Mac that is only three years
old.
People have purchased them less than three years ago.
Even the Mac Mini would be faster than any PPC Mac except for the
dual-dual core G5.
Except, if, maybe, I think.
So you are now apologizing for Apple for obsoleting them?
KDT
1. You said what about three year old PPC based Macs? -- there is no
such thing as a three year old PPC based Mac.
2. So exactly what features is a G5 user missing by not having SL?
3. Anyone who bought a G5 based Mac after August 2006 knew they were
buying a discontinued computer. Apple didn't announce SL would only
run on Intel based Macs until 2008 but Adobe, Microsoft, Quark, etc.
all announced that the next version of their software would be Intel
only by then.
4. In 2010, if you want to replace your G5 Mac with something faster,
you can buy a $600 Mini (unless you were one of the few people who
bought a dual-dual G5 after they were discontinued).
Tim Murray
> Tim Murray <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote:
>
>> Fa-groon wrote:
>>> ...there will likely NEVER be an OS ELEVEN, because OSX is not
>>> a version number but an OS NAME.
>>
>> Actually trademark is pronounced oh ess ten.
>
> And yet, it is still the name of the product, not its number.
Steve Jobs pronounced it ex a few times when it was announced, but he (and
other Apple folks such as Phil) have been calling it ten in the keynotes for
quite a long time. I kinda think Steve and Phil would be saying ex if that's
what it is supposed to be.
Atrazine
Yes - they were sold for as long as two years after Apple obsoleted them.
That only make them two years old at this date.
Also, to answer my own question: Yes, Fanboy, you are apologizing for Apple
for obsoleting them.
Imagine, a less than three year old computer almost useless.
Alan Baker
"Atrazine" <Bella...@maccieland.com> wrote:
Well done, Atrazine/Maurice/Zara: you just outed yourself again.
The question you answered you asked as Maurice.
--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)
Snit
2:42 PM:
Is anyone still waiting for the vii editor?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Maurice
Sorry, I was using someone else's computer. Does that nullify that less than
three year old Macs are obsolete?
Keep in mind, if they don't run Snow Leopard, the latest Mac OS, then they
are obsolete.
Fa-groon
(in article <alangbaker-48E5A...@news.shawcable.com>):
There had to be a point where zara simply could not keep up with so many
socks. It's a liar's burden, keeping his stories straight.
Tim Murray
>
> Sorry, I was using someone else's computer.
Riiiight.
KDT
So you could buy a new G5 from Apple in 2008?
>
> Also, to answer my own question: Yes, Fanboy, you are apologizing for Apple
> for obsoleting them.
>
> Imagine, a less than three year old computer almost useless.
Yeah just imagine a computer sold as Vista capable that could not run
Vista.....
David Fritzinger
> 1. You said what about three year old PPC based Macs? -- there is no
> such thing as a three year old PPC based Mac.
> 2. So exactly what features is a G5 user missing by not having SL?
> 3. Anyone who bought a G5 based Mac after August 2006 knew they were
> buying a discontinued computer. Apple didn't announce SL would only
> run on Intel based Macs until 2008 but Adobe, Microsoft, Quark, etc.
> all announced that the next version of their software would be Intel
> only by then.
>
> 4. In 2010, if you want to replace your G5 Mac with something faster,
> you can buy a $600 Mini (unless you were one of the few people who
> bought a dual-dual G5 after they were discontinued).
>
> Yes - they were sold for as long as two years after Apple obsoleted them.
> That only make them two years old at this date.
Do you want to supply evidence for this rather amazing claim?
<crickets>
>
> Also, to answer my own question: Yes, Fanboy, you are apologizing for Apple
> for obsoleting them.
>
> Imagine, a less than three year old computer almost useless.
Almost useless? I am typing this on a 4 year old G5 iMac, which seems to
be running just fine. I can run all the software I need on it, including
MS Office (I use 2004, but 2008 would also run), MacPyMol, MacVector,
iWork, EndNote, Canvas, Mail, Groupwise, etc. Seems pretty useful to
me.
Maurice
Just imagine a brand new iMac 27 loaded with the latest software that
doesn't work. Then imagine thousands more.
End of conversation.
Steve Hix
Tim Murray <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote:
Mac OS Ten is the name, not the number, and how it's pronounced.
For those who might forget that X is the roman notation for the number
10.
Fa-groon
(in article <dfritzin-8B347E...@mail.eternal-september.org>):
And, indeed it is. This charge of older Macs being useless is from the same
Wintrolls who defend MS' insistence that Windows be able to run every piece
of software since DOS 1.0 irrespective of how it holds the platform back.
Steve de Mena
> Yeah just imagine a computer sold as Vista capable that could not run
> Vista.....
No such thing. Proof?
Steve