http://www.thinksecret.com/news/itoolsdotmac.html

I bet Microsoft will copy Apple again and come up with something like... ".NET"

''"I was shocked, to say the least," said one Mac developer who spoke with Think Secret on the condition of anonymity. "Can we possibly get used to this new, very confusing name?"''

Yes that dot before the name of the computer makes this very confusing.

fewt bring Victor back =)

LOL! You assume I even know who he is! (I don't)

I am a PC person, have been since it's inception. I have learned and used every version of every piece of software that MS has released. As with all things human, there is always some good, and some bad. Unfortunately, the bad is now rather obvious. And that's a shame because their products are probably as good as they have ever been. And since I earn my living fixing MS problems I have had to keep up, or be left behind.

So, in the interst of keeping up I have numerous machines all running various different Operating Systems. All of the alternatives run on a Wintel platform, excpet OS X. I bought a new Mac to do that and it was expensive. But I have no regrets either.

Windows is a rich environment, the juggernaut has amassed an incredible array of software that no other OS can lay claim to. Is any of it "best" of class? I can offer only an opinion that really doesn't matter. Those who are mission crtical perhaps know, or at least have an opinion.

But since OS X is a Unix derivative it also should be able to claim a very diverse software library. If you count all uniux code, yes. If you count all carbonized unix apps, no. But the apps that are there are very adequate.

Apple has done a good job. The OS is very stable and has never crashed for me. Every X application I have runs smoothly. I have not had to read anything to figure out how it all works and all of my devices work as expected.

Interesting considering I must dual-boot my XP machine because my one year old Canon G1 digital camera is not supported in that environment. Canon claims otherwise, but I gave up trying to implement their solution after a day of frustration. On the Mac, I plugged in the USB cable and everything worked with no user intervention required. No drivers, software or fiddling around required.

Have I had any troubles with X, well it was a little awkward getting the MAC to talk to my Windows server, but, as with all things, once the trick is discovered it's easy. What don't I like about it? Well, as I said, it was a little expensive...

Have I switched, NO. That wouldn't be very realistic. Would I switch, NO. I am becoming platform independant and consider both to be worthy systems for pretty much any task.

Bottom line ... is political. I really don't like large corporations that clearly do not have my best interests at heart. I do not like intrusive methods that rely increasingly on legal mumbo-jumbo. Ever tried to comprehend any current MS EULA's? I'll bet that if you undertood it, you are a contract attorney. Do I need to have my attorney review this crap and advise me? Nope. If I can't understand it, I can't have it. These things give me the creeps.

Since I am still newish to Apple, I am prepared to give them the benefit of doubt. Only time will tell if that trust will be misplaced.

I rate OS X to be slightly advanced over XP but neither are great or horrible. Both are still new. Give em a few years. Maybe MS will come to their senses and return to the old ways. If not they are at risk of becoming the runner up.

But Apple has nothing to loose(5%market) so has boldly gone where no one has gone before. A very solid OS with a superb GUI for interface, now we wait to see if it catches on.

If you are in doubt, try it. It's rather nice. If you are not wealthy, stick to Windows, it's cheaper.

On Dec. 13, 2001, Tim O'Reilly wrote in his weblog:
(http://www.oreillynet.com/cs/user/view/wlg/956)

"Microsoft patents "Digital Rights Management Operating System"

The patent abstract: "A digital rights management operating system protects rights-managed data, such as downloaded content, from access by untrusted programs while the data is loaded into memory or on a page file as a result of the execution of a trusted application that accesses the memory. To protect the rights-managed data resident in memory, the digital rights management operating system refuses to load an untrusted program into memory while the trusted application is executing or removes the data from memory before loading the untrusted program. If the untrusted program executes at the operating system level, such as a debugger, the digital rights management operating system renounces a trusted identity created for it by the computer processor when the computer was booted. To protect the rights-managed data on the page file, the digital rights management operating system prohibits raw access to the page file, or erases the data from the page file before allowing such access. Alternatively, the digital rights management operating system can encrypt the rights-managed data prior to writing it to the page file. The digital rights management operating system also limits the functions the user can perform on the rights-managed data and the trusted application, and can provide a trusted clock used in place of the standard computer clock." Need I say more?

He also provides a URL to several analyses of Palladium:
http://cryptome.org/ms-drm-os.htm

And from http://www.epic.org/priv...icrosoft/palladium.html

"The known elements of the Microsoft DRM system will control users and limit the abilities of computers. Microsoft has obtained approval for two patents (Digital Rights Management Operating System, No. 6,330,670 and Loading and Identifying a Digital Rights Management Operating System, No. 6,327,652) in December 2001 that contained many of the basic elements of Palladium. These patents provide the blueprints for the Palladium system--a system that establishes trust through control."

CONTROL. Remote. Trustworthy. Microsoft. LOL

Blue pill, or red pill?

I had insinuated that Microsoft was up to no good with .NET and Palladium, which are sometime in our computing future.

I was WRONG! If you recently downloaded and installed the latest security patch for Windows Media Player, you may have already been "rooted" by none other than Microsoft itself:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25956.html

How does it feel to have THEM poking around your disk? LOL

For those who are too lazy to read the article linked to in the above post, here's the most relevant paragraph:

"Microsoft has just assumed the right to attack your computer and surreptitiously install code of its choosing. You will not be warned; you will not be offered an opportunity examine the download or refuse it. MS will simply connect remotely and install what it will, or install it secretly when you contact them."

Move along, nothing to see here... LOL

Is Windows a Virus?

McAfee-Question : Is Windows a virus ?

No, Windows is not a virus. Here's what viruses do:

1. They replicate quickly - okay, Windows does that.

2. Viruses use up valuable system resources, slowing down the system as they do so - okay, Windows does that.

3. Viruses will, from time to time, trash your hard disk - okay, Windows does that too.

4. Viruses are usually carried, unknown to the user, along with valuable programs and systems. Sigh... Windows does that, too.

5. Viruses will occasionally make the user suspect their system is too slow (see 2) and the user will buy new hardware. Yup, that's with Windows, too.

Until now it seems Windows is a virus but there are fundamental differences: Viruses are well supported by their authors, are running on most systems, their program code is fast, compact and efficient and they tend to become more sophisticated as they mature.

So Windows is not a virus.

It's a bug.

LOL

Found at http://www.elsop.com/wrc/humor/bill_mic.htm

That's almost as funny yet not quite as accurate as:

M)achine
A)lways
C)rashes
I)f
N)ot
T)he
O)perating
S)ystem
H)angs

I can tell from your riposte that you have not used MacOS X for any significant length of time. I've used every version of Windows, from 1.0 on an original IBM PC XT to XP Pro on a dual-PIII custom-built workstation, so I have the empirical basis to make comparisons between those platforms. And you?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25966.html

Since when does a company with less than 5% of the market qualify as a monopolist? Even if further development of Logic Audio for Windows is discontinued, there is always Steinberg Cubase, Digidesign Protools, and Cakewalk, all of which have substantial market share on Windows. Apple's buyout of one company (among many that produce the same type of software), whose existing customer base is more than 65% Macintosh, and whose products were delayed in being ported to MacOS X, is a survival tactic -- to ensure its continued existence in a crucial niche market that might otherwise be lost to Windows as well. MS has no problems dominating ANY market category it wishes to, it only has problems letting anyone else share the playing field.

If you can't make the too-fine distinction between a twice-convicted predatory monopolist with 95% of the market, and a niche computer vendor with less than 5%, you are possibly more seriously deluded than I thought.

If at this juncture you still can't see that the choice ultimately boils down to

1. Subsidize a twice-convicted predatory monopolist with 95% of the market and no end in sight to its desire to control the Internet through Palladium, .NET, Smart Tags, etc.

2. Do NOT subsidize a twice-convicted predatory monopolist by using Linux, MacOS X, or some other non-Microsoft OS

then no amount of evidence, logical reasoning, or moral persuasion will suffice. So go on and continue subsidizing a predatory monopolist if you like, just don't expect the 5% who know better to think much of your reasoning ability.

I never said they qualified as a monopolist, those are your words not mine. I simply stated that Apple (seems) to be adopting MS-style tactics.... buy out company, cut out all other platforms from the distribution list.

"If you can't make the too-fine distinction between a twice-convicted predatory monopolist with 95% of the market, and a niche computer vendor with less than 5%, you are possibly more seriously deluded than I thought."

Tell me something, would you have remained quiet if it had been Microsoft doing this? I somehow doubt it, but yet you warrant your hypocrisy with the belief that determining wether or not an act is right or wrong depends on who is doing it! Apple are doing a 'bad' thing here, it is irrelevant how much market share they have! And you complain about my reasoning ability! ha!

The flipside of this that Mr. 'kabuki' does not seem to be willing to share with our readership (perhaps he is ignorant of it) is that, back in the 1980's, Microsoft deliberately began to design its operating systems in such a way that application software from other vendors would NOT function properly, which led to the famous (or infamous) slogan "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run."

This was around 1985! SEVENTEEN YEARS AGO!

See
http://lists.essential.o...icy-notes/msg00020.html for background reading.

Has Microsoft changed its tactics since then?

Nope.

In the earlier phase of the current MS antitrust trial, MS representatives told Apple to "knife the baby" (QuickTime) as reported in this 1998 BBC story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi...ewsid_210000/210650.stm

THIS is the type of company that Mr. 'kabuki' would like to support: a predatory monopolist with 95% of the market, that wishes to foist the odious Palladium on us all by "embracing and extending" TCP/IP itself:

http://www.zdnet.com/anc...0,10738,2873149,00.html

In contrast, Apple (by no means perfect) at least seems to be embracing some open standards (surely not for altruistic reasons, but for survival, since it has such a small share of the market), and is also making some valuable proprietary technology it has developed (FireWire, ZeroConfig -- auto-discovery of TCP/IP services, QuickTime) available across multiple platforms -- FOR FREE.

MS-style tactics? By what STRETCH of the imagination?

You're grasping at straws, Mr. 'kabuki'. Try again.

If I come across as arrogant, it's because I'm passionately committed to the truth -- to discovering it, proclaiming it, and defending it from obfuscation by those who confuse truth with mere "opinions".

"Tell me something, would you have remained quiet if it had been Microsoft doing this? I somehow doubt it, but yet you warrant your hypocrisy with the belief that determining wether or not an act is right or wrong depends on who is doing it!"

If MS did something like this -- and why would they have to? They dominate most other categories of software already.

I did not say what Apple is doing is 'right'. I said it was an act of survival. Do the ends justify the means? If your family were starving, would you steal a loaf of bread?

You said:
"Apple are doing a 'bad' thing here, it is irrelevant how much market share they have! And you complain about my reasoning ability! ha!"

Have you heard of the term "mitigating circumstances"? If you failed to see how they apply in this case, I will be generous and assume it is due to some form of naivete. And if you fail to grasp what the specific "mitigating circumstances" are, let me spell them out for you:

Steinberg Cubase, Digidesign Protools, and Cakewalk ALL have healthy market share in this software category. Apple is NOT DESTROYING competition by dropping further development for Logic Audio on Windows and then GIVING AWAY Logic Audio for MacOS. They may reduce the price of Logic Audio, but that would depend on what they think the market will bear, in a competitive market that will remain very competitive for the forseeable future regardless of what Apple does. For Apple's acquisition to qualify as "MS-style" (in the substantively appropriate sense of the term, not in the distantly related sense that you seem to impute), Apple would have to

(a) buy out Steinberg, Digidesign, AND Cakewalk
(b) make Logic Audio file formats incompatible with OMF and other cross-platform/cross-application technologies
(c) "embrace and extend" MIDI so that it only worked on Macs

And you, sir, by attempting to equate a small transgressor's survival tactics with the competition destroying predations of a behemoth on a moral plane, have committed both the hypocrisy and disingenuousness of saying, in effect:

"Stealing is stealing regardless of how much is stolen, and regardless of who does it, and why. Period, end of story."

There. I believe I have amply demonstrated how limited your MORAL reasoning ability is.

"buy out company, cut out all other platforms from the distribution list."

You know, you can't even get this one right. Here's MS style tactics for you, aka Monopoly 101:

1. Integrate key software components into core OS so that removal of components becomes difficult if not impossible; such components must displace or interfere with components of a similar nature from competing software vendors and even from Intel itself (DirectX, undocumented Win32 APIs, WMA)

In contrast, Apple and Real signed a gentleman's agreement not to interfere with each other's media players, and Real and Apple appear to both be supporting MPEG-4 going forward, as well as Macromedia Flash, etc., while MS wants to shut out everyone else from Windows Media

2. Use such integration and appropriate product bundling arrangements or giveaways to undercut all other existing products in the same market category (MS Money, MS IE)

Meanwhile, Apple licensed its in-house font technology, TrueType, to Microsoft -- which must have angered Adobe, one of Apple's key independent software developers and a leading digital type foundry -- Apple was possibly retaliating for Adobe's decision to give Windows development priority to certain applications that were crucial to preventing further erosion of Apple's small market share (Premiere, Acrobat)

3. Buy market leader in a given software category and RAISE prices once ALL other competition has been destroyed or rendered irrelevant (MS Visio)

In contrast, Apple bundles selected shareware titles from small software vendors with its consumer and pro computers, and promotes these vendors on their website; its purchase of Emagic and planned discontinuation of further development on the Windows version does not change the competitive position on Windows of Steinberg Cubase, Digidesign Pro Tools, or Cakewalk SONAR. It may change the competitive position of Pro Tools, which is currently the leading DAW in the film industry, but that is yet to be seen.

Consider the situation with FileMaker, which was also from an independent SW company, or with ClariWorks. Both titles are available for Macintosh and Windows. It is in Apple's economic interest to offer both versions because of the size of the market on each platform. It is likely not in Apple's economic interest to continue supporting Windows users on a software product that was already mostly Mac-based. The same thing happened when Apple acquired NeXT -- Apple stopped developing OpenSTEP (Intel based), but WebObjects is still supported on Win2K, Solaris, and MacOS X.

The list goes on, but if by this time you still don't 'get it' then no matter how exhaustively detailed the list gets, YOU WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND.

What's that you were saying about my reasoning ability? LOL

"its purchase of Emagic and planned discontinuation of further development on the Windows version does not change the competitive position on Windows of Steinberg Cubase, Digidesign Pro Tools, or Cakewalk SONAR."

On second thought, Apple's discontinuation of Logic Audio on Windows, if anything, ENHANCES the competitive position of Cubase, Pro Tools, and SONAR -- on Windows! Well, duh!

I think I will go take my medication now... ;-)

"If I come across as arrogant"... It's because you are.

Did I ever say that Microsoft have never done anything of the sort? What the hell did you think "Apple adopting MS-style tactics" meant exactly? If they're adopting their tactics it obviously means that Microsoft has previously done similar things! So there is no stretch of the imagination, don't let your hatred of Microsoft cloud your views of what people have and have not said! All you seem to do is continually assume that I am in some way supporting everything that Microsoft does ... where have I said anything to that affect?

As for open standards, last time I checked several components of .NET were submitted to the standards board, which is a lot more than can be said for Sun and Java. That of course is not to say that Microsoft aren't doing this to benefit themselves, of course they are, they have a lot of shareholders that expect them to make more money.

Get off your high horse, I'm not supporting Microsoft but I am not running around like a headless chook whinging about Microsoft!

"I did not say what Apple is doing is 'right'."
You didn't say it was wrong either and that is what i was getting at. If you were unbiast you would have admitted that what Apple are doing is wrong and most likely give reasons for why they did what they did.

"If your family were starving, would you steal a loaf of bread?"
Is it not theft because I stole it for a 'good reason'? Is it ok to commit murder for a 'good reason'? Morally speaking it is not. Legally speaking I guess it depends on how good your lawyers are!

"Have you heard of the term "mitigating circumstances"? If you failed to see how they apply in this case, I will be generous and assume it is due to some form of naivete. And if you fail to grasp what the specific "mitigating circumstances" are, let me spell them out for you:"
And you have the nerve to call anyone else arrogant?

''"Stealing is stealing regardless of how much is stolen, and regardless of who does it, and why. Period, end of story."
There. I believe I have amply demonstrated how limited your MORAL reasoning ability is.''
So stealing depends on how much you steal, who does it and why they do it? ... So if I go and steal a few cents from a Bank each day because my family is poor, that isn't stealing? After all, I'm not stealing very much and I have a 'good reason' for doing it! I wonder how far that would go in the REAL WORLD!

"If I come across as arrogant"... It's because you are"

Did I not say as much in the subject line "Why Victor is such an Arrogant Prick", or did that escape your notice, too, like so much else in the long history of Microsoft's business philosophy, of which Palladium is just the most recent manifestation? Do you remember 'Smart Tags'?

LOL

I said:
""I did not say what Apple is doing is 'right'."

You argued:
You didn't say it was wrong either and that is what i was getting at. If you were unbiast you would have admitted that what Apple are doing is wrong and most likely give reasons for why they did what they did.

I gave it a great deal of thought. And to be sure, there is no such thing as complete lack of bias -- unless you're dead or in a coma.

If similar titles exist in the same category, with similar feature sets, and competition is not being removed from the marketplace, then the decision to support a user community on a particular platform is dictated by (a) availability of resources for continued development (b) expected return on investment. Apple, being one of the few truly vertically-integrated computer companies (Sun and SGI are two others), takes on a significant support requirement, and given the diversity of PC hardware, for possibly a small ROI it may not be worth the investment (I am obviously not privy to the financials). Sure, it loses the goodwill and very likely the business of Logic Audio users on Windows -- they may all very well jump ship to Cubase, Pro Tools, or SONAR -- but that is a calculated risk Apple may or may not choose to mitigate through aggressive platform crossgrades, combined with rebates on Apple hardware. If they're smart, that's the route they'll take. If they're dumb (and they have done some pretty boneheaded things, it's a wonder they're still around after such mismanagement -- must be the products are good), they'll just let all the existing Logic Audio Windows users go over to the competition (which, as I've said, is not going away).

"Is it not theft because I stole it for a 'good reason'? Is it ok to commit murder for a 'good reason'? Morally speaking it is not."

Then there is no such thing as a just war, is there? When Adolf Hitler's army was exterminating millions of Jews, it was not morally acceptable to murder the SS and the Gestapo, by your oh-so-precious reasoning.

"And you have the nerve to call anyone else arrogant?"

I have LOTS of nerve. LOL

Facing down armed government thugs does that to you.

I apologize...you're not arrogant. I can tell from your posts that you're naive -- or disingenuous.

"So if I go and steal a few cents from a Bank each day because my family is poor, that isn't stealing? After all, I'm not stealing very much and I have a 'good reason' for doing it! I wonder how far that would go in the REAL WORLD!"

*chuckle*

You should perhaps consider moving to certain countries, where they cut off your hands for stealing regardless of whether you stole a 10-carat diamond or a loaf of stale bread. Seems that such an inflexible sense of "justice" and fairness accords with your own. LOL

Your intent in posting "Apple adopting MS-style tactics" is, to my (no doubt) jaundiced eye, an attempt to discredit Apple as a viable and worthy alternative to MS, under the pretence of journalistic balance. Given that Windows already has 95% of the PC market, what possible "balance" can we deduce from any attempt to preserve the status quo "move along, nothing to see here" or eliminate ALL competition by equating the 5% niche player with the 95% monopolist?

Orwellian Newspeak is alive and well in our time:

http://www.around.com/microspeak.html

"I am not running around like a headless chook whinging about Microsoft!"

That's because you're (pick one or more)
A) naive
B) ignorant
C) complacent
D) lazy

and I'm an arrogant prick -- but a well-read one, LOL

You may or may not be well-read, but you're definetely not very well informed if your quotes and backup's come from such reliable news sources as The Register!!!

Now look who's whining like a headless chook -- it's like the pot calling the kettle black. In case you didn't notice, your own little clever item about "Apple adopting MS-style tactics" is from none other than The Register as well.

In other words, when it's YOU who are citing The Register, that particular source is deemed trustworthy. When it's me, then the source isn't trustworthy. Well, bright boy, which one is it, then?

Face it: you're in MASSIVE DENIAL about the liabilities of running Windows, and you can't stand to have it pointed out to you. LOL

"you're definetely not very well informed if your quotes and backup's come from such reliable news sources as The Register!!!"

And MIT Technology Review, and the U.S. Federal Government Computer News, and Wired, and the Consumer Project on Technology, and.... do you want me to go on, or is your humiliation at this point not yet enough? LOL

I'm sorry... where did I mention that the news source I used was trustworthy? oh that's right, I didn't... you just made that up, I mean 'assumed'. I saw that on another web site and thought it was ironicle/funny so I cut and pasted it. You never argued the matter or asked me to produce a trustworthy source of information.

"Face it: you're in MASSIVE DENIAL about the liabilities of running Windows"
Please stop making things up, assuming, or whatever else it is that you do when you're not busy posting comments here, at times to yourself. I never said anything about the lack of or amount of liabilities of running Windows. I don't have any liabilities as a result.... if you do... that's you're issue... deal with it.

What are you going to make up next? Is it so unbelievable to you that someone could not like OS X? In that case you better go and tell your story to the author of this story... I'm sure you'll be able to recognise the source =) http://www.theregister.c...tent/archive/23531.html

"I gave it a great deal of thought."

So much thought and yet no response on wether what they did was right or wrong, interesting.

"Then there is no such thing as a just war, is there? When Adolf Hitler's army was exterminating millions of Jews, it was not morally acceptable to murder the SS and the Gestapo, by your oh-so-precious reasoning."

Please tell me that you're a little smarter than this! Your comparison makes no sense! Surely you realise that every action has a consequence! If you steal, you will be punished for it. If you kill someone, you will be punished for it. If you go out and kill million of Jews in some of the most horrific ways, other people will 'punish' you for it. And hopefully you're well aware of the fact that during wars morals usually take second place. Let's use another example, let's say you have a daughter who is one day kidnapped, beaten and raped. The authorities find the person responsible and you take matters into your own hands and kill that person. According to you, what you did was completely just as you did it with 'good reason', and a lot of people would be thinking that the person got 'what they deserved'. I think you'll find that you will be punished for your action because what you did was wrong, regardless of what you think. And just remember what Ghandi said "if everyone follows the principle 'an eye for an eye', we would all be blind".

"I have LOTS of nerve. LOL
Facing down armed government thugs does that to you."

Oh cry me a river!

"You should perhaps consider moving to certain countries, where they cut off your hands for stealing regardless of whether you stole a 10-carat diamond or a loaf of stale bread. Seems that such an inflexible sense of "justice" and fairness accords with your own. LOL "

In that case, care to point me to those countries where I can go and steal money from a Bank and not be punished for it? Thanks in advance!

"Your intent in posting "Apple adopting MS-style tactics" is, to my (no doubt) jaundiced eye, an attempt to discredit Apple as a viable and worthy alternative to MS"

There you go assuming again. No I actually posted it for two reasons. The first is that i knew it would get your blood boiling, the second is that I thought it was ironicle and funny that Apple are doing similar things to those that Microsoft did/does? yet no-one says anything, because it's not Microsoft.

"Given that Windows already has 95% of the PC market, what possible "balance" can we deduce from any attempt to preserve the status quo "move along, nothing to see here" or eliminate ALL competition by equating the 5% niche player with the 95% monopolist?"

What does market share have to do with anything? If nothing but market share changed, would you no longer run around screaming about Microsoft? If Microsoft had 40% market share, would you complain as much as you do now?

"...back in the 1980's, Microsoft deliberately began to design its operating systems in such a way that application software from other vendors would NOT function properly..."

Care to back that up with a little proof? or any evidence at all?

Let's look at some of the more propular examples from the headlines:

Real accuses Microsoft of modifying Windows Media Player in such a way as to intentionally break Realplayer. Real files suit in court and trumpets it in the press. Independent sources prove that it is actually a bug in Realplayer. Real drops the suit and fixes the bug. They do not issue any statements of apology or clarification.

Apple accuses Microsoft of engineering XP in such a way as to intentionally break Quicktime. It becomes a staple at Apple press conferences. When the fact is brought to light that Apple failed to make application changes that Microsoft had documented for them 6 months previously, an Apple spokesperson countered "It's anti-competitive that they modified the OS in such a way that applications have to be modified to still run". When a reporter asked how that was any different from the fact that applications from OS 9 have to be rewritten to run on OS X the spokesperson "declined to answer".

"In contrast, Apple (by no means perfect) at least seems to be embracing some open standards..."

Apparently you failed to notice that Microsoft preceded Apple in that department by a LONG way.

"...and is also making some valuable proprietary technology it has developed (FireWire, ZeroConfig -- auto-discovery of TCP/IP services, QuickTime) available across multiple platforms -- FOR FREE."

This part is just a blatant lie. (or total ignorance)

Firewire, for example, is not free on ANY platform. Any hardware manufacturer that wants to use Firewire must pay a licensing fee.
http://news.com.com/2100...220209.html?legacy=cnet
http://www.1394la.com/

So much for having made Firewire available for FREE.

I had written
"...back in the 1980's, Microsoft deliberately began to design its operating systems in such a way that application software from other vendors would NOT function properly..."

You challenged:
Care to back that up with a little proof? or any evidence at all?

Try the ff. search terms in Google (use the quotes)
"Caldera vs. Microsoft"

or better yet, this editorial review on the book Hard Drive: Bill Gates and the Making of the Microsoft Empire

http://www.amazon.com/ex...292/104-1616331-0882321

Excerpt:
In the early 80's, Microsoft's Multiplan lost out to Lotus 1-2-3 in the marketplace. According to one Microsoft programmer, a few of the key people working on DOS 2.0 had a saying at the time that "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run." They managed to code a few hidden bugs into DOS 2.0 that caused Lotus 1-2-3 to breakdown when it was loaded. "There were as few as three or four people who knew this was being done," the employee said.

FEELING A LITTLE FOOLISH NOW?

You asserted:
"Firewire, for example, is not free on ANY platform. Any hardware manufacturer that wants to use Firewire must pay a licensing fee.
http://news.com.com/2100...9.html?legacy=cnet";

Your LINK, sir, is dated January 16, 1999. The LINK I gave in support of my statement is DATED MAY 30, 2002, or MORE THAN THREE YEARS NEWER THAN YOUR INFORMATION.

Here it is: http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/17997.html

Here is the RELEVANT PARAGRAPH, since you seem not to have noticed it the first time I posted it in this forum:

"In January 1999, to many companies' chagrin, Apple changed the licensing for FireWire to approximately US$1 per port. Companies that were licensing the technology threatened to drop the FireWire name and instead adopt the "1394" naming convention. After a firestorm of controversy, Apple altered its licensing scheme once again, reducing the fee from $1 per port to a far more reasonable 25 cents per device.

Now, the company has eliminated the fee altogether for companies that want to license the FireWire name for use with products that contain FireWire ports."

Not to be content with that, I went to the primary source itself, Apple's CURRENT Firewire license agreement:

http://developer.apple.com/mkt/swl/agreements.html

Here's what it says, VERBATIM:

"The FireWire Logo is an Apple trademark and must be licensed for use by third-parties. There is currently no licensing fee."

THERE! ARE YOU FEELING PRETTY S-T-U-P-I-D RIGHT ABOUT NOW?

Do you like dredging up STALE or OUTDATED information as "proof" of your FALSE statemtents, or do you just like being made to look FOOLISH on the Internet? LOL

"So much for having made Firewire available for FREE."

SO MUCH FOR YOUR PATHETIC RESEARCH ABILITIES. LOL

"I'm sorry... where did I mention that the news source I used was trustworthy? oh that's right, I didn't... you just made that up, I mean 'assumed'.... You never argued the matter or asked me to produce a trustworthy source of information."

I never argued the matter? In response to your initial post, I go into detail about WHAT "MS-style' tactics are like, based on (a) information in the public domain that dovetails with (b) inside information I have about projects that were killed, from working at PC vendors such as IBM, DEC, and Compaq.

DEC was, prior to the Compaq takeover, the closest partner Microsoft had. Why? Because Dave Cutler, the chief architect of Windows NT, had been the chief software architect of VAX/VMS, DEC's minicomputer operating system. Without boring you with the details, of which I'm quite certain you're not interested in anyway, DEC had a very promising hardware and software internal project that was killed by DEC senior management, not because the product was unlikely to be profitable, but because of pressure from none other than Microsoft.

Unless you have insider information of the same nature, YOU HAVEN'T GOT A LEG TO STAND ON AS FAR AS YOUR CREDIBILITY IN REFUTING THESE CLAIMS IS CONCERNED.

"I never said anything about the lack of or amount of liabilities of running Windows. I don't have any liabilities as a result.... if you do... that's you're issue... deal with it."

ST-ST-STAMMERING...FROM... LACK OF CREDIBILITY? LOL

"Is it so unbelievable to you that someone could not like OS X?"

GEE, LOOK WHO'S MAKING THINGS UP NOW1 LOL

Read my post -- I said there are things I could cite that Apple could do to make OS X BETTER. My premise, however, is that OS X is BETTER than Windows, and I have provided an abundance of information, including links to articles that show how defects in Windows (IIS, for example) have caused, insurance companies to raise LIABILITY rates for companies using it, and for the Gartner Group to advise their clients to move their web apps off IIS and use Apache instead. Apache is standard with OS X; IIS runs on Windows only. I grow tired of repeating the same information over and over again in this forum, and providing the URLs, which I make sure are UP TO DATEe, unlike some of the people who like to provide LINKS TO OUT OF DATE INFORMATION (you know who YOU are). If you can't be bothered to check your information for both accuracy AND timeliness, fine. Stay ignorant. LOL

"I think you'll find that you will be punished for your action because what you did was wrong, regardless of what you think. And just remember what Ghandi said "if everyone follows the principle 'an eye for an eye', we would all be blind".

The above just shows, as I have said before, how naive you are. I have worked and traveled in parts of the world where that particular notion of justice does not prevail. Peace and order are maintained through a system of organized terror -- the civil authorities deter crime by hunting down and executing offenders as a warning to others. While I absolutely decry such vigilante justice, I have also seen enough to understand why it is sometimes a "solution" people are willing to accept -- especially if the alternative is the total breakdown of social order due to banditry, terror, and civil unrest.

Oh, wait a minute, the description I gave above resembles what Microsoft is doing in a certain country, based on a personal e-mail I received not too long ago from the top-level domain admin, who was a former high school classmate of mine. Maybe that's why his entire organization is moving to Linux and StarOffice! LOL

"Oh cry me a river!"

Oh just spare me any pretence of comprehension. LOL

"In that case, care to point me to those countries where I can go and steal money from a Bank and not be punished for it? Thanks in advance!"

Yes. Mainland China. If I recall correctly, according to an official of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, who was interviewed for the book The Lexus and the Olive Tree, by Thomas Friedman, money that was transferred from their Hong Kong office to their Shanghai office did not show up for 21 days, and he believed that it was diverted by a Communist Party official for speculation and short-term investment. Did the official get punished? Of course not. That was the way "business" was conducted in THAT part of the world.

So, your "you will be punished for your action because what you did was wrong" depends on WHERE.

"Apple are doing similar things to those that Microsoft did/does? yet no-one says anything, because it's not Microsoft."

I have already pointed out that Apple is NOT destroying competition in that market segment. If it were, then it would have bought Steinberg, Digidesign, AND Cakewalk AND discontinued ALL Windows versions of the products made by those companies, effectively creating a MONOPOLY in high end audio production software on MacOS. By dropping development work for Logic Audio on Windows, Apple may even be handing those customers over to Steinberg, Digidesign, and Cakewalk. How many times do I have to repeat this?

"What does market share have to do with anything? If nothing but market share changed, would you no longer run around screaming about Microsoft? If Microsoft had 40% market share, would you complain as much as you do now?"

And with that summary statement, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. 'kabuki' has offered irrefutable proof that he DOES NOT UNDERSTAND the meaning (and implications) of the word MONOPOLY. What does market share have to do with anything?

Everything.

The laws that govern market competition are DIFFERENT for monopolies. That is why Microsoft is in the courts. If it were NOT a monopoly, it would have been found innocent, because then its behaviour would not be reprehensible.

In short, if Microsoft had 40% of the market, it wouldn't be a monopoly, would it? And it wouldn't be tried under laws that govern the behaviour of monopolies, would it?

I'm not a lawyer or an economist, but even I can understand THAT simple distinction between monopolies and competitive markets. For whatever reason, you, apparently, DO NOT.

I am tired of debating with you, since it appears that no logical argument, cited precedent, life experience, or factual information will penetrate either your invincible naivete, or your deeply-ingrained disingenuousness.

Good day, sir, and may you have fun discovering new ways to let creative outsiders break into your computer. Even if they happen to be monopolistic, predatory companies. LOL

Stick a fork in me, I'm done! LOL

"So much thought and yet no response on wether what they did was right or wrong, interesting."

I said it looks like an act of survival to me. Since Apple has less than 5% of the market, that would be plausible now, wouldn't it? I worked briefly for a small software company in 1994, and we supported only those platforms where we could justify the return on investment. If a particular segment was too small to justify allocating new development resources, it was put in maintenance mode, or dropped. If Apple acquired Logic Audio for the purpose of incorporating its technology into future software, it would make sense to drop Windows support if the expected revenue base from those customers does not justify the cost of continuing to develop Logic Audio for Windows. That does not change the fact that there are other viable programs with similar feature sets, ON WINDOWS. There is a competitive market, because Apple is not a monopoly -- far from it -- even with this purchase.

Your style of argumentation is to reduce the issues to black and white and ignore the CONTEXT, when there are in fact this case should be considered in the context of the market realities. Unless you can demonstrate that Apple is creating a monopoly in that market you cannot argue that it is, in fact, doing precisely what a TRUE monopoly (Microsoft) does.

"Interesting" is your latest attempt to grasp at straws. LOL

"Is it so unbelievable to you that someone could not like OS X?"

Is it so unbelievable to you that, once a person has tasted the pleasures of modern indoor plumbing, that they would not want to go back to a smelly, bug-infested outhouse? LOL

"And just remember what Ghandi said "if everyone follows the principle 'an eye for an eye', we would all be blind".

Since we are quoting Gandhi (I ASSUME you meant HIM -- or am I not allowed to make ASSUMPTIONS about what you mean?) LOL

"Noncooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with good"
(also attributed to Martin Luther King Jr.)

1. Support the predatory monopolist
2. DO NOT support the predatory monopolist

Simple choice.

Blue pill, or red pill? LOL

"Get off your high horse"

I don't ride horses. Oh, excuse me, you mean I'm SUPPOSED to ASSUME that you meant SOMETHING ELSE by what you WROTE? I thought I wasn't supposed to do that? LOL

"Please stop making things up, assuming, or whatever else it is that you do when you're not busy posting comments here, at times to yourself."

Let me see if I understand the above CORRECTLY. I should stop making things up -- I don't make them up, I quote them from sources on the web, or relate my own experiences. I should stop assuming -- oh, so when you say "Get off your high horse" you mean I shouldn't ride horses at all, or just high ones? I don't ride horses, period. Oh, you mean now I have to assume that you meant something else, such as "Don't be such an arrogant prick!" But I thought I wasn't supposed to be assuming anything!

But the last part of your statement above is truly amazing. "whatever else it is that you do when you're not busy posting comments here, at times to yourself."

That's the rest of my life, including the photo assignment I just finished this morning. And I'm not making that up, just as I'm not lying about what I post here, which is more than I can say for some of the others who populate this forum, such as 'mrastudent' or Mr. 'wendor' or a certain mr. 'kabuki' who posted that Macs always crash and then offered no direct experience to back up his statement. LOL

Christ are you really that STUPID? I never said that your quotes were made up, I said your assumptions and your "what you thought I meant" are made up. If you don't understand "Get off your high horse", then you will not understand "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" etc etc, in which case I recommend you educate yourself a little more rather than spend all your time and effort in here.

"That's the rest of my life, including the photo assignment I just finished this morning. And I'm not making that up"
I didn't say you were making that up, there's you assuming things again.

"or a certain mr. 'kabuki' who posted that Macs always crash and then offered no direct experience to back up his statement."

It was a JOKE, (http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=joke) look it up, hence why I said that you "windows is a bug" is almost as funny yet not quite as accurate as "M.A.C.I.N.T.O.S.H.".

"ST-ST-STAMMERING...FROM... LACK OF CREDIBILITY? LOL "
Hardly, You came out with the claim that there are liabilities associated with running Windows. I don't have any, therefore yes, if you happen to, then it's your problem not mine. And just because you have had liabilities as a result of running Windows doesn't mean everyone else has had them as well.

"BETTER"
Better is subjective, surely someone of your obvious intellect should be able to grasp that? Defects in Windows... IIS? IIS is not Windows! Is Apache Linux? Is Tomcat Linux? Is gcc Linux?

The comparisons you come out with fairly poor...

Is it so unbelievable to you that, once a person has listed to CD's and digital music in general (which is of much higher quality than vinyl), that they would not want to go back to vinyl?

You would be suprised just how many people refuse to drop vinyl for cd's, regardless of their superiority.

Now if you use this example to compare Windows to OS X, which I can imagine you doing, stop and ask yourself this, Should those people clinging onto vinyl not be able to do so just because there is something more superior out there for them?

Microsoft wasn't a monopoly when it first started performing these sort of tactics either.... try a new argument.

"Oh, wait a minute, the description I gave above resembles what Microsoft is doing in a certain country, based on a personal e-mail I received not too long ago from the top-level domain admin, who was a former high school classmate of mine. Maybe that's why his entire organization is moving to Linux and StarOffice! LOL "

Ahhh the old I got insider information from a friend of a friend of a pet's previous owners half-brother's mother's ex-husband's son.

"Oh just spare me any pretence of comprehension. LOL "

No please tell us all some more about your unfortunate life thus far, because there's no-one out there worse off than you. Hint: No-one cares, spare us the details.

"Did the official get punished? Of course not."
I said... and please try and READ what I write... care to point me to where *I* can steal and not be punished. Not an offical, me!

"In short, if Microsoft had 40% of the market, it wouldn't be a monopoly, would it? And it wouldn't be tried under laws that govern the behaviour of monopolies, would it?"

Once again, read what I wrote, I asked what *YOU* would be saying if Microsoft had 40% market share, not the government.

"I am tired of debating with you"

Thank god for that, I was getting tired of telling you to READ what I wrote as oppose to shooting off on a tangent. Go off and respect people's decisions to use whatever computer and OS they want to.

Move along, nothing to see here, except lamebrains. LOL

Only if they like having backdoors installed on their record players, er, computers. But hey, if you like that sort of thing, who am I to stop you? LOL

Move along, nothing to see here. ROTFL

"Microsoft wasn't a monopoly when it first started performing these sort of tactics either.... try a new argument."

Ah, and this is where your selective memory (or ignorance of history) plays right into where I wanted you. See, back in 1981, when IBM was looking for an operating system for its new PC, it first approached a certain Mr. Gary Kildall of Digital Research, makers of CP/M (if you don't remember what CP/M is, look it up). Apparently, Mr. Kildall could not be bothered to give the IBM folks the time of day, so a more business-savvy individual by the name of Bill Gates landed the contract to be the SOLE provider of the OS for IBM's new PC (though that did not stop Digital Research from later trying to ship CP/M-86 for IBM PCs). Microsoft had what is called first-mover advantage, and by DOS 2.0 it began to lay the groundwork for using its privileged position as the OS provider for PCs (IBM PC-DOS) and IBM clones (MS-DOS, e.g. for Compaq et al) to thwart the applications software business of Lotus, WordPerfect, etc. This was in the early 80's, when Microsoft did not have its huge monopoly in office suites, but it already was the incumbent as far as the operating system was concerned, and it used that to devastating effect. The original consent decree MS had to sign in 1995 had to do with the punitive and restrictive licensing provisions it had with any vendor who used DOS -- to the effect that they had to pay MS a fee for every system shipped, whether it was using DOS or not (guess why other OS'es were not shipped with PCs?). But notice that the remedy was dictated by the courts in 1995, long after MS had already been entrenched as the OS provider for PCs and compatibles. So, its monopolistic, take-no-prisoners tactics go back almost to the very beginning.

In contrast, look at the Apple II -- an open-architecture machine with slots, and a design that was widely copied. It was the most successful personal computer of its time (in 1977), and anyone could write programs for it. Not only did it run Applesoft DOS, it could run CP/M-80 using a Zilog Z80 card produced by none other than Microsoft (among other vendors). Apple was never a monopoly, unlike MS, but it certainly did not do anything to prevent the development of competing personal computers -- it even issued an insouciant "welcome" to IBM when IBM shipped its first PC.

But why am I giving YOU a history lesson? You've clearly made up your mind that there is nothing new to be learned about Microsoft's odious business philosophy, so do run along now and play with your favorite backdoor-infested OS.

Move along, nothing to see here. LOL

"Go off and respect people's decisions to use whatever computer and OS they want to."

Okay, choose your slavery, whatever. When Smart Tags and Palladium and Passport have become well entrenched, you can gloat in the knowledge that you did your part. LOL

"Ahhh the old I got insider information from a friend of a friend of a pet's previous owners half-brother's mother's ex-husband's son."

I could try to get his permission to quote from his e-mail, but why would that lead you to reconsider your airy-fairy dismissal? Your mind is all made up anyway.

I can cite at least two products at DEC, for example, that were stopped because of pressure from Microsoft. I'll give you a clue on one of them -- it was a potential Exchange killer called LinkWorks (which conceptually grew out of earlier DEC technology, e.g. All-in-1 for VAX/VMS). It was very advanced for its time, and it was used for workflow applications at, oh, a major Canadian bank. I know about this firsthand, because it was one of my areas of internal research in preparation for deploying a large-scale workflow system at Compaq.

What about you, smart boy, hmmm? What do you know about that kind of inside information on company projects that get the kibosh because of outside pressure from "business partners"?
Oh, don't bother. Move along, nothing to see here. LOL

Using software to sell more hardware:

Emagic offers no-cost crossgrade to its Windows customers

"we will continue to service and support all Logic Windows owners according to the standard product warranty policies beyond September, 30th 2002....
In addition, for those users of Logic 5 on Windows who wish to enjoy all the current and future benefits of Logic running on the Mac platform, Emagic will make a free cross-platform crossgrade available from August 1st. This free crossgrade offer will allow you to keep and use your current Logic 5 Windows version - Logic Audio 5, Gold 5 or Platinum 5 - on Macintosh as well. The offer will be available until December 31st 2002 for every registered Logic 5 Windows user"

Looks like they're not willing to just abandon their Windows using customers to Steinberg, Digidesign, and Cakewalk. Of course, continuing with Logic Audio now means buying one of those horrid little Macintrashes that don't do ANYTHING except CRASH ALL THE TIME ;-)

HORRORS!

No thanks, I prefer my backdoors "monopolized."

Move along, nothing to see here. LOL

"So, its monopolistic, take-no-prisoners tactics go back almost to the very beginning."
Monopolistic actions... yet they were not a Monopoly at that stage. Just as these actions from Apple could be construed as being monopolostic in nature. So my original point stands, Microsoft wasn't a Monopoly when it started out performing these sorts of action, get a new argument.

Whatever. Regardless of your views, accept the rights of people to choose Windows over OS X.

However, whilst I agree with your concerns over Palladium (especially if/when? it gains large industry support), what exactly is your problem with Smart Tags? Microsoft didn't have control over them, the web designer could use them to their advantage. The only argument I heard that opposed them was that it 'ruins' the original content of a web site. I only ran the 'Smart Tag' enabled IE 6 for a little while so I was never upset about their inclusion, in fact I could see a lot of great use for them.

What's your point, so they were not a monopoly! They were still guilty of breaking the law, and using monopolistic practices to gain marketshare.

Hmm, accept peoples right to choose Windows over OS/X huh? Perhaps we should respect peoples right to choose stolen merchandise over store bought goods? LOL

"What's your point, so they were not a monopoly!"
If you read the conversation between Victor and myself you'll have the answer to that question.

"They were still guilty of breaking the law, and using monopolistic practices to gain marketshare."
They were found guilty at some later stage. What is to say that in years to come Apple will not be found guilty of monopolistic practices? Such as those of buying a company and killing off their Windows line of products. My original point was that it seems that Apple is adopting MS-style tactics, Victor was quick to point out that they aren't the same because Apple do not have a Monopoly but neither did Microsoft when they first started with their tactics.

Some later stage? The investigation began before 1995!

You're as bad as Victor with your analogy's. Let's try to make your analogy a little more valid:

Perhaps we should accept people's rights to use goods bought from a person who has in the past broken a few laws (e.g. not wearing a seatbelt, speeding etc.)

Hmm, Apple has never broken any laws? Sun? IBM? Who's products can we use, it seems they've all broken some laws!

Gee, not wearing a seatbelt? Hmm I thouhgt theft and murder were are much more appropriate.

Wow, the lawyers at http://www.1394la.com/ will be *SO* interested to know that Firewire is now free.

They seem to think that the patents are still valid and that they are still collecting the licensing fees.

"The FireWire Logo is an Apple trademark and must be licensed for use by third-parties. There is currently no licensing fee."

Please notice that your quote only dealt with the "Firewire name". Apple made the name free, they did *NOT* make the technology free.

"Here is the RELEVANT PARAGRAPH, since you seem not to have noticed it the first time I posted it in this forum:"

Yes, I noticed it....and it is completely irrelevant. It deals with Apple dropping th elicensing fee for the NAME. They still get a licensing fee for the TECHNOLOGY. You can build hardware that has a Firewire/1394 port (no matter which name you use) without paying a licensing fee.

There is no fee for the LOGO. The technology, however, does still have a licensing fee. (which gets collected by 1394la and paid pack to Apple)

So in answer, no I don't feel foolish at all. But you sure did make yourself look foolish.

Firewire/1394 is *NOT* free and Apple still gets licensing fees from it (www.1394la.com)

"You challenged:
Care to back that up with a little proof? or any evidence at all?

Try the ff. search terms in Google (use the quotes)
"Caldera vs. Microsoft" "

Let's see, in Caldera -v- Microsoft, Caldera made a LOT of accusations.....absolutlely NONE of which were ever proven or upheld by the court.

"or better yet, this editorial review on the book Hard Drive: Bill Gates and the Making of the Microsoft Empire "

Oh wow, one man's opinion. I could cite a number of books that say that Microsoft did no such thing as well. All you have is the author claiming that a Microsoft employee told him something. He has no evidence or proof of it, and neither do you.

I asked for proof. Not the opinion of one guy who wrote a book. (People have written books claiming the world is flat too)

"FEELING A LITTLE FOOLISH NOW?"

Nope, but you're making youself look pretty foolish if the closest you can come up with for "evidence" is accusations made against Microsoft (but never proven) and the opinion of a single author (who can't even furnish any proof of his claims either).

"Let's see, in Caldera -v- Microsoft, Caldera made a LOT of accusations.....absolutlely NONE of which were ever proven or upheld by the court. "

Ahh, but you neglect to share the reason why they were never proven in court. Microsoft payed Caldera to go away. What do you think would have happened if they hadn't accepted the offer? MS would have lost the case. They settled because they did not want another black eye during the abuse investigation. Your opinion doesn't count so spare us your sensless drivel.

"Your opinion doesn't count so spare us your sensless drivel. "

But that's exactly what you are offering when you say "Ahh, but you neglect to share the reason why they were never proven in court. Microsoft payed Caldera to go away. What do you think would have happened if they hadn't accepted the offer? MS would have lost the case. They settled because they did not want another black eye during the abuse investigation."

No proof of anything, just your opinion that because the case was settled out of court, it must mean that Microsoft was guilty.

Sorry, but I asked victor for PROOF ...... for EVIDENCE.

The Caldera -v- Microsoft case is not evidence of anything or proof of anything. Perhaps Microsoft chose to settle out of court, not because they were guilty, but just because it was cheaper to settle out of court than to pay the legal fees to fight it. No one but Microsoft, Caldera, and the judge know the answer because the settlement was private.

Why would Microsoft demand that the case be sealed if there was nothing to hide? Oh I know because they did nothing wrong! ROTFLMFAO!

Again, pure fewt opinion.

Come back when you have facts.

Remember, you're the one who just said "Your opinion doesn't count so spare us your sensless drivel."

Here you go again, if they had nothing to hide they would not have had the case sealed. Fact in this case, not opinion.

And that has what to do with the time at which they were found guilty?

I'd hardly equate anti-trust matters to murder! But if you like, the list can include theft =)

If you choose not to purchase goods from an organisation that has broken the law, based on moral reasons obviously!!!, then you shouldn't purchase goods from ANY organisation that has broken the law. Otherwise you can't really stand there and claim that your bias and hatred towards Microsoft is based on moral reasoning.

Well, uhhh, I dunno.. Perhaps they actually committed the crime long before being cought?!

They are guilty of corporate murder IMHO.

Argh! That's the point. Microsoft committed a crime long before being caught and long before they had a monopoly... who's to say that these actions on Apple's part are any different!

Wow, if you think that requesting the records be sealed is legally equivalent to proof of guilt....you have a LOT to learn about the law.

>>In that case, care to point me to those countries where I can go and steal money from a Bank and not be punished for it? Thanks in advance!

Try the Philippines. It's public officials have been shamelessly stealing from its poor for the past how many decades.

You can now buy computer processing capacity just like you buy central heating or electricity: computing power as a utility. As of yesterday IBM is introducing Linux Virtual Services -- running on IBM zSeries mainframes (already known for their phenomenal uptimes).

Details at
http://www.internetnews....ews/article.php/1379111

Excerpt:
"Customers purchase processing power through Linux Virtual Services by the "service unit," which is a measure that equates to the processing power being utilized. Each service unit costs $300 per month, which includes capacity, operating systems licenses, power and floor space, and the labor and skills required to keep the service running. The service allows customers to burst up to 10 percent over each virtual server's capacity at no extra charge, allowing customers to adhere to steady-state requirements while maintaining the flexibility to cope with unscheduled surges in demand."

Whoo-hoo! Switch, switch, switch! UNIX on the desktop, on the server, on the mainframe!

I've ranted long enough. 95% of PC users still don't get it. They say there's not much at stake. They say that it's only opinions and subjective judgments. They say that games, etc. and access to cheap commodity hardware are worth the price of mediocrity, uninspired design, clunkiness, totally closed source, and poor software quality that endangers human life.
When Palladium and .NET destroy the Internet as we know it, don't say you weren't warned. You were WARNED:

Read http://www.pbs.org/cring...pit/pulpit20020627.html if you care. Don't bother if you like the status quo.

"Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated."

Actually I think the number is more like 20% don't get it. I'd guesstimate that more like 80% people do get it, but are either afraid of change, or don't believe there is any viable alternative.

When I was 7, my father had a stroke that paralysed the left half of his body. Unable to walk or talk, he underwent painful electroshock therapy and intensive, grueling physical rehabilitation, and he eventually regained his speech and mobility, but in a weakened state; he died when I was 12, and his suffering left a deep impression on me.

My stentorian rant-fest in this forum is, to my (possibly) quixotic mind, the electroshock therapy needed to awaken the HERD/HIVE/COLLECTIVE from the massive STUPOR brought about by complacency, ignorance, immaturity, and many long years of Microsoft brainwashing.

When I was in third grade, I asked my parents about the new 'laws' that were being passed in my country that curtailed our freedoms. They patiently explained to me what these laws meant, and cautioned me about the risk of being taken away by the military for no just cause, never to be seen again.

Years from now, when my son asks about our economic slavery to Microsoft, I will look him squarely in the eye and say: "I tried, son, believe me, I tried. But no one would listen. And many even dismissed me as arrogant, foolish, or both, and they went on subsidizing the criminal activities of the monopolist -- by putting up with the clunkiness of Windows even when there were viable alternatives."

"I think the number is more like 20% don't get it"

Then, from their posts in this forum, it would appear that Mr. 'kabuki' and Mr. 'Wendor' are among those 20% that don't get it. LOL

Correct

All of you beating up on Microsoft and Apple - SHUT UP for a second. True, when XP was released, a lot of fixes were posted because the gold code had been out for OEM's and a lot of flaws were discovered by that point and Microsoft took all steps necessary to correct these issues.A REMINDER - we are human , perfection is not in our traits and as an organization composed of such humans, MICROSOFT is no exception. ADMIT IT, they have made computing easier for all users. So, if you are the kind of person who gets a thrill by accusing and pointing fingers at others, get a LIFE !! As far as MACS are concerened, they are good machines and cannot truly be compared to PC's. There are good and bad on both ends, accept it, enjoy it and keep moving.

"MICROSOFT is no exception. ADMIT IT, they have made computing easier for all users."

Excuse me? Have you been marooned on a deserted island with a volleyball? TWO U.S. FEDERAL COURTS HAVE FOUND MICROSOFT GUILTY OF ACTING AS A PREDATORY MONOPOLIST, ACTING IN WAYS THAT ARE INIMICAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

You want to be in denial about THAT, go ahead, but don't pretend it doesn't make you look foolish.

victor??????? - Who made you the spokesperson for the billions of people happily surfing the internet / playing games / chatting / emailing / watching movies & pictures running Windows 95 / 98 / NT / 2000 / XP and the major corporations running critical systems on the Windows server software family, ALBEIT the "flaws" in the OS. MONOPOLY or NOT, Microsoft is here to stay, so deal with it. You wouldn't happen to be a disgruntled ex-employee slandering his ex-employer, would you?

Honestly, they could be gone tomorrow, and few people would care. That's just the way it is.

Do you think that all the users who have accustomed to the Microsoft way of life could go to bed one night with Microsoft in their lives and wakeup next morning and go about using their PC's knowing that they will have to give up windows and make a huge switch to whatever becomes the next standard? Don't know about that one.

It's really not like their computers would just stop working you know. Life would go on. If ford were to discontinue the mustang (which you own in this example) would you lose sleep? Probably not.

"MONOPOLY or NOT, Microsoft is here to stay, so deal with it. You wouldn't happen to be a disgruntled ex-employee slandering his ex-employer, would you?"

No, I am en ex-employee of IBM, DEC, Compaq, and Fujitsu who is aware of how Microsoft treats its "supposed" business partners, because I know of promising products that were killed internally because of pressure from Microsoft -- the very behaviour for which MS is now before the courts.

As for slander, please note that I have provided quotes from Microsoft and PC industry executives themselves, not my own unsupported statements. BIG DIFFERENCE.

And if you're wondering about the additional vehemence in my posts, it's because I grew up under a brutal military dictatorship in which we were fed lies and propaganda, and I watched my classmates tortured and murdered because they dared to speak the truth. I care passionately about the truth, and I suspect that MOST people who've grown up in pampered liberal democracies don't. That's why they say inane things like "move right along, nothing to see here." when REAL JOBS of REAL PEOPLE are affected by decisions to use MASSIVELY FLAWED software. Decisions made everyday by people who don't KNOW any better.

If you don't care to know the truth, you will never be free, except to enjoy the delusions of your mediocre world.

"all the users who have accustomed to the Microsoft way of life"

Sounds like BRAINWASHING, if you ask me. ;-)

"corporations running critical systems on the Windows server software family, ALBEIT the "flaws" in the OS."

"Problems with Microsoft's Internet Information Server (IIS) were so dramatic that last summer leading technology research firm Gartner analyst John Pescatore recommended that users of this critical piece of Web site software switch to alternate Web server software.

British-based J.S. Wurzler, an insurance underwriter for Lloyds of London, last year raised its rates for IIS users, citing the large number of security holes affecting it."

REAL PROBLEMS, affecting REAL JOBS of REAL PEOPLE.

The relevant URL is http://www.usatoday.com/.../microsoft-security.htm

I understand your background victor. I am not stranger to atrocities myself and the truth has always mattered to me. Systems and software may be flawed, but “our mediocre world” has done a pretty good job of moving along, in spite of the shortcomings in various facets of life. I would like to end this discussion because it seems to me that my comments have been misconstrued by some members of the audience.

"TWO U.S. FEDERAL COURTS HAVE FOUND MICROSOFT GUILTY OF ACTING AS A PREDATORY MONOPOLIST, ACTING IN WAYS THAT ARE INIMICAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST."

Actually you need to check your facts.

The only area in which the court found that consumers were harmed in any way was specifically limited to "web browsing applications"

Since neither the OS, not actions related to the OS, have been found "harmful to consumers" (except as directly related to web browsing) your response in no way refuses his claim "MICROSOFT is no exception. ADMIT IT, they have made computing easier for all users."

Microsoft has provided many benefits for consumers. The fact that you condemn every action of theirs on the basis of a very narrowly focused court ruling shows that you are not allowing logic to intrude on your case at all.

Of course, we could just adopt your logic as well. Apple was found guilty of copyright violation in 1987 and of mistreating workers in 1991 and 1994. By your logic, we should all immediately boycott all Apple products in order to not support their illegal activities.

And Apple doesn't consider their OS to be of good enough quality for use in critical systems at all.

From the Apple EULA (section was in all caps on the printed copy already)
"THE APPLE SOFTWARE IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, OR AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL MACHINES IN WHICH CASE THE FAILURE OF THE APPLE SOFTWARE COULD LEAD TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE."

Microsoft is willing to guarantee 5 9's uptime (99.999%) with one of their server products. Apple has no comparable product or guarantee. They've even made it illegal to use their products in a whole category of critical applications. (Not just limited to those listed. For example Apple OS's can't legally be used in 911 emergency call centers because failure could result in missed emergency calls, which could result in personal injury, death, or severe physical or environmental damage.)

Microsoft is willing to guarantee 5 9's uptime (99.999%) with one of their server products. Apple has no comparable product or guarantee. They've even made it illegal to use their products in a whole category of critical applications. (Not just limited to those listed. For example Apple OS's can't legally be used in 911 emergency call centers because failure could result in missed emergency calls, which could result in personal injury, death, or severe physical or environmental damage.)"

Then at least Apple is telling the TRUTH, isn't it? That their software is not ready for use in such mission-critical applications -- unlike Microsoft, whose Windows NT was blamed for disabling a U.S. Navy Aegis-class cruiser! LOL

"Actually you need to check your facts. The only area in which the court found that consumers were harmed in any way was specifically limited to "web browsing applications"

No, you need to check YOUR facts. VERBATIM QUOTE:
"Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without losing an unacceptable amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market.

34. Viewed together, three main facts indicate that Microsoft enjoys monopoly power. First, Microsoft's share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems is extremely large and stable. Second, Microsoft's dominant market share is protected by a high barrier to entry. Third, and largely as a result of that barrier, Microsoft's customers lack a commercially viable alternative to Windows."

(from http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm)

You further sputtered:
Since neither the OS, not actions related to the OS, have been found "harmful to consumers" (except as directly related to web browsing) your response in no way refuses his claim "MICROSOFT is no exception."

See above, from the same URL. The US DOJ website. LOL

"Microsoft has provided many benefits for consumers. The fact that you condemn every action of theirs"

EVERY action? Prove it, based on my posts. You can't, can you? Just like you can't competently back up your statements about Firewire not being free, etc.

"on the basis of a very narrowly focused court ruling shows that you are not allowing logic to intrude on your case at all."

No, based on the verbatim quote above from the US DOJ text of the findings, YOU"RE BLOWING HOT AIR. LOL

"Of course, we could just adopt your logic as well. Apple was found guilty of copyright violation in 1987 and of mistreating workers in 1991 and 1994."

Cite the court transcripts, please? (As I've done above)

"By your logic, we should all immediately boycott all Apple products in order to not support their illegal activities."

No, by MY logic I should stop debating with incompetent liars such as yourself. LOL

Oh, I'm such an arrogant prick, and much else besides! LOL

Exactly, Apple tells the truth while MS sells broken goods to not only consumers, but government entities as well. You can defend them all you want, however the proof is in the pudding! Their software should *NEVER* be used in a critical environment.

You really need to re-read the quotes you gave from http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

Neither section you quoted includes a finding of "harm to consumers" which is a separate legal finding.

Sections 172, 173, 174, 409, and 411 are the ONLY sections of the finding that deal with "harm to consumers"

Sections 33 and 34 which you quoted deal with the court finding Microsoft has monopoly power. They do not mention, deal with, or legally find ANY "harm to consumers"

You probably should have taken the time to READ what you quoted.

"No, based on the verbatim quote above from the US DOJ text of the findings, YOU"RE BLOWING HOT AIR. LOL"

Not really. Had you bothered to read the quote that you used, you would have seent hat it does *NOT* include a legal finding of "harm to consumers". Five sections of the finding of fact do, and all of them have specifically to do with web browsing and java.

Wendor when will you get the concept that you don't know everything, and admit the possibility that you are not always right? Get a grip, you aren't a lawyer and if you were you would be a hungry one.

"Then at least Apple is telling the TRUTH, isn't it? That their software is not ready for use in such mission-critical applications -- unlike Microsoft, whose Windows NT was blamed for disabling a U.S. Navy Aegis-class cruiser! LOL"

unlike Microsoft? Sorry, but Microsoft is willing to stand behind that 5 9's uptime guarantee and does back the use of Windows 2000 Datacenter Server in such mission critical applications.

Sounds to me like Microsoft is willing to stand behind their product....while Apple is not.

"You can defend them all you want, however the proof is in the pudding!"

I agree.

Microsoft is willing to put a financial guarantee behind the reliability of Windows 2000 Datacenter Server.

Apple makes it illegal to even try and use their products in critical environments.

Yep. The proof is in the pudding there.

One stands behind their product....the other hides behind it.

Oh they do? Where were they while nimda was bombarding computers everywhere? How about during melissa? Who took responsibility when a US naval vessel was dead in the water due to their coding errors? God man, you just can't see past your nose! Give it up already! Apple does stand by their product, they also seemingly inderstand that it is not an end all be all OS like Microsoft obviously has you believing that it is!

Proof is in the pudding, Microsoft sells a junk OS that doesn't work. Apple admits up front that their OS is designed for consumers, and not for mission critical environments. You are wasting your time arguing about it it's just the way it is!

I do admit the possibility that I'm not always right.

However, in this case, anyone who can read can see what the sections he quoted do say, and what they do NOT say.

He's the one who chose to post quotes that don't actually support his position (sound familiar?)

"Apple does stand by their product, they also seemingly inderstand that it is not an end all be all OS like Microsoft obviously has you believing that it is!"

ROFL. Sure they do. They make it ILLEGAL to use it for any critical application....but you still claim that they stand behind it?

"He's the one who chose to post quotes that don't actually support his position (sound familiar?) "

Yes it sounds like most of your comments! You are playing the same game with him that you attempted to play with me. You take comments and then read them incorrectly, then attempt to make them follow your flawed logic. He may be mistaken about the firewire licensing, but you'd rather attempt to make him look like an idiot, when in reality you are accomplishing just the opposite. LOL!

I'm sorry, it's not "illegal" until it's held up in court. This is the reason the last few paragraphs are included in all common EULA's. You should know that bubba!

"Microsoft sells a junk OS that doesn't work."

Really? They why aren't there more claims aginst the 5 9's uptime guarantee? Seems like the product that they sell for mission critical applications is living up to the guarantee just fine.

"Apple admits up front that their OS is designed for consumers, and not for mission critical environments."

And Microsoft says that they have both. OS's designed for consumers, AND also an OS designed for mission critical environments.

I also found it amusing this week that after all the years that Apple lambasted Microsoft for the uselessness of the C2 security certification, Apple has now submitted for the same certification.

It will be interesting to see what they do with it if they get it. I applaud their choice to try for certification even though it's a niche market. But I do still find it amusing that they are now doing exactly what they ridiculed Microsoft for.

EULAS, let me guess that guarantee isn't for a single system, now is it? LOL

Oh really? I'm "read them incorrectly"?

He posted the exact quotes. Please show me where in sections 33 and 34 (the ones he posted) it says anything abotu "harm to consumers". The quotes are right there...the text is right there. Please show us the word "harm" anywhere in sections 33 and 34.

Please, please, please....read them "correctly" for us all and show us the word "harm".

Use in a critical environment voids the agreement (according to Apple)

Use outside of the Agreement is illegal (USC Title 17)

That guarantee applies to anyone who purchases Windows 2000 Datacenter Server.

Hmmm, and is OS/X a datacenter grade server? Nope, why are you comparing the two? I know, it's because you have no *REAL* argument and you just need to cry to someone because you are lonely again.

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

Apple simply has no server product reliable enough.

You know, people would have thought, based on Apple's marketing and technical claims, that OS X Server was a better product.

Guess it just isn't ready for anything important yet.

Apple found a few people who have switched from a PC to a Macintosh and as thus far happy with the switch... wow, front page news! Imagine it, there are people out there who switch from one type of computer to another! I don't believe it... what's next?? Ford showing commercials of people who have switched from a Toyota?

Sorry for the cynicism but really, I'm sure you'd be able to find just as many people who have switched from a Mac to a PC, it doesn't conclusively mean anything at all. If you've switched from a PC to a Mac, congratulations, if you've switched from a Mac to a PC, congratulations and if you haven't switched, guess what, congratulations!

Everyone has there reasons for picking a particular type of computer, OS etc etc etc. Just because you might believe that Windows 'blows' and that OS X is in someway perfect doesn't mean make everyone else's opinion wrong.

"Just because you might believe that Windows 'blows' and that OS X is in someway perfect doesn't mean make everyone else's opinion wrong."

BELIEVE? I said that everyone is entitled to an OPINION, but SOME opinions are BETTER-INFORMED than others.

Nowhere did I say OS X IS perfect. I challenge you to find ANYTHING in any of the posts I've made here that support your contention. In fact, I can produce a LONG list of things that Apple needs to do to make OS X BETTER. My point, however, is to demonstrate that Windows XP has serious FLAWS that have significant ECONOMIC IMPACT, for which Microsoft is not being held liable, and for which the Windows using HERD ought to be OUTRAGED, and I've presented supporting information to that end -- but no, like SHEEP you continue to use a MASSIVELY DEFECTIVE product and MAKE EXCUSES for doing so (games, etc.). Meanwhile, you have not produced a single substantive quote or URL in support of your comments, which means that you have little or NO BASIS for making it.

As for my contention that Windows XP is SERIOUSLY FLAWED, I have quoted from none other than the leadership of Microsoft ITSELF, and PC industry executives, to make my point. You have offered NOTHING to refute any of that. Instead, you grasp at straws and illogic about subjective decisions based on nothing more than personal PREFERENCE. OTOH, I have real scientific training that says, evaluate the FACTS, and come to a logical conclusion.

So do a lot of other people. From USA Today 6/17/2002:

"Air Force Chief Information Officer John Gilligan has complained to Microsoft and other companies, for example.

"I'm spending more money patching and fixing than we did to buy" the software, he said in a recent interview. "I can't afford to do this anymore."

The complaints run far and wide. "It's a confusing point to me that Microsoft can release a product which has fundamental flaws and they're in no way held accountable for that," said Tim Wright, chief technology officer and chief information officer of Terra Lycos.

"It's like Boeing making planes that crash and saying [a waiver of responsibility is] in the disclaimer," Wright said from his Waltham, Mass.-based office of the Spanish-American Internet media company.

Even market researchers and insurance companies — themselves harbingers for the legal community — have weighed in.

Problems with Microsoft's Internet Information Server (IIS) were so dramatic that last summer leading technology research firm Gartner analyst John Pescatore recommended that users of this critical piece of Web site software switch to alternate Web server software.

British-based J.S. Wurzler, an insurance underwriter for Lloyds of London, last year raised its rates for IIS users, citing the large number of security holes affecting it.

"Today, Firestone can produce a tire with a systemic flaw and they're liable," says Bruce Schneier, chief technology officer of network monitoring firm Counterpane Internet Security, who has been calling for software liability reform for years.

"But Microsoft can produce an operating system with multiple systemic flaws per week and not be liable."

You want the URL? HERE IT IS:
http://www.usatoday.com/.../microsoft-security.htm

The HERD's personal preference for MASSIVELY DEFECTIVE and mediocre operating systems has brought us to this sorry state where the lawyers are going to make a lot of money, all because the SHEEP have not held Microsoft accountable to begin with.

I KNOW IT, YOU KNOW IT, BUT YOU REFUSE TO ADMIT IT.

And the economic consequences AFFECT US ALL.

"chris_kabuki" -- I presume that is your real name

"move along, nothing to see here" -- if you're referring to the content of YOUR post, and the illogic of your argument (if it can be called that), that is certainly TRUE, there's NOTHING to see in it. LOL

Chris is my first name however Kabuki is not my surname, more of an alias I used a while ago. Where was the supposed illogic of my argument?

Whoopty-doo, Apple found some users that switched to OS X and are happier with it than they were with Windows! Is this something you're suprised to hear? Hell, if you look hard enough I'm sure you'll be able to find at least several people to say just about anything!

Do you not believe that there are users who are switching from Windows to OS X to Linux and vice versa, many of whom are much happier on their new platform then they were on the previous one? It would make sense for them to switch to a platform which is better for THEM wouldn't it? Therefore how is this news?

You obviously do not like Windows although from all your comments I would guess you have more of a problem with Microsoft than the OS itself. If you hate Microsoft for being a large corporation, doing everything in their power to suit their best interest (which at times has included breaking the law), that's fine, they're your reasons for not wanting to use their products. But understand that not everyone has to think like you! Realise that most people do understand what Microsoft have done in the past (maybe not everything they've done, but parts at least), and realise that these same people have seen other large corporations doing fairly much the same thing. I'm sure they're all fit to make up their own minds on what OS they want to use without you ordering them not to use Windows!

"BELIEVE? I said that everyone is entitled to an OPINION, but SOME opinions are BETTER-INFORMED than others."

We can go round and round in circles here by me telling you that just because you believe YOUR options are BETTER-INFORMED than others, doesn't make them so! I'd glad you have your own opinion and that you're sticking to it. If you want people to respect your opinion, respect their opinion to disagree with you.

"Nowhere did I say OS X IS perfect"

I never said that you said anything like that, I said that you might believe that it is in someway perfect, but that belief does not make it so.

"As for my contention that Windows XP is SERIOUSLY FLAWED, I have quoted from none other than the leadership of Microsoft ITSELF, and PC industry executives, to make my point. You have offered NOTHING to refute any of that."

If is your right to believe that Windows XP is seriously flawed, you may even be completely correct, but my original point was that this is a no-story. People do switch operating systems, it's nothing new. Additionally, the quotes you provided come from sworn testimonies etc etc. I hope that you're old enough and smart enough to understand that people don't always tell the truth in court and more often than not they will try and say whatever suits them best. And finally I don't have to refute any of it as I wasn't arguing in response to the quotes you provided!

"Instead, you grasp at straws and illogic about subjective decisions based on nothing more than personal PREFERENCE."

Have you seen the ads? Are you going to tell me that it wasn't a series of subjective decisions based on their own preferences that led those users to switch to a Macintosh?

Once again, you go off topic and start giving me people's opinions on Windows. If you want a few thousand bad opinions on Microsoft and Windows just go to www.slashdot.org. The topic is Apple coming out with new ads which show people talking about why they switched from Windows to a Mac and how happy they are as a result. The topic is not 'Do you think Microsoft are an ethical company?'!

"I'm sure they're all fit to make up their own minds on what OS they want to use without you ordering them not to use Windows!"

I'm not ORDERING anyone not to use Windows (as if I could even do such a thing), I'm EXHORTING (aka URGING) people to seriously consider switching to the alternatives, and presenting a MULTITUDE of LOGICAL reasons for doing so.

It's called MORAL PERSUASION.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

People will MAKE UP THEIR MINDS, but THEY HAVE TO BE WILLING TO CONSIDER THE FACTS FIRST. I have presented FACTS APLENTY, and EXHORTED people about what I think these facts IMPLY. I have seen precious little attempt to REFUTE the FACTS, verbatim QUOTES, and other supporting material I have presented here, simply more "popular" opinion or dissent presented WITHOUT a smidgen of substantiating evidence.

Well, I'm sick and tired of being a VICTIM of other people's sloppy or lazy thinking (Dilbert's PHB's included). As the old line in the movie "Network" goes, I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore. I've referred to articles from MIT Technology Review and elsewhere, you can go check them out for yourself.

"We can go round and round in circles here by me telling you that just because you believe YOUR options are BETTER-INFORMED than others, doesn't make them so!"

I don't BELIEVE my opinions are better-informed. I have, SO FAR, demonstrated that they ARE so, based on the number AND quality of URLs and sources I have cited. That's really no different from defending a graduate thesis or presenting a scientific paper with an exhaustive literature review. If anyone wants to refute the arguments I present, then CITE an equivalent or greater number of high-quality sources. ANY TAKERS? C'mon, surely you CAN refute my sources, RIGHT?

"If you want people to respect your opinion, respect their opinion to disagree with you."

People can disagree with ANYTHING they want, that does not make them CORRECT. This is the pitfall of a flabby liberal relativism, the bane of post-modern Western civilization. Rigor in thinking requires us to understand that the only excuses for SLOPPY reasoning are ignorance, immaturity, or laziness. In the hard sciences, hypotheses are to be TESTED against empirical evidence where possible. Opinions don't count for much unless they can be substantiated with better than anecdotal evidence, but even anecdotal evidence is far better than NONE at all, which is the deafening silence I hear from 'mrastudent' -- the LIAR who started this thread with "Oops" -- and then proceeded to SLANDER the Switchers without the decency of using his real name.

I wrote
"Nowhere did I say OS X IS perfect"

You responded
I never said that you said anything like that, I said that you might believe that it is in someway perfect, but that belief does not make it so.

Argument by implication. Invalid. I never even implied that I believed MacOS X is perfect -- FAR FROM IT -- but I did argue strongly for the case that it is BETTER, and presented supporting evidence. You have not presented ANY evidence of ANY kind, OTHER THAN YOUR OWN UNSUBSTANTIATED OPINIONS.

"my original point was that this is a no-story. People do switch operating systems, it's nothing new."

IT IS A BIG STORY. Why? The switch can mean a difference in quality of life -- or even life itself, as in the case of the U.S. Navy destroyer that was towed back to port because its propulsion systems were so compromised by using Windows instead of UNIX. I can cite numerous examples, but why do I now think they will simply fall on DEAF ears?

"Additionally, the quotes you provided come from sworn testimonies etc etc. I hope that you're old enough and smart enough to understand that people don't always tell the truth in court and more often than not they will try and say whatever suits them best."

Precisely. That is why the REPEATED PERJURY of Microsoft executives on the stand is so infuriating. And you have misconstrued some of the quotes, many are from people who are simply relating their experiences, as others in this forum have done. I therefore suggest that you take a look at http://www.cluetrain.com to understand what the authentic human voice sounds like on the Internet. Perhaps if you can see past the blinders of foggy post-modern relativism, you will realize that having an opinion backed by convictions born of research and life experience is BETTER than opinions shaped by mass media, prevailing intellectual fashion, or the HERD mentality that threatens public discourse.

I am old enough, smart enough, and a PARENT who cares deeply about SW quality because it will, sooner or later, affect my son's life, because the world he is growing up in is far more dependent on SW than the world I spent my childhood in, a brutal military dictatorship in which my classmates were tortured and murdered because they or their parents DARED to speak the TRUTH. So much for flabby liberal notions of mere "opinions" as factors for choosing among alternatives.

"Have you seen the ads? Are you going to tell me that it wasn't a series of subjective decisions based on their own preferences that led those users to switch to a Macintosh?"

Better than that, I read the blog of one of the Switchers, Aaron Adams (http://homepage.mac.com/adamsa). Subjective decisions? Excuse me, but as someone who is scientifically trained, I have also presented numerous OBJECTIVE FACTS for demonstrating empirically that some operating systems are superior to others. But let me give you a capsule summary, since you seem to be unconvinced: assuming, on average, that error rates in SW are a function of programming complexity, which OS is likely to have more bugs, an OS with 45+ million lines of code (WinXP), or one with, say, around 12 million (Solaris, from what I've read)? Yes, indeed, SW quality CAN be quantified empirically.

"The topic is Apple coming out with new ads which show people talking about why they switched from Windows to a Mac and how happy they are as a result."

And my original response, which has led to this rant-fest, was prompted by a LIE posted here by 'mrastudent' that the people in the ads were paid for their endorsements. Simply not true.

There's an old saying, by Kahlil Gibran I think, that "If you keep silent when you really ought to say something, then you are telling a lie."

I don't LIE, and I don't lightly tolerate other people LYING either, even if it's in the guise of "presenting an opinion" when they OUGHT TO KNOW BETTER. It's as simple as that.

Does that mean I know it all? ABSOLUTELY AND EMPHATICALLY NOT! But I can't stand jackasses who believe that they are ('mrastudent') by foisting LIES on others.

There is TOO MUCH CRAP in this world. I am trying to REDUCE it by pointing it out when I can. Am I a Don Quixote tilting at windmills? Perhaps. Am I insane? I don't think so. Was my rant-fest a waste of time? If I didn't believe passionately that people need to hear the truth, would I have bothered?

I don't have time to reply to all that right now but I just wanted to say one thing:

''"The topic is Apple coming out with new ads which show people talking about why they switched from Windows to a Mac and how happy they are as a result."

And my original response, which has led to this rant-fest, was prompted by a LIE posted here by 'mrastudent' that the people in the ads were paid for their endorsements. Simply not true.''

What does my view on this topic and your inability to stay on topic have to do with whatever 'mrastudent' said to upset you?

This happens on here everytime because people cannot seem to stay on topic. Anytime there's a discussion involving Microsoft, there's always two break away points, the first being Linux vs Windows and the second being how 'evil' is Microsoft. Same thing happens if there is a topi involving IE or Mozilla... we start on the whole IE vs Mozilla/Netscape debate, regardless of what the topic actually was. Fair enough if you just want to voice your opinion, but I was staying on topic and I do not care to argue with you on drift away topics that were started between yourself and someone else.

OK, chris, I'll save you the trouble of replying to my (VERY) long winded rants.

The FACT that the ads are of REAL people, NOT actors, telling the TRUTH about their experiences, without being paid for the endorsement (merely compensated for the use of their likeness in print and electronic media, as is standard practice) IS NOT BIG NEWS.

Truth in advertising IS NOT BIG NEWS.

Real people discovering that there is something BETTER than Windows for everyday computing, IS NOT BIG NEWS.

There. Problem solved. NRN

Now was that so difficult? No need to run around screaming 'Microsoft are thieves' whilst the topic is about Apple trying a new initiative to try and lure more users to it's platform.

I do of course have one modification to make to you comment and that is:
"Real people discovering that there is something BETTER than Windows (for THEM) for everyday computing, IS NOT BIG NEWS."

Victor, whilst I can understand where you are coming from I really do think that you're comments are falling on deaf ears. Do you really think you can 'change the world' by convincing a few people in betanews? Obviously you 'have to start from somewhere' and 'every bit helps', but let's be real here. Ever thought of joining the front lines with Richard Stallman?

People are not going to suddenly wake up one day and think... oh no! Microsoft have done some bad things, we better change our whole infrastructure to use mac's. Although I personally can see that happening more than I can see people switching to Linux - at least grandma can use a mac.

They fall on deaf ears only because the arrogance level is so high in here. :-P

"People are not going to suddenly wake up one day and think... oh no! Microsoft have done some bad things, we better change our whole infrastructure to use mac's."

That comment betrays just how naive and uninformed some people can be. I worked for two years at a company that used to be primarily Mac on the client side, and we could support over 2500 users with a core team of only SEVEN people. That company is now (still) all Windows NT, and it now requires a small army to support a similar number of users. What on earth happened? In an nutshell, the CIO changed and the new CIO was a die-hard Windows guy. Senior management didn't know any better. I've seen it happen in several other big companies in my city, that were all or primarily Mac shops that got turned into Windows wastelands -- technical support requirements went up, virus attacks went up, etc. And when Gartner Group finds out in a study (University of Melbourne) that very large (5000-node) Mac networks cost 36% LESS per machine to support and operate than PC networks of the same size at the same institution, the results get hushed up and Apple fires the employee who leaked the study. Go figure.

The scenario you paint is NOT going to happen, because a lot of CIO's refuse to consider viable alternatives to the MS monopoly. Like they used to say about IBM, "No one ever got fired for buying Microsoft products."

We live in a world of LIES made possible by folks who either don't get it, or don't care enough to PROCLAIM the truth. It's not SUBJECTIVE, there are empirical criteria that can be used to demonstrate the veracity of claims made here, but people will have none of it.

Say, you're not one of the "dead people" that Microsoft's PR agency sent letters to, soliciting "concerned citizen" signatures in support of MS during the antitrust trial, eh?

"Victor, whilst I can understand where you are coming from I really do think that you're comments are falling on deaf ears. Do you really think you can 'change the world' by convincing a few people in betanews? Obviously you 'have to start from somewhere' and 'every bit helps', but let's be real here. Ever thought of joining the front lines with Richard Stallman?"

The patronizing attitude I sense in the paragraph above at first makes my blood boil, but on reflection, I will just assume that you're naive, ignorant, or arrogant. For your information, I (and many others with me, all unarmed) have faced down armed government thugs who were trying to steal a democratic election from us, and because of our vigilance, a dictator was overthrown. If that same election had been run by "decent, law-abiding citizens" with as much backbone or 'common sense' as you have demonstrated so far in this forum, that dictator would likely still be in power today.

95% of PC users may be "right" in their own minds, but the 5% who aren't using Windows KNOW BETTER.

We've all suffered from having an unusually high level of arrogance haven't we FEWT =)

If you can;t tell the difference between arrogance and MORAL CONVICTION (that is based on a solid GRASP of the FACTS and SOUND REASONING), then you're not as sharp as I give you credit for. "They're all just opinions, anyway."

Riiiight. Just like "Microsoft is a twice-convicted predatory monopolist with a propensity for acting in ways inimical to the public interest" is JUST an opinion, anyway. An OPINION held UNANIMOUSLY by EIGHT justices of the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals.

Do I have to s-p-e-l-l everything out for you?

I was being SARCASTIC. "There it wasn't so difficult"

It wasn't difficult for me to be sarcastic, given that it seems to be so difficult for you to recognize a truth that is staring you right in the face -- that there is a BETTER OS than Windows, for people who have not yet been so utterly and completely brainwashed by Microsoft lies.

"Move along, nothing to see here" is the soothing, pacifying, Orwellian NewSpeak that members of the COLLECTIVE/HERD/HIVE want us to believe. No thank you.

That is an opinion in fact if yuo want to be paedantic... but it's an opinion of the court which not only makes it a lot more important but legally speaking it's fact.

Re-printing the opinions of journalists from zdnet, inquirer, slashdot and other like those, doesn't make them fact. And if you realy want to get nit-picky, re-hashing everything from the BBC or USA Today doesn't make it fact either, or do you believe everything you read? But like I said, I'm nit-picking, but you can't see past your arrogance.

"you can't see past your arrogance."

Then why did I post a message above titled "Why Victor Is Such An Arrogant Prick", if I'm SO un-self-aware, hmmm?

Now THAT'S a FACT even you can't dispute! LOL

"And if you realy want to get nit-picky, re-hashing everything from the BBC or USA Today doesn't make it fact either, or do you believe everything you read?"

I tend to believe what I read when it accords with insider information I have from having worked at IBM, DEC, Compaq, and Fujitsu, all PC vendors and Microsoft business partners -- including internal projects that were killed because of pressure from Microsoft. That's why I followed the antitrust trial so closely. Like I said, some opinions are better informed than others. LOL

"If anyone wants to refute the arguments I present, then CITE an equivalent or greater number of high-quality sources. ANY TAKERS? C'mon, surely you CAN refute my sources, RIGHT?"

Not a real good stand to be making when you're posting blatantly incorrect information like "Apple making Firewire available across platforms for FREE!"
I'm sure that 1394la, the company contracted to collect the licensing fees for Firewire, would disagree with that claim.
http://www.1394la.com/

"..the ads are of REAL people, NOT actors, telling the TRUTH about their experiences, without being paid for the endorsement (merely compensated for the use of their likeness in print and electronic media, as is standard practice)..."

And, in your opinion, the fact that if one of those users switched back to Windows they would no longer be featured in the ads (as far as I can tell, there is no contract guaranteeing them continued use in the ads) and would therefore no longer receive compensation for thir likeness rights somehow does not equate to a financial incentive from Apple to keep uting their products?

In any event, I agree with chris. It's not new, nor is it a big deal. Are there users who have switched from Windows to Mac and are happy with the change? Yes. Are there just as many users who have switched from a Mac to Windows and are happy witht he change? Yes. (Heck, there's two just in the office across the hall from me)

Does it make a good ad campaign? Maybe.
Does it prove anything about which product is superior? No.

I have quoted verbatim from the CURRENT Apple Firewire licensing agreement, and provided the URL. You go look it up, smart boy. LOL

"Are there just as many users who have switched from a Mac to Windows and are happy witht he change? Yes. (Heck, there's two just in the office across the hall from me)"

Two data points do not a statistical trend make.
n = 2 is not a valid sample size

Try finding some bigger numbers of people who ACTUALLY chose to switch TO Windows XP (or any flavor) after using MacOS X for, say, several months (gamers not included -- Windows PCs have many more game titles, so no argument there). But for video editing, graphic design, writing, photo editing, web design, audio engineering, software development, etc. Will someone put up a weblog for THOSE switchers, please, so we can hear THEIR stories?

One restriction: the stories MUST be hosted on the website of a major Tier-1 PC vendor (IBM, Dell, HP, Compaq). :-)

"And, in your opinion, the fact that if one of those users switched back to Windows they would no longer be featured in the ads (as far as I can tell, there is no contract guaranteeing them continued use in the ads) and would therefore no longer receive compensation for thir likeness rights somehow does not equate to a financial incentive from Apple to keep uting their products?"

Look, why take my word for it? Read Aaron Adams' own blog, I've posted the URL several times, he's the Windows LAN admin who "switched": http://homepage.mac.com/adamsa

Apple doesn't seem to mind that Aaron has a WinXP and FreeBSD machine at home, as well. LOL

"there is no contract guaranteeing them continued use in the ads) and would therefore no longer receive compensation for thir likeness rights somehow does not equate to a financial incentive from Apple to keep uting their products?"

Ever heard of a model release? (I have clients sign those when their pictures are to be used commercially). People who appear on TV in commcercials have to be paid according to standard rates, or else the company that featured them could be liable for litigation later on. Signing a release is not the same as being financially compensated for endorsement of a particular product. But why am I explaining this to you?

Go and preach to the masses about "Firewire" not being free, despite Apple's clear and unambiguous licensing terms. LOL

No, that would prove him wrong. Wendor is NEVER WRONG! Watch for the descrete personal attacks, they should be coming any time now.

"I have quoted verbatim from the CURRENT Apple Firewire licensing agreement, and provided the URL. You go look it up, smart boy. LOL"

Yes you did. And it shows that Apple does not charge a licensing fee for the Firewire LOGO.

But gee, guess what, Firewire requires more than just a logo to work. It requires the 1394 port hardware. Apple has NOT made the use of 1394 hardware free. They still get licensing fees for it. (www.1394la.com)

You can not add 1394 ports to any hardware legally without paying licensing fees to 1394la, a group that collects and distributes the licensing fees for the various patent holders....including Apple.

"No, that would prove him wrong."

No, it actually wouldn't. All victor showed was that Apple does not charge a licensing fee anymore for the LOGO.

They still require licensing fees for the use of the hardware.

"Watch for the descrete personal attacks, they should be coming any time now."

Why? Are you going to start responding to him now?

No, you are doing well enough making an a** out of yourself, as usual. I agree with his most of his comments, of course anyone with a brain larger than a kidney bean would.

"Ever heard of a model release? (I have clients sign those when their pictures are to be used commercially). People who appear on TV in commcercials have to be paid according to standard rates, or else the company that featured them could be liable for litigation later on. Signing a release is not the same as being financially compensated for endorsement of a particular product. But why am I explaining this to you?"

Because you're wrong.

Since they get paid for EACH separate commercial, they have a financial incentive to want to do MORE commercials. Staying with Mac rather than going back to Windows means that they get to be in MORE commercials. Switching back would very likely result in their NOT being used in more commercials.

Pretty obvious which they would choose.

"Go and preach to the masses about "Firewire" not being free, despite Apple's clear and unambiguous licensing terms. LOL"

The "clear and unambiguous licensing terms" you are referring to ONLY deal with the Firewire LOGO. Apple has not made the use of Firewire HARDWARE and TECHNOLOGY free. They still hold the patents on those and still receive licensing fees for EVERY port manufactured.

I would have thought that you were smart enough to understand that it takes more than a LOGO to make Firewire work.

"Because you're wrong.

Since they get paid for EACH separate commercial, they have a financial incentive to want to do MORE commercials. Staying with Mac rather than going back to Windows means that they get to be in MORE commercials. Switching back would very likely result in their NOT being used in more commercials.

Pretty obvious which they would choose. "

Lets see your proof that he's wrong, all I'm seeing here is your opinion! Back yourself up there bubba.

"Apple doesn't seem to mind that Aaron has a WinXP and FreeBSD machine at home, as well. LOL"

Nope. But if he threw his Mac away or stopped using it entirely, he probbaly wouldn't be featured in any more commercials now would he?

Not being used in more commercials would mean not receiving any addition compensation for likeness rights.

Therefore, he has a financial incentive to keep using his Mac.

"Therefore, he has a financial incentive to keep using his Mac."

So your claim is that he is only using a Mac because he's paid to? That's pretty good! What a pathetic claim, is that the best you can come up with? ROTFLMFAO! All this time all these people thought you were a "smart man" HAHAHAHAHA!

"Two data points do not a statistical trend make.
n = 2 is not a valid sample size"

And neither is the ten or so that Apple is using.

"Will someone put up a weblog for THOSE switchers, please, so we can hear THEIR stories?"

If there was a financial incentive to I'm sure that they would. But since this is an insignificant portion of the PC market, it is unlikely that anyone will. That does not constitute proof that they aren't there.....just proof that they aren't a significant target audience. Microsoft doesn't have to lure users away from Apple. They come on their own.

That's because there is financial incentive not to use Windows! (Read: VIRUSES, LICENSING, AND SPLOITS!)

"I agree with his most of his comments, of course anyone with a brain larger than a kidney bean would."

So, in your opinion, the fact that Apple does not charge licensing fees for the Firewire LOGO means that Firewire is free? Even though the law requires that you pay licensing fees to 1394la, who then distributes them to the patent holders including Apple?

Sure looks an awful lot like Apple has NOT made Firewire free after all. They just made the logo free.

I just did.

Since they receive addtional compensation (in the form of likeness rights) for each commercial they do, they have a financial incentive to do more commercials. Continuing to use the Mac means getting to do more commercials. Therefore, they have a financial incentive (paid by Apple) to continue using the Mac.

Note that I'm not sayign that they are directly paid to use the Mac.....just they they have a financial incentive (paid by Apple) to do so. They are not impartial.

Had Apple written the contracts in such a way as to guarantee them the same number of commericals even if they switched back, then it would have been impartial. That's not what the participants who have disclosed details have said, however.

"So your claim is that he is only using a Mac because he's paid to?"

No. I never said anything of the sort.

I was refuting the claims made previously that they were not compensated for their choice to switch. The contract may not have stated that the payments were specifically for that, but the financial incentive is there.

Ah, by that same logic, there is financial incentive for many companies to not use Apple. (cost, lack of applications, etc.)

Not a very good argument when it cuts both ways.

You obviously don't read before you post LOL!

You implied that he used a Mac because he is paid to.

I never said otherwise.

"I just did."

Where? All I see is your opinion about it. Surely you don't consider your opinion as fact!

FACT: The people are in the commercials because they chose to switch to Mac. (Apple's statement)

FACT: They recived compensation (from Apple) for being in the commercials. (Statements by Apple and the participants as well as required by law)

FACT: They receive more compensation if they do more commercials (required by law)

FACT: Continuing to use their Mac's will allow them to be in more commercials. (Apple's and the participant's statements)

Add those up and you get: They have a financial incentive (provided by Apple) to continue to use their Mac's.

Yes. Indirectly he is.

Continuing to use his Mac gets him in more commercials.
Being in more commercials gets him more likeness rights.
More likeness rights gets him more money (from Apple)

Therefore, continuing to use his Mac gets him more money from Apple.

Pretty easy to follow.

The commercial Apple DID NOT want you to see:

http://www.geekextreme.c...ntswitch/dontswitch.avi

'headgeek' -- your attempt at a rebuttal is, in a word, pathetic

What do you expect? When people can't stomach the truth, they will mock it.

Try again, and show us that you deserve your self-important title. LOL

Umm, all I was doing was showing off a PARODY we created in response to what we feel is a rather poor set of commercials. It is not meant to tout the superiority of PC's. I choose PC, you can Choose Apple or TRS-80 or whatever you may consider superior. I admit there are some things the Mac just does better. I admit that the Mac is a nice computer. I also admit that I personally prefer the PC. The commercial we created was our attempt at HUMOR. It was not meant as anything else. Relax, it's all in fun.

You want REAL FUN, try

http://www.macboy.com/switch/ (Flash 5 required)

LOL

There, now that I have your eyeballs, let’s pause for a disclaimer of sorts:

Insanity Alert: If you have the attention span of a gnat, don’t bother reading any of what follows.

Stop reading. Right now. Leave. Go back to your life, just as it was 2 minutes ago.

If, OTOH, you’re interested in the workings of this fevered mind, read on. I wasn’t paid to write any of this. If you like it, great. If not, tough. I don’t work for or own any stock in any companies mentioned below. The gloves are off.

OK, you have been warned.

Read on? Only if you dare. This is your last chance to turn back...

Here goes.

Part One: WINDOWS IS THE POSTER CHILD OF BAD SOFTWARE ENGINEERING.

In vocabulary-challenged lingo: WINDOWS SUCKS. NO, IT DOESN’T SUCK, IT BLOWS.

The difference between those of you who say “Macs suck” and me is, I present evidence to back up my statements.

Don’t believe me? Then let’s look at THIS June 17, 2002 MIT Technology Review article published online -- on MSNBC, no less!

http://www.msnbc.com/news/768401.asp

Here’s the juicy bit:
“Microsoft released Windows XP on Oct. 25, 2001. That same day, in what may be a record, the company posted 18 megabytes of patches on its Web site: bug fixes, compatibility updates, and enhancements. Two patches fixed important security holes. Or rather, one of them did; the other patch didn’t work. Microsoft advised (and still advises) users to back up critical files before installing the patches. Buyers of the home version of Windows XP, however, discovered that the system provided no way to restore these backup files if things went awry. As Microsoft’s online Knowledge Base blandly explained, the special backup floppy disks created by Windows XP Home “do not work with Windows XP Home.”

In short, the latest-greatest OS from the Redmond Giant is STILL FULL OF HOLES.

But wait, there’s more:
“The real problems lie in software’s basic design, according to R. A. Downes of Radsoft, a software consulting firm. Or rather, its lack of design. Microsoft’s popular Visual Studio programming software is an example, to Downes’s way of thinking. Simply placing the cursor over the Visual Studio window, Downes has found, invisibly barrages the central processing unit with thousands of unnecessary messages, even though the program is not doing anything. “It’s cataclysmic. ... It’s total chaos,” he complains.”

NOW WAIT A MINUTE. Visual Studio is the main SW development environment FOR Windows. You mean, it’s a piece of crap too? So how are you supposed to produce a quality product (Windows SW) if the tools you’re using are already so COMPROMISED to begin with?

You would expect that Mr. William Gates, the Chief Software Architect of Microsoft, would DEFEND the robustness of his company’s products, wouldn’t you? Well, GUESS WHAT?

(from the same article)
“Worse, for marketing reasons companies wire as many features as possible into new software, counteracting the benefits of modular construction. The most widespread example is Windows itself, which Bill Gates testified in an April session of the Microsoft antitrust trial simply would not function if customers removed individual components such as browsers, file managers or e-mail programs. “That’s an incredible claim,” says Neumann. “It means there’s no structure or architecture or rhyme or reason in the way they’ve built those systems, other than to make them as bundled as possible, so that if you remove any part it will all fail.”

Still with me? Good.

And who do you think is to BLAME for much of this mess? Pay attention, this NEXT QUOTE from the same article is from Nathan Myhrvold, former chief technology officer of Microsoft:

“Users are tremendously non-self-aware,” Myhrvold adds. At Microsoft, he says, corporate customers often demanded that the company simultaneously add new features and stop adding new features. “Literally, I’ve heard it in a single breath, a single sentence. ‘We’re not sure why we should upgrade to this new release — it has all this stuff we don’t want — and when are you going to put in these three things?’ And you say, ‘Whaaat?’” Myhrvold’s sardonic summary: “Software sucks because users demand it to.”

Huh?

Is THAT not a supremely CYNICAL assessment of Microsoft’s own customers, or what?

What are the economic consequences of crappy MS software (which affects ALL of us)?

Again from the article:
“The “I Love You” virus, for instance, spread largely because Microsoft — against the vehement warnings of security experts — designed Outlook to run programs in e-mail attachments easily. According to Computer Economics, a consulting group in Carlsbad, CA, the total cost of this decision was $8.75 billion.”

$8.75 billion? Shouldn’t Microsoft be made to pay some of that back from the $40 billion in cash they’ve stockpiled? Whatever the real economic damage is, it’s certainly NOT TRIVIAL. Because MOST people (95% of PC users, we are told) keep using an OS and software that is FULL OF HOLES. Then they buy antivirus SW. Isn’t that sort of like paying into a protection racket?

So where does this leave us?

“It’s either going to be a big product liability suit, or the government will come in and regulate the industry,” says Jeffrey Voas, chief scientist of Cigital Labs, a software-testing firm in Dulles, VA. “Something’s going to give. It won’t be pretty, but once companies have a gun to their head, they’ll figure out a way to improve their code.”

Seems to me there’s a trial going on somewhere that may or may not resolve this. ;-)

Does our buying and using Windows XP give Microsoft ANY incentive to clean up its act?

What do YOU think?

I think I've still never had troubles ejecting a DVD from my laptop. =p It was a hardware issue, I know, but Apple has full control over everything Apple.

I also think that Microsoft has been at least playing lip service to making things better, such as the month long freeze on new code where they went to clean things up.

The bit about Windows being incapable of running without components was an attempt to keep Windows from being forced to run without its components. At least one person in academia has shown it possible, though I'm not sure if MS has retracted their statement about it yet. Either way, it does shed light that something unsavory is going on in Redmond.

It is sad, and for most things Microsoft it seems version 5 or 6 is the first one that is actually usable. However, just because the people at Microsoft didn't think to filter messages away from Visual Studio doesn't mean that a programmer is incapable of doing so in their program. And if anybody is really in doubt, go get a different compiler.

Most software seems to have a problem at some point in its lifetime. It is unfortunate, but seems to be the way of things at the moment. If software wasn't "good enough" for most people then it probably wouldn't last very long. The sad fact is that most people either feel that today's buggy software works well enough for them, or are unaware of alternatives. PC isn't necessarily a synonym for Microsoft based computer.

"PC isn't necessarily a synonym for Microsoft based computer."

Technically, it isn't. But until Linux gains more share on the desktop, the market reality (so we are told) is that 95% of personal computers run Microsoft Winblows, er, Windows.

Most people, for some strange reason I cannot fathom, would rather FIGHT (for a CLUNKY and MASSIVELY DEFECTIVE OS), than Switch (to something BETTER, like Linux or MacOS X).

And when a FEW do switch, some of the ones who STILL don't get it act all INSECURE and start spewing disinformation or worse, as if there is no LOGICAL basis for SWITCHING. They MOCK the switchers, and make pathetic attempts at trying to refute the LOGICAL arguments that have been made in this forum, and elsewhere.

Why? BECAUSE THEY'RE AFRAID TO BE WRONG. Simple as that.

"I think I've still never had troubles ejecting a DVD from my laptop. =p It was a hardware issue, I know, but Apple has full control over everything Apple."

Hello? The TiBook was a slot-load design, as opposed to what everyone else uses: tray load. Yes, there was an engineering problem with the alignment of the drive inside the case, w/c caused discs to jam, but in such cramped quarters (remember the BODY of the TiBook is LESS than ONE INCH thick) I'm NOT surprised they ran into such a glitch, because you have to manufacture to much tighter tolerances. Did TiBook owners raise a stink about it? YOU BET THEY DID. That's why things GOT FIXED. Do people who SETTLE FOR Windows XP raise a stink about it? NOPE. That's why Microsoft continues to produce such mediocre software, as their very own former CTO claims.

Personally, I've been getting along with linux just fine. Its not so user friendly I have nothing to do, has ample power, runs on just about any hardware, and best of all, fits in a poor student's budget. I honestly prefer running it over Windows, but I honestly don't think its ready for John Q User's desktop.

I can keep a PC running for a long time with the option to change any part of it if I need to, an option I would need to get a G4 tower to have. At this point I just cannot afford that. Maybe I will once I can afford one and a DV Camera.

I have a machine running XP, but I got the license (and media) for free from my college, who got it in turn for free from Microsoft, in a vain attempt to woo academia. It just means a guilt free license for me since I don't have to support the Microsoft giant to legally use Windows. I play games on it, play some music off of it, and burn cds on it. If I'm doing text only stuff I tend to use that to ssh to my linux box or the sun machines a few miles away on campus. Using XP shows all sorts of problems with it, but I've never gotten a virus, never had IE damage my machine, or had any disabling problems. I managed to blue screen it with XP drivers for my GeForce2, something nVidia's drivers cleared up. I've had it crash while switching users. It is by no means perfect.

I haven't taken a stab at anybody in this forum. If I've been corrected on a point I have either noted that I thought the feature I was unsure or wrong about was neat or I've just left the thread at that. I certainly haven't made any comments about being able to trade email or IIS viruses across firewire when merely sending files when responding to an answer for an inquiry I made.

I don't have a problem at all with people using software that I don't. Whatever a person works best with is fine by me. Where I do have a problem though is when people try to put down one with illogical statements. Things like having an antenna in a Mac and saying "All Macs are 802.11b wireless ready, a feat no PC manufacturer has matched on Windows systems." That is utter bull. Or caring that USB 1.1 ports go slow. They were designed for slow devices. Having everything integrated doesn't matter either. Its just as easy to add in a card, really. Or best yet that a two year old PC is "useless" running XP. If it won't run XP it was a really, really low grade PC. The point that PCs being outlasted by Macs certainly isn't done in that statement. It certainly doesn't warrent, "So, sure, that Mac may cost more upfront, but you may be able to use it a helluva lot longer than a Windows PC." Not to mention that almost anything mentioned in this whole rant fest can be done on more than just one platform.

If you want to go on about how MS is predatory go right ahead. The courts certainly have found that out as well. MS as a company has done some strongarm things. However, they did bail Apple out once...

"However, they did bail Apple out once... "

Only because they needed to try to demonstrate that they are NOT a monopoly. I am familiar with Microsoft's business philosophy, having worked for FOUR companies (IBM, DEC, Compaq, and Fujitsu, all PC vendors). Does it not bother anyone that Microsoft even screwed Intel, its biggest business partner, by forbidding Intel from developing NSP code for MMX? Why else did former Intel Senior VP Steven McGeady take the stand AGAINST Microsoft?

I've followed the antitrust trial closely, and the thing that amazes me is that the public continues to ignore the very demonstrable fact that Microsoft is at least partially responsible for the economic slump we're in right now. I can offer more quotes (I'm good at research, I had to do a wee bit of it in grad school), but what would be the point? It seems that anyone who points out the liabilities inherent in choosing to use MS software is labeled a fanatic, when all I'm interested in is waking people up to the truth. As I note in a post above, I grew up under a totalitarian regime and I care passionately about the truth, as you seem to.

I have Windows at home, too, but they were all given to me by former employers, so I have no guilt about feeding the Bill Gates political influence-buying fund.

Relax, calm down, breathe. It's not like we're talking religion here or anything. Apple let a glitch out the door with the DVD thing. I'm perfectly aware how small the laptop was and that it wasn't a tray loader. Just like I'm aware that it happened.

And if you read the post you'd see my dismay with the quality of MS's products. I'm aware that because nobody is complaining nothing is being done. At least Apple fixed their problems.

And besides, a Mac not ejecting a DVD is small compared to NT crippling a whole AEGIS Cruiser. ;)

http://www.info-sec.com/...c/OSsec_080498g_j.shtml

"Relax, calm down, breathe."

Thanks, I needed that.

"It's not like we're talking religion here or anything."

No, we're talking about people's LIVES. And I don't mean the fantasy lives in games, where you just get up and walk away. SW quality is now a LIFE AND DEATH ISSUE. See below.

"I'm aware that because nobody is complaining nothing is being done."

That's why I'm on a soapbox, so that at least people will complain -- I'd be willing to buy Windows if (a) Microsoft fixes the problems) and (b) stops trying to monopolize not only the entire SW industry, but the ENTIRE economy (did you know that Bill Gates owns Corbis, one of the world's largest licensors of photographic images, etc.?) Why do you think he was named the second most important man in photography by American Photo magazine? See, even in fields far outside of computers, the tentacles of the Redmond giant are extended.

James Gleick (author of "Chaos: The Making of a New Science") has thought-provoking essays on what to do about MS in his blog at http://www.around.com/ and I recommend in particular his piece on "Microspeak" -- a brilliant expose on the Orwellian dystopia that awaits us if MS manages (with the unthinking collusion of the HERD) to "embrace and extend" the Internet.

You said:
"And besides, a Mac not ejecting a DVD is small compared to NT crippling a whole AEGIS Cruiser. ;)"
http://www.info-sec.com/...c/OSsec_080498g_j.shtml

Thanks for providing the URL, and here are some relevant snippets from the article that show that SOFTWARE QUALITY IS NOW a LIFE AND DEATH ISSUE:

"Ron Redman, deputy technical director of the Fleet Introduction Division of the Aegis Program Executive Office, said there have been numerous software failures associated with NT aboard the Yorktown.

"Refining that is an ongoing process," Redman said. "Unix is a better system for control of equipment and machinery, whereas NT is a better system for the transfer of information and data. NT has never been fully refined and there are times when we have had shutdowns that resulted from NT."

The Yorktown has been towed into port several times because of the systems failures, he said.

"Because of politics, some things are being forced on us that without political pressure we might not do, like Windows NT," Redman said. "If it were up to me I probably would not have used Windows NT in this particular application. If we used Unix, we would have a system that has less of a tendency to go down."

(gets angry again)
If you are engaging the enemy in battle, would you like to be relying on slipshod software? THIS IS NOT A 1ST-PERSON SHOOT-EM-UP GAME.

What are OTHER LIFE AND DEATH CONSEQUENCES OF POOR QUALITY SOFTWARE?

"One would expect a 45-million-line program like Windows XP, Microsoft’s newest operating system, to have a few bugs. And software engineering is a newer discipline than mechanical or electrical engineering; the first real programs were created only 50 years ago. But what’s surprising — astonishing, in fact — is that many software engineers believe that software quality is not improving. If anything, they say, it’s getting worse. It’s as if the cars Detroit produced in 2002 were less reliable than those built in 1982.
As software becomes increasingly important, the potential impact of bad code will increase to match, in the view of Peter G. Neumann, a computer scientist at SRI International, a private R&D center in Menlo Park, CA. In the last 15 years alone, software defects have wrecked a European satellite launch, delayed the opening of the hugely expensive Denver airport for a year, destroyed a NASA Mars mission, killed four marines in a helicopter crash, induced a U.S. Navy ship to destroy a civilian airliner, and shut down ambulance systems in London, leading to as many as 30 deaths. And because of our growing dependence on the Net, Neumann says, “We’re much worse off than we were five years ago. The risks are worse and the defenses are not as good. We’re going backwards—and that’s a scary thing.”

KILLED four marines in a helicopter crash
DESTROYED a civilian airliner
SHUT DOWN ambulance systems, etc.

Granted, the article doesn't specify if the SW in the cited examples was from MS, but Microsoft, being the monopoly that it is, has the BIGGEST RESPONSIBILITY to set a GOOD example. To date, that example has not been forthcoming -- and yet people are too ready to make lame excuses for Microsoft.

I only quoted from the article; the entire piece is worth a read, especially if you develop software yourself:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/768401.asp

BOYCOTT MONOPOLISTIC VENDORS OF SOFTWARE THAT CAN KILL.

"Most software seems to have a problem at some point in its lifetime. It is unfortunate, but seems to be the way of things at the moment. If software wasn't "good enough" for most people then it probably wouldn't last very long. The sad fact is that most people either feel that today's buggy software works well enough for them, or are unaware of alternatives."

Let's go back to what Tim Berners-Lee said about NeXT: "I wrote the program using a NeXT computer. This had the advantage that there were some great tools available -it was a great computing environment in general. In fact, I could do in a couple of months what would take more like a year on other platforms, because on the NeXT, a lot of it was done for me already."
http://www.w3.org/People...s-Lee/WorldWideWeb.html

Updated versions of those tools are in every copy of MacOS X sold today. And I seem to recall a quote from an Apple SW conference, to the effect that "code you don't have to write is code that won't have new bugs." If you start with a good platform for development, with high-quality tools and robust frameworks, chances are you'll turn out higher-quality code as well. And since SW quality is now a life-and-death issue as I've illustrated in my other posts, I think that we are all better off if we choose the best possible tools for our SW development -- and for everything else.

I first deployed IIS on NT4 in 1997. Since that time, MS has not addressed the problems in it, leading Gartner Group to advise their clients to move off IIS.

I care deeply about SW quality, because I'm now a parent and someday, my son's life MAY hang in the balance because of poor SW quality. (see my other posts on this issue)

That's why I have no respect for powerful corporations that seem to care little, if at all, about the quality of what they produce. Apple is obviously far from perfect, but the attention to quality they strive for, their commitment to excellence, is also worth supporting as an MS alternative.

"MS as a company has done some strongarm things."

Now THAT, my friends, is what is called an UNDERSTATEMENT.

Some 'strongarm' things. Hmmm. How about, for starters, "knifing the baby"?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi...ewsid_210000/210650.stm

Going back further into history, skim through

http://lists.essential.o...icy-notes/msg00020.html

There. If you care enough to know the truth, your liberation from the brainwashing has begun.

Blue Pill, or Red Pill?

McLaren suck!!!!

Different people need different things, Windows offers certain things over Mac and Mac offers certain things over Windows. I like the Mac OS X interface (before that it wasnt that nice looking) I dislike the way that OSX "hides" the UNIX sode of things, esp. when it comes to the Finder, i cant find a way to get into the BIN or VAR folders via Finder, only using Terminal. OSX is basically like FreeBSD, it is strong as a rock yet amazingly fast, i have been watching a DVD and editing a video at the same time, doing that on a PC is almost impossible unless it is a DualCPU system with about 1GB RAM and SCSI HDD. Also Apple's systems last so much longer than x86 systems running Windows. I installed OSX on a G3 PowerMac the other week and it runs amazingly fast! It is easily usable every day, the only thing it cant do perfectly is minimize and maximize the windows using the "Genie" effect, with "Scale" effect it is great. I put Windows XP Pro on a Pentium 2 450Mhz with 256MB RAM and it runs very very slow, the shadow under menus kills the system, it is so slow! My mac can handle the alpha fading great and has no problems with showing the windows contents using alpha fading while i drag it all around the screen, doing that on my old Windows XP machine it is all jerky (that is when i use an application such as MetaPad which can be transparent using AlphaFading).

All in all i think we need both Mac and x86 (Windows) systems, i enjoy using different systems, it is interesting to see different approaches to using a computer.

'I dislike the way that OSX "hides" the UNIX sode of things, esp. when it comes to the Finder, i cant find a way to get into the BIN or VAR folders via Finder, only using Terminal.'

This is probably a design decision to make UNIX usable by nongeeks and still keep it secure, just like the decision not to enable root by default.

yeah i guess, however it would be nice to see it as an option (perhaps a later version). I must admit that i was a bit on the "it wont work" side when i head OSX was going to be UNIX based, however i think they have done an excellent job, if i could afford a Mac (they REALLY need to sort out pricing, i know they last about twice as long if not longer than PC hardware but it is crazy pricing) i would get one tomorrow, at work MY Mac is a Dual 1Ghz G4 with a GF3 graphics card, it is the most beautiful and powerful machine i have ever used, it runs like a dream, i have never had a problem with it, i love the way i can change language just by loging out and back in! I can do pretty much everything on a Mac as i can do with a PC (except code Win32 Apps, not even Code Warrior is that good!) It makes graphics in PhotoShop so much quicker than in Windows even on a 2Ghz P4 CPU!

"I can do pretty much everything on a Mac as i can do with a PC (except code Win32 Apps, not even Code Warrior is that good!)"

Although I've never tried it myself, RealBasic 4 on the Mac can output Win32 binaries, http://www.realbasic.com.

Another product that claims to produce binaries for Win32, Mac, and Linux is Runtime Revolution, http://www.runrev.com

And of course, there's Java, and MacOS X includes a full dev environment that supports Java (but it's only J2SE 1.3.1 at the moment).

"It makes graphics in PhotoShop so much quicker than in Windows even on a 2Ghz P4 CPU"

Shhh...don't say things like that, the Windows bigots might get upset. LOL

"if i could afford a Mac (they REALLY need to sort out pricing, i know they last about twice as long if not longer than PC hardware but it is crazy pricing)"

At least you can recognize engineering excellence when you encounter it. (I'm biased, because my undergrad degree was in mechanical engineering, with some EE courses).

At US$1099 for an eMac, it seems Apple is trying to address the more price conscious end of the market (the original Mac 128K had an MSRP of US$2495 in 1984). Sure, you can get a $299 Lindows PC from Walmart, but that's with no monitor, and it's pretty low-spec. The eMac is usable out of the box for video editing, though I'd add 512MB RAM (US$70). "Crazy pricing" is relative. Unlike most PC vendors, who do not have to underwrite the cost of OS development, Apple uses HW sales to finance its work in SW (OS, the iApps, QuickTime, WebObjects, FinalCut, etc.), HW R&D (FireWire, iPod, custom ASICs), topnotch industrial design, and so on. One analogy I can think of is Mercedes-Benz -- M-B were the first to add seatbelts, ABS, electronic traction control, etc. to their automobiles, and other car manufacturers eventually did the same thing. Are Benzes more expensive than most other cars? Sure they are. But few people would deny the engineering excellence that is typical of Mercedes-Benz automobiles. I can already hear the protests: "But it's just a car, it has four wheels, it's made of steel, glass, and rubber. Why should it be SO expensive?" Because it's a high quality, well-engineered product. It would be great if everyone could have a Benz level of quality and engineering at a Honda Civic price point, but it just isn't possible right now, given the economics of relative scarcity that underpin our civilization -- but that's a whole 'nuther essay.

"It makes graphics in PhotoShop so much quicker than in Windows even on a 2Ghz P4 CPU"

Shhh...don't say things like that, the Windows bigots might get upset. LOL

"It makes graphics in PhotoShop so much quicker than in Windows even on a 2Ghz P4 CPU"

Shhh...don't say things like that, the Windows bigots might get upset. LOL

Have loads of messages been deleted, or have you REALLY spent so much time talking to yourself in this thread?!

I LIKE talking to myself.

You're never alone...with schizophrenia.

LOL

Silly boy. Press command ~ (or choose go to folder from the Go menu in the finder) and then enter /var or /bin

Apple's "new" advertising campaign is..........

"Too Litle, Too Late"............

And besides that..........

Mac OS Sucks

Give Lycoris a try if ya want a "free" unix based os......

www.lycoris.com

"___ sucks"

People who post statements like these without explaining the basis for their opinions (either with sources from the Net or illustrative examples taken from direct experience) are adding no value -- only noise -- to the discussion. The only conclusion we can draw is that they are either too lazy or too ignorant to present a cogent case for their viewpoint. Keep regaling us with your oh-so-brilliant attempts at logical argument, 'Compdoc', it's always entertaining to see current examples of human stupidity on display.

I'm afraid (even though I don't even own a Mac) I'd have to agree with victor on this one.

Saying "MacOS sucks" withouth a basis for opinion only shows your ignorance or your age, or both.

And while there are MANY promising Linux distributions (including Lycoris), there are still many hurdles for them to overcome--most notably a legitimate Office contendor. While OpenOffice/StarOffice is quite good, there are still a few incompatibilities I've ran across. Also, Gimp is a good graphics program, but no where near what Photoshop is. And while there have been leaps and bounds in the Linux Desktop area (KDE 3 and Gnome 2), it's still not as user friendly (or 'user dumb' if you're a geek and you prefer) as Windows and Windows isn't as user friendly as MacOS.

Until this leap in usability occurs, you're running a niche OS with minimal support from software and hardware vendors, because it's too complicated for mass adoption and without users you get no sales. Capitalism to the core. ;)

Computers suck..

;-)

Actually, fewt has a point. I'm typing this...why should I have to use a keyboard? A wearable computer with a neural interface would be much better, but I suspect a lot of us would not be comfortable with the idea of having our nervous systems directly connected to the Internet, especially if we're using something as full of security holes as Windows. However, a wearable computer with an always-on, high-speed wireless connection to the Net would be attractive to many, and Steve Mann http://www.eecg.toronto.edu/~mann/ uses a Linux-powered wearable computer for precisely this purpose. He's a walking webcam, and his entire view of the world is mediated through a computer. Since this is Betanews, I just thought our readers should become acquainted with his work, because it could presage one possible form that the future of personal computing may take.

On a somewhat more cerebral note...perhaps not...

"My favorite games GTA3 and Need for Speed are not available for Macs."

How is this ontologically different from: "My favorite recreational drugs are not available in those fancy Hallmark scratch and sniff cards, so I'll just snort them from a paper bag! Hallmark SUCKS!"

My medication must be wearing off...

I've read the majority of these posts (but not all 122 -- in two days no less, sheesh!). It's amusing to see how alive and well the Mac vs. PC debate is.

victorpanlilio is obviously a die-hard Mac fan, who's well educated and has experience with both platforms. Most of the rest of you Mac bashers probably have never even given a Mac a shot to even be bashing it. I myself did use a Mac all through college, but was force to adopt the PC as my mainline machine as I'm a programmer (Windows, Java, et al). Yes I realize I can program Java on a Mac, but I can't program Windows from a Mac without something like VirtualPC and I'm not sure there's a point in making a clunky OS clunkier with an emulator. ;)

Anyway, there is a simplistic way I've learned to look at things, from my experience, which isn't grossly vast.

If you can stand Windows nuances (and sometimes there are plenty), and if you want the latest and greatest (and widest variety) of hardware or software (especially games), go with a Wintel box.

If you don't need any of the above, consider a Mac. I've not had a lot of exposure to MacOS X but what little I have and have read indicates it's the best move Apple could have made. Macs are legendary in their reliability, and its safe to say that my 5 month old self-built Athlon desktop has crashed more times than my Mac did in 4 years of school. But will my Athlon XP 1800+ and 128MB GeForce 4 Ti 4400 crush any Mac in pure graphics throughput (ie games)? You betcha.

As for the processor debate, all you PC users should very well know that GHz ratings are pointless (case in point -- AMD vs Intel, and a slower GHz AMD is USUALLY faster). However, pointless or not, MOST (not all victor, just MOST ;) applications perform slower on comperable Mac vs PC systems.

But there are just so many options (if you can tolerate the crashes) for a Wintel box that just aren't there yet for a Mac. If Apple somehow acheives wooing software publishers into developing most software titles for the Mac simultaneously, I'll consider switching. But I'm a geek programmer that loves the latest and greatest and I'll stick with my brand new desktop and IBM T30 for now. :)

"victorpanlilio is obviously a die-hard Mac fan, who's well educated and has experience with both platforms."

Actually, I'm the DUNCE in the family, since I don't have a PhD or MSc. My siblings and in-laws all have postgraduate degrees in fields such as molecular biology, computer science, polymer chemistry, applied math, and mechanical engineering, from schools like Duke, Cornell, and Case. My only saving grace is having some technical work experience at IBM, DEC, and Compaq.

"Yes I realize I can program Java on a Mac, but I can't program Windows from a Mac without something like VirtualPC and I'm not sure there's a point in making a clunky OS clunkier with an emulator. ;)"

The real showstopper for you, I think, is the (current) lack of J2SE 1.4 on MacOS X. Gosling told me he's lit a fire under the Apple Java team to get past 1.3.1, but that's not the same as shipping NOW. I guess generating Win32 binaries from RealBASIC is not a viable option if you're doing C++. Maybe as a hobby you could play with Runtime Revolution (http://www.runrev.com) to see if it can output nontrivial Win32, MacOS X, and Linux binaries...

"will my Athlon XP 1800+ and 128MB GeForce 4 Ti 4400 crush any Mac in pure graphics throughput (ie games)? You betcha."

Of course it should, given that aggregate memory bandwidth is much higher on your Athlon than on a G4. Until Apple can implement a higher-clock FSB and DDR SDRAM, this limitaton will hinder the Mac as a gaming machine no matter how good the CPU and GPU is, and as a workstation for real-time uncompressed HD video, even a fully hopped up G4 is probably not ready to take on an SGI Fuel or a Sun Blade 2000. For that, we'll need to see if Apple actually does anything half-decent with their Raycer acquisition and the G5.

The article forgot to mention the fact that Steve Jobs told the Apple convention in New York (forgot what it's called) that all of the "Switch" people voluntarily came to Apple. However, it turns out that Apple solicited these people and paid them to do the commercials.

Where did you get this info?

You need some help with the facts. First of all, Steve Jobs didn't tell anyone about the Switch ads at MacWorld New York because it hasn't happened yet (starts July 15).

Secondly, the Switch "actors" voluntarily submitted their stories to Apple well before the Switch ads kicked off. Then Apple obviously contacted the people with the stories they liked. And I'm sure some compensation is involved, I sure would want some if they were slapping my likeness all over the place.

Glad I could help!

Ummm, yes it has happened, I saw about 10 commercials in while watching one 1hr show, yesterday.

He meant Macworld New York 2002 hasn't happened yet, because that's in July. And as for the accuracy of the original post why not do some basic research first? Aaron Adams, the Windows LAN admin who switched, goes into great detail on his blog at http://homepage.mac.com/adamsa/ and the relevant paragraph is:
"I would like to point out that Apple did not ask me to write this story or post this page. Lots of people have asked me how I came to be in the commercial. Some people think I'm an actor, and some people think I got a giant lump of money from Apple for saying the right things. Well, I'm not an actor, and everything I said in that commercial and on this page is absolutely true. I couldn't be happier with the Apple products I've purchased and the way I've been treated through this whole experience. I am being compensated for the use of my likeness in their advertising, but I was never remunerated for my endorsement."

"Apple solicited these people and paid them to do the commercials." Based on the information we have brought to your attention, would you care to elaborate on this?

He hasn't replied, because (pick one)
(a) he doesn't have good sources to back up his statement, or
(b) he doesn't have ANY sources to back up his statement
Want to take bets on which one it is?

Doubtful lol

Did you know actors get paid to do commercials? I'm not sure why he'd need to elaborate. I doubt they do these commercials just for the "cause".

Do you read at all? Aaron Adams, the Windows LAN admin who was one of the Switchers, has a blog in which he said that he is NOT an actor, nor was he paid for his endorsement, but merely was compensated for his appearance in the ads. The blog is at http://homepage.mac.com/adamsa

It's thought-free trolls like yours which make my blood boil

"...in which he said that he is NOT an actor, nor was he paid for his endorsement, but merely was compensated for his appearance in the ads."

In other words, he was still paid.

If he keeps using his Mac, he gets to do more commercials and collect more "likeness rights" payments.

If he stops using his Mac, he doesn't get to do more commercials and doesn't get any additional "likeness rights" payments.

Sure sounds like a financial incentive to keep using his Mac.

The answer is simple: probably not. Macs have this useless novelty about them that wears off after a while. So, these people that are switching are like little babies playing with something shiny. They'll think it's the greatest thing in the world...for 5 minutes...until they realise that it doesn't actually *do* anything.

On the contrary, I find Macs generally more pleasant to use than PCs. I've worked for IBM, DEC, and Compaq. I've used PCs since 1983, and every version of Windows from 1.0 to XP Professional. But I'm typing this on an iBook running MacOS X, which I use throughout the day, in contrast to my Toshiba Satellite Pro, which I rarely touch. You prattle on with a highly opinionated dismissal of Macs but do not offer any evidence (e.g. direct personal experience) to back it up. I have plenty. If you currently use only one computer platform, then you have no valid empirical basis for making the comparison. And while everyone is certainly entitled to an opinion, some opinions are much better-informed than others.

Nice try bud. How old are you, 14? Anyway, I'll take the higher ground. You're right that Macs don't do anything - they do just about everything. Let's be honest, just about any computer today will do pretty much what you want them to do. It's just that some get the job done more efficiently and with the end-user in mind. Yes - more often than not, that would be the Mac.

I'll agree to the point about most computers doing just about anything you want, but I don't think you can get away with the comment that Macs more often than not do it more efficiently and with the end user in mind. Well, unless by more efficiently you mean more instructions per clock cycle, but I have a feeling that's not what you mean. Most any professional graphics software is available on both Mac and PC these days, with nearly identical interfaces. Microsoft Office is a PC first release. Internet explorer is in my opinion the friendliest browser today (though not until version 5 came around did I feel that way) and that is far better on the PC than the Mac. I'm sure there is software on the Mac that has no version for the PC, just as the PC has many titles that the Mac doesn't.

Not to defend the blatent troll, but how many software packages can you name that work either better on the Mac, or have no PC analog?

To mention many of the many Applications that run better on a Mac (Here we go).

Adobe Photoshop (the accessability to alti-vec allows this app to do amazing things)

Adobe Illustrator (Ditto)

Adobe In Design (Ditto x2)

Let's just say all the adobe applications since they are developed on a Mac first, and then ported to the PC

Macromedia freehand

Macromedia Flash (Flash used to be a Mac only thing)

Microsoft Office (this is really a teeder toder program because the next version of Office for the PC will have the things that make the mac version better as well as a few new features, When the next Mac version comes out it will inherit the P.C.'s new functions, and a few more functions will be added.)

Quarks Express

and the list goes on

Consumer apps -- iMovie2, iTunes, iPhoto, iDVD2 have been reviewed against their WinXP counterparts, time and time again, the iApps win for elegance and ease of use (having tried some of them on both platforms, I tend to agree)
Pro apps -- Final Cut Pro is Mac-only; Softpress Freeway is Mac-only; MacOS X comes bundled with a complete development environment for Java, ObjC, and AppleScript, plus you can get MySQL, PostgreSQL, and many UNIX/Linux apps for free. Why is Photoshop better on the Mac? Let me illustrate: for years Windows has had some form of color management, but it's not consistently implemented in all applications. On the Mac, things are more highly evolved because ColorSync has been around longer. For print media, the native gamma of the Mac display color space (1.8) is better suited to the tonal scale requirements of commercial printing. I could go on, but I think the point is clear. In the content-creation industries (print, film, broadcast TV), Macs are preferred by many, and Apple is the only personal computer company to have won awards (Grammy, Oscar, Emmy) for their technical contributions to these professional fields. The latest TV ad shows this fellow saying nice things about his iBook, and he ends by saying "My name is David Carey, and I'm a magazine publisher." He doesn't say which magazine: The New Yorker.

what? the tired and used gaussian blur test? come on, how many times do you need to gaussian blur something anyway?

so what else? to my knowledge, there's nothing in the code of indesign 2 or illustrator 10 that makes it better than their pc counterparts. and although both are graphics programs, i don't believe that they rely heavily on the FPU nor have i read any documents that say otherwise. i think you'd get better performance (in terms of screen refresh and redraw) with indesign and illustrator from a better graphics card.

incidentally, i own both an athlon-powered pc running windows 2000 and a g4 running macOS 10/9 and for regular, non-altivec optimized programs you can truly hardly ever tell the speed difference.

The OS native apps I hardly feel are that important, iTunes is okay, but everybody has their favorite player. I'm personally a fan of WinAmp, not native, but everybit as free. From what I've heard you need an actual product and not the freebies with either OS if you want to do any serious video stuff. Though the Windows Movie Maker in XP is woefully inadaquate for mostly anything.

If you want the unix stuff PC users have had unix forever, though you lose the ease of use bit. I think Apple may have hit on something with Darwin in OS X. Still those apps are either way apps now, you can have them on either architecture.

Anybody doing professional graphics is going to do the color setup right on either platform. Any graphic designer that I've talked with that aren't Mac zealots have attested to this not having been an issue for quite some time now.

Surely there must be some analogous piece of software on the PC for these graphics studios. Adobe and Macromedia release everything onto the PC these days. Maya just now got onto Mac OS X, I assume through the unix portion. 3DStudio is Windows bound as well; there are trade-offs to any architecture. Certain software will only work on one, though the functionality is usually there on either one.

One nontrivial example: there is nothing on the PC side that has the ease-of-use/power combination of iMovie2. For higher-end users, Final Cut Pro has a number of real-time FX and transitions and OfflineRT stores 40 minutes of video per GB, so it's possible to edit long-form dailies on a notebook and redigitize at full res once your rough edits are complete. Sure, there are many video editing apps for Windows, but is anyone making award-winning movies with them? "Power" isn't power unless you can quickly learn to use it to achieve your goals. And from what I've seen, iMovie empowers even average people to make compelling videos that can be output to DV tape (which is more than you can say for Windows Movie Maker).

>>The OS native apps I hardly feel are that important, iTunes is okay, but everybody has their favorite player. I'm personally a fan of WinAmp, not native, but everybit as free. From what I've heard you need an actual product and not the freebies with either OS if you want to do any serious video stuff. Though the Windows Movie Maker in XP is woefully inadaquate for mostly anything.>Anybody doing professional graphics is going to do the color setup right on either platform. Any graphic designer that I've talked with that aren't Mac zealots have attested to this not having been an issue for quite some time now.

This is a right or wrong statement. Every graphic designer and service bureaus I talk to have a different view, they all prefer Macs. That's true that PC can now do some level of color management, and also it's true that all professional do color setup first before doing their job, but the problem is you have to maintain a consistence color accuracy over the entire workflow, you can maintain such thing in a very control enviromnet if you';re using PC with the help of more expensive calibration system, but you cann't control everything. The problem is in the Windows OS itself.

Well, you seem to be misinformed. Some of the office programs, such as Excell, were mac first programs. Not until Bill Gates stole the Apple OS and turned it into Windows, did office appear.

Now you know. Don't You?!?

"Microsoft Office is a PC first release." Uh, no. Excel was a Mac-first app, as was PowerPoint. Word has been on the PC longer, but not as a GUI app. I should know, I was using them from 1989-1991 when DOS was still prevalent on PCs.
"Internet explorer...is far better on the PC than the Mac." Is it more web standards compliant? Nope. Is it more secure? Nope. Is it more integrated into the OS? Yup. Tell it to the judge, then. I don't generally use IE on the Mac, when I can choose from Omniweb, Mozilla, Netscape, Opera, iCab, and Chimera, and NONE of them hooks into the OS for virii and worms to exploit.

"From what I've heard you need an actual product and not the freebies with either OS if you want to do any serious video stuff." Have you actually USED iMovie2? Apparently, not. If you had, you'd know that it's possible to do "serious video stuff" with it, within its limitations. Windows Movie Maker doesn't export to DV tape; iMovie2 does, and it also exports to iDVD2 for creating DVD's on suitably-equipped Macs. So in that regard, for a "freebie" app, it's remarkably capable.

"Anybody doing professional graphics is going to do the color setup right on either platform. Any graphic designer that I've talked with that aren't Mac zealots have attested to this not having been an issue for quite some time now." Uh, could you be more specific? Last year I calibrated a US$6500 Barco Reference V monitor for a client. Since I can't afford one, I have the poor man's Barco, a LaCie BlueEye electron19b II with the BlueEye sensor. And don't tell me that any other affordable calibrator works as well, because the BlueEye is a closed-loop system, with a special video cable that also plugs into the USB port, so the SW can adjust the voltage to the RGB guns in the CRT and adjust the CLUTs on the video card. In other words, it's not only a SW calibrator that uses a HW sensor to read color targets and generate ICC profiles. The BlueEye only works on a Mac. But, I still have to wonder why so many graphic artists, design professionals, photographers, etc. prefer to use Macs. Must be the stylish cases. Yeah, that must be it. ;-)

But of course Apple didn't steal the whole GUI/pointing device idea from Xerox did they?

"But of course Apple didn't steal the whole GUI/pointing device idea from Xerox did they?" Groan. How long is THIS particular kind of ignorance going to survive on the Net? I have news for you. There's this thing called "Google" and when you type "Macintosh history" into it you get as your first search result http://library.stanford.edu/mac/ which is an official archive at Stanford University, an obscure American school of questionable repute. In this archive is all the misinformation you need to convince yourself that Apple STOLE its ideas from Xerox, rather than paying Xerox for the right to commercialize ideas that PARC did not bring to the marketplace. There, you have been enlightened. Now, pray tell, what other gems of mental brilliance do you wish to share with the Internet community today?

"But of course Apple didn't steal the whole GUI/pointing device idea from Xerox did they?" Since this persistent and gross oversimplification seems to be well entrenched, and since so few appear willing to investigate primary sources before posting ill-informed opinions to the Net, let me save you the effort of tracing the relevant interview explaining the similarities between the work done at Xerox PARC and Apple's Lisa and Macintosh projects: Jef Raskin's interview is online at http://library.stanford....rviews/raskin/parc.html -- so now you have no excuse for being ignorant. In the interview, Raskin uses the word "stole" several times; he had not been aware of the stock deal between Apple and Xerox. In another document, he says "Having been associated with PARC, I repeatedly called Apple's attention to the kind of thinking going on there, and it was gratifying that the company took note of and eventually based a lot of the LISA software on the published work done at PARC." Another good example of the value-add that Apple contributed: the mouse, detailed in http://library.stanford.edu/mac/mouse.html.

"If you want the unix stuff PC users have had unix forever, though you lose the ease of use bit."

Uh-huh. SCO Xenix was out for x86 in 1985. Apple had A/UX in 1989. Neither gained any real consumer following. Linux was born in late 1991, and it's become quite popular, but more so on servers than on workstations (Lycoris and Lindows may change this). Meanwhile, MacOS X is the direct descendant of NeXTSTEP, on which Tim Berners-Lee invented the world's first web browser/editor and server:
"I wrote the program using a NeXT computer. This had the advantage that there were some great tools available -it was a great computing environment in general. In fact, I could do in a couple of months what would take more like a year on other platforms, because on the NeXT, a lot of it was done for me already." AND HE GAVE HIS CREATION AWAY FOR FREE. Fancy that. (quote is taken verbatim from Tim's blog at http://www.w3.org/People...s-Lee/WorldWideWeb.html) -- use primary sources when you can, people!
MacOS X has these same developer tools (updated, of course) in every Mac sold today. In short: the web on which you're reading all this was first conceived and implemented on the software predecessor of Mac OS X. Somewhere, someone with a copy of MacOS X is doing something potentially as world-changing as the Web. With Windows, the change is mostly the sound of money flowing into Microsoft's treasury. Ch-ching!

"incidentally, i own both an athlon-powered pc running windows 2000 and a g4 running macOS 10/9 and for regular, non-altivec optimized programs you can truly hardly ever tell the speed difference."

And you somehow forgot to mention that the G4 is running at less than half the clock of the Athlon, too.

"there are trade-offs to any architecture. Certain software will only work on one, though the functionality is usually there on either one."

Yeah. When I was at Compaq, which runs on MS Exchange and Outlook, the entire e-mail network was shut down for a day because of viruses rampaging through the system. Another company I used to work for, which used Netscape Messaging Server and Netscape Communicator, was relatively unscathed.

Say, what is the economic impact of the world's uncritical acceptance of MS and its false promises of "Trustworthy Computing"? See
http://www.securitystats.com/webdeface.asp

"It is estimated that the worldwide impact of malicious code was 13.2 Billion Dollars in the year 2001 alone, with the largest contributers being SirCam at $1.15 Billion, Code Red (all variants) at $2.62 Billion, and NIMDA at $635 Million."

Gee, ALL of those things run on Windows PCs, don't they? The "functionality" for these exploits is on Windows PCs, NOT on PCs running Linux or Macs running MacOS 9 or MacOS X.

And choosing PCs is supposed to be cheaper, right? Turns out that the "thrills" associated with using PCs don't come cheap -- they end up costing organizations BIG time, which hurts profitability, which leads to bad numbers on Wall St., which leads to layoffs...

Meanwhile, Microsoft continues to give the finger to the judicial system despite having been convicted, not once, but TWICE, in the current antitrust lawsuit. The verdict of the 8-member U.S. Court of Appeals was unanimous, too.

THIS is the company that otherwise intelligent people want to DEFEND as the preferred provider of their primary OS?

Oh happy day...

Someone remind me not to donate to the "Feed the Greedy, Lawbreaking, Lying Monopolist" next time I'm tempted to buy a Windows PC. Oh, never mind, the last computer I bought was an iBook running MacOS X.

Like Tim O'Reilly said: guilt-free computing.

Like Ashley said, the Command-Q will quit the registration process, OS X will only require an Admin name and Password. As far as the first comment goes, when we say Macs are Airport ready, it means that the built-in antenna is already there (hence, no protruding wireless cards) and the software to configure is included with all Macs. With PCs you will have to buy additional hardware and thrid party software to install. In the case of desktops you will have to take up one of your free expansion slots, not the case with a PowerMac or iMac. The wireless connectivity on a Macintosh is way superior than on a PC. Best of all, Apple's technology will take advantage of other third party hardware while Apple's Base Station will allow PCs to connect too!

Third party software is not necessary for wireless in WindowsXP, with the exception of drivers if they're not included with WindowsXP.

And, yes, you do take up an expansion slot on a PC, but that's still better than iMacs and Cubes with no expansion slots. Average PC users don't worry about running out of expansion slots.

Yes it was, I had to install software as well as drivers to use my Linksys cards with WEP enabled.

Oh, I was running XP at the time. ;-)

I'm aware the newer laptops have their own antenna, didn't know anything about the cubes or towers being wireless out of the box. Also, what's up with the $99 airport card statement in the article if all macs really are wireless out of the box? I wouldn't think you'd need to buy the airport card in that case. Or is it that the macs have antennas and the airport card just does the wireless logic? Not bad considering that little extra sticking out of a laptop is semi-annoying. Also, how's it done in the cubes? I've never had the joy of attempting to expand one of those. Is it just built in, and if so, doesn't that hurt for future standards, like 802.11a?

Please tell me what the "average" pc user needs to add to a Windows machine that cannot be added to a Mac?

Video? Audio? GIGABIT Ethernet? Wireless? USB? Firewire? External Video?

Home users - the target for the iMac - has all this built in. If you are a professional user, get a G4 tower; it has 4 EMPTY slots with all those ports still built in. Can you say that about your windows machine? How many slots would you have open if you added Firewire, Wireless, Gigabit Ethernet? How many IRQ's would you have free and how many reboots would you need to make it all work together? And then, how many viri and security holes would you end up with?

802.11b has critical mass, 11a doesn't. 11g is designed for the same data throughput as 11a, and uses the same frequency (2.4GHz), unlike 11a. Since the "built-in wireless" of Apple hardware is really only the antennas in every model, desktop or notebook, then it may be possible to switch to 11g when the cards ship.

Cool and fair enough. I was merely a little confused about the built in wireless, having to buy a seperate card, and all that good stuff. Seeing built in kinda made me assume "built in" and not, antenna only built in. More of the near truths that Apple seems to pull too often that make me wary.

Video - Yes, a new video card after two years of owning a PC can bring it to the point of being able to play all the newest games. As far as I know the iMac is stuck with what it has.

Audio - Yes, onboard audio isn't usually that great, Macs are okay, but nothing special. Add an Audigy to the PC. Again the iMac is stuck.

Gigabit - God No, the company I work for doesn't have gigabit ethernet on the desktop due to the ungodly high prices of gigabit switches. To think a home user has need for this even in the G4 tower is pure insanity. And if you really do need it you can get an Intel gigabit card for $50 from Newegg.

Wireless - No, not in a desktop at least. That's silly if you ask me. In a laptop sure, but that's no harder than plugging in a PCMCIA card and following 4 steps on an oversized sheet.

USB - Included on every new board, why bother adding more when PCs come with 2 to 4 or more USB ports already. And an USB hub is just as easy when it comes to expanding if one has to (that's all the mac keyboard does).

Firewire - Not really, It's picking up mass in PC-land, but some motherboards like the Soyo Fire Dragon or various Gigabyte or Asus boards have it onboard. My Dell laptop has firewire built in. If not the Audigy we're putting in from step 2 has firewire. In home user land how important is this anyway?

External Video - That new graphics card from step 1 should have it. Almost anything nVidia has it these days, as well as the decent ATi offerings.

How about more RAM or another hard drive to keep the computer going? Or maybe a bigger monitor? You can do those with the Tower but look at the cost difference. Likewise for the minimum $1,400 iMac price tag you'll get so much more from a PC and it will be expandable. Years down the road this makes a difference.

Assuming that the machine is built for a person there should be no worries about any conflicts at all. Heck, I'd bet that if a person was willing to follow directions they could put all of that in themselves from a made to order PC. Heck, made to order the only thing needing updating right off would probably be audio. Heck, paying that neighbor kid who's good with computers $100 to build a decent machine from quality parts is still half the cost of a tower.

And with a 6 PCI 1 AGP board I could get gigabit ethernet or wireless ethernet (both are unnecessary in a desktop), a new Audigy with the firewire, a Geforce of some flavor with TV out, have plenty of USB, and have the same 4 slots left open. For less than half the price of a tower. And I won't have to throw it away in three years like one would an iMac. Home prices, professional expandability, possible slight modification out of the box is the only caveat.

And what about those poor suckers who bought the cube, what do they do for upgrades?

I don't know about the new ones, but the CRT iMacs have an external VGA connector, but it only allows you to mirror the screen as far as I know.

"More of the near truths that Apple seems to pull too often that make me wary."

Oh, you mean we can rely on MS and "Trustworthy Computing"?

*chuckle*

"Wireless - No, not in a desktop at least. That's silly if you ask me."

Silly? OK, I'll ask.

Uh, suppose you had a building that was protected by a city code as a heritage site, and you couldn't drill holes for cable drops? (Think outside the box, for a moment.)

.. or it was an apartment complex where you can't run your own cables.

I don't believe I've ever stated that Microsoft was either trustworthy or a model citizen.

All right, heritage site sure, go wireless if you have to. Apartment likewise if you have so many rooms in your apartment where you need computers. Some apartment managers don't care though, if you're willing to patch up your hole when you leave. Home owners can certainly do what they want, if they're willing to deal with the hassle. And heck, if it isn't silly in your particular application, you probably don't need that wired nic in there anyway, and most PCs have plenty of open PCI slots if you do.

No, you didn't. But let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that Apple and Microsoft are BOTH lying, evil corporations, to the SAME degree. One has 95% of the market and seems intent on crushing the other 5% (with the eager help of the ignorant WinTrolls who post to this forum). Which EVIL is potentially more harmful to humanity?

But let's look at reality. Apple has $4 billion in the bank. MS has $40 billion. Is MS software TEN TIMES BETTER? Nope.

You'd think MS would do something useful with all that cash, something that would benefit us all, instead of shipping the crap that 95% of the PC-using world has to live with.

Not that the ends justify the means, but Bill Gates at least has made many donations out of his vast reserves.

Like some 3 billion dollars worldwide for health and education. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi...ewsid_273000/273785.stm

That was one single donation. He's donated a lot more than just that to many worthy causes.

So it makes it ok to rip off 100 million if he gives back 100? That makes no sense whatsoever! LOL

I believe I stated that the ends don't justify the means. However, it is still hundreds of millions of dollars that worthy causes didn't have and now do. Gates could just keep it all and swim in it like Scrooge McDuck, but at least he has the decency to donate rather large sums of his however ill gotten hoard.

If I had to pick a side fewt, I'm with you in unix land. I have a pair of machines on linux and one on solaris. My windows machine is for games, because there are a lot of quality games developed for windows. That and I got a free copy of XP, legally. No donation to the MS machine and I can run games legally.

I still think, however, that as long as MS is going to be a huge monopolistic megacorp, that is nice that they're giving a few billion to worthy causes. I'm not condoning being predatory. I'm not saying that by giving a few billion away MS has absolved all their wrongdoing.

Contrary to the impression I have no doubt created here, I cannot bring myself to believe that Bill Gates and Microsoft are 100% evil. Bill is now a parent, as am I. After he had attended the World Economic Forum in Davos one year, he got up at a subsequent major technology conference and proceeded to harangue the other industry executives for their ideas of marketing technology to people who were scraping by on less than $1 a day and needed things like: decent food, clothing, medicine, and a means to uplift themselves from their sorry plight. The man may be a ruthless monopolist, but he seems to have a bit of a conscience, too. That's why he's giving away SOME of his ill-gotten money even as he tries to foist odious things like Palladium and .NET on the world.

After all, when you can potentially take a micropayment from EVERY electronic transaction that occurs using the TCP/IP protocol, you have an essentially infinite supply of money to give away, and a few billion is mere pocket change. Is he then a modern day Robin Hood, diverting some money from rich countries whose citizens can order stuff online, when more than half of the world's population has never even made a telephone call? If Microsoft's heavyhanded attempts to curb massive software piracy in poor countries and the egregious "oversight" of allowing Nimda to be 'bundled' with Visual Studio in S. Korea (where piracy is rampant) is any sort of indication, I'm more inclined to regard them as THUGS who occasionally pause in their pillaging and plundering to toss a bone or two our way -- to appease us, as it were.

So, I'd be willing to say that Bill Gates and Microsoft are not 100% evil, but that's a bit like saying "Bill Clinton is a good and faithful husband," if you ask me.

My advice to the poor: take the money, but don't for even one minute be fooled about where it's coming from, or how it was acquired. The largesse seems impressive at first glance, until you reflect on the SCALE of the plunder.

"And what about those poor suckers who bought the cube, what do they do for upgrades?"

What about those poor suckers who bought a Mercedes 300SLR, what do they do for upgrades?

Point being -- if you have a design that's an objet d'art to begin with, do you complain about not being able to replace the engine or the transmission because no one is making a small-block V8 or six-speed gearbox for it?

Name one PC vendor that makes an ultra-small desktop form factor PC that is as upgradable as their full-size towers.

I've held the longterm thought that Bill isn't evil, mean, or really even out to get anybody. My thoughts on him is that he has a vision. Microsoft is the tool he created and the tool which got him started with his vision and now he's infatuated with the thoughts of what could happen if he had the power to make it so. I would bet that he's a bit like that old lady everybody knows who can't stop dispensing advice because they know what's best for everyone. What that makes him I'm not sure. An IT dictator of sorts? A menacing self appointed parent figure? All I can figure is that there's a certain way that he things should be done, and he's pushing as hard as he can towards it.

It would explain the large donations too, I think. He's not the sort who's just mean; he was probably pushed around on the playground when he was smaller. He probably really doesn't want those children starving. Last I had heard the Gates' have plans to leave their children a handsome amount of money, but to give away the very large majority of their money.

I don't know. It is a lot like plunder and spoils of war. It is quite Robin Hood-esque. I'm torn down the middle when it comes to Gates' donations. It seems very, very wrong the way he's made most of his money, but some of the side effects are very positive.

"I've held the longterm thought that Bill isn't evil, mean, or really even out to get anybody."

In my more charitable moments (I do have some), I think of him as a brilliant businessman with a relentless drive to WIN -- at ANY cost. I have never read the book "Hard Drive," which purports to examine some of his deeper motivations for running Microsoft the way he has.

"My thoughts on him is that he has a vision. Microsoft is the tool he created and the tool which got him started with his vision and now he's infatuated with the thoughts of what could happen if he had the power to make it so."

Remember the old saying? "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." (attributed variously to George Orwell and to Lord Acton). That is why it is necessary to have a strong opposing force to a monopoly.

"I would bet that he's a bit like that old lady everybody knows who can't stop dispensing advice because they know what's best for everyone. What that makes him I'm not sure."

Oh, that's easy. It makes him a megalomaniac, like Napoleon Bonaparte, or Standard Oil's John D. Rockefeller.

"An IT dictator of sorts? A menacing self appointed parent figure? All I can figure is that there's a certain way that he things should be done, and he's pushing as hard as he can towards it."

There's a profile of Bill Gates from Time Magazine that has a telling anecdote about an incident from Bill's childhood; apparently, his mother, Mary Gates, was calling him to dinner, and he yelled back at her "I'm thinking, Mother, you should try it some time." Bill's wife Melinda has tempered that c***y arrogance somewhat, as has his age, and becoming a parent and having to deal with the inevitable frustrations of having to patiently teach young children about the most basic things we take for granted. I'm a bit younger than he is, with a young child, so I can sort of relate to some of the things he's gone through.

"It would explain the large donations too, I think. He's not the sort who's just mean; he was probably pushed around on the playground when he was smaller. He probably really doesn't want those children starving."

Who would, especially if you have an ounce of compassion?

"Last I had heard the Gates' have plans to leave their children a handsome amount of money, but to give away the very large majority of their money."

Large-scale philanthropy is always admirable, especially since at some point, intelligent, wealthy people realize that their money can be used for a lot of good. Whether that exonerates how they amassed such a fortune is a topic for another discussion, another forum, not Betanews.

"I'm torn down the middle when it comes to Gates' donations. It seems very, very wrong the way he's made most of his money, but some of the side effects are very positive."

Indeed.

For those interested in pursuing their reading on this topic a bit further (the running comments are hilarious), try

http://philip.greenspun.com/humor/bill-gates

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

"And what about those poor suckers who bought the cube, what do they do for upgrades?"

I should not have been too quick to label the Cube as JUST an objet d'art -- as it turns out, quite a lot of the juicy bits are upgradable on the Cube

CPU -- from original 400MHz G4 to a 1GHz G4e
Video -- from original 16MB ATI Rage 128 Pro to a 64MB Ge3
HD -- from original 20GB to a 160GB 5400rpm or 120GB 7200rpm
RAM -- from original 64MB up to 1.5GB
paint job -- from silver/titanium to Van Gogh!

Not bad for an 8-inch "Lucite Kleenex box" eh? A work of art that's nonetheless still quite upgradable, imagine that!

details at http://www.cube-zone.com/

Okay, I would have guessed Processor in the same family, some ram, and swap out the hard drive, but honestly the things just didn't look big enough for a GeForce3. Now I know.

And I saw a cooler "paint" mod to the cube, it was a blue reflective type insert, and looked really cool, though I have no idea what page I saw it on.

Hey, it's easy (but not made clear).

I think you just hit Apple(Command)-Q at the point when you are supposed to enter your personal information. You get the option to continue without entering your details.

Easy as that. It's all optional.

Cheers,
Ashley.

First, I'm not sure where all this apple stuff is coming from these days, nor am I sure why the authors of these articles feel so inclined to put down PCs in the process, in ways that people here should know are bogus. Really this shouldn't be necessary.

Like this line, "All macs are 802.11b wireless ready, a feat no PC manufacturer has matched on Windows systems. Say what? For less than $100 I can get a wireless PCMCIA card and the PCI adapter. These will work in any PC that has a PCI bus and can run Windows. You don't even need the PCI card for laptops, fancy that. And of course the non-apple wireless access points cost a wee bit less than $300 as well.

Or how about the speed given to USB 1.1? It was made for slow devices, like keyboards, mice, joysticks, printers, and not for hard drives, zip drives, scanners, and other high bandwidth uses. If you want to do those things get external SCSI, firewire, or USB 2.0. Those were at least designed with a little more bandwith in mind. And at any rate, at 12 Mbps your high bandwidth applications like hard drives still aren't going to be that fast. A whole whopping 1.5 MB per second, joy. And then people split those with their USB hubs.

Some features are kinda neat, like gigabit ethernet. Of course, a gigabit switch is somewhat expensive. Apple was also the company that really pushed firewire. Still, it is an IEEE standard and now quite available for the PC.

And PC users think of PCs more like appliances? Give me a break on that please. Which platform has a whole slew of games to play? Windows. Hundreds and hundreds of game titles, plus shareware games, plus freeware games... it isn't just a word processor. By contrast how many games are released on the mac? Are there as many amatuer shareware writers for it either?

Also, if your two year old PC is useless when running XP, I recommend not buying the cheapest damn PC you can get your hands on when you purchase one. You have to spend more than $100 on a PC if you want it to last a little while. My parents have a 3 year old Pentium III 450 system, 256 MB of RAM, and an old TNT2 which cost probably in the $800-$1200 range when it was new which runs XP just fine and dandy, even with the graphics settings all the way up. So, while it is wonderful that the G4 cube of two years ago still runs the latest Mac OS, don't discredit the PCs.

My thought is that when they bring in PCs to do their comparisons against, they're just going to run their six photoshop altivec benchmarks. Like how they state that the dual 1 GHz G4 is 68% faster than the Pentium 4 2.2 GHz on their website by use of those benchmarks. The amount of smoke and mirrors is frightening. If ever Apple can come up with some clear benchmarks, show some numbers maybe, and stop spewing lies then maybe they'll get some more business.

If you want to connect an external high speed device you would use the firewire port that's built in to all Macs. I agree that the built in antenna for wireless is not that big a deal.
I don't understand why this is such a hot issue. There are advantages and disadvantages to both platforms. I don't think you can say price is a big issue anymore since you can now get a low end Mac for just over 1000.00 that comes with lots of extras built in. The biggest disadvantage at this point is the lack of specialized programs. I have an HP lan tester that requires Windows software. It's not to big a deal. I can use Virtual PC to run it but this adds some cost and it's slows you down some. Now that OS X has Unix at it's core and comes with developer tools many Unix programs are beginning to fill the void.
It should be interesting to see how it all plays out.

as both a pc (windows 2000) and mac (macOS 10/9) user, i've been able to compare the two platforms and can honestly give my vote to the pc over my apple g4. sacreligious you might say, but after 2 years of using windows 2000 i can't help but rely on it's stability and the various applications and numerous hardware options available to this OS/platform.

because of my experience, i wish apple would be a little more truthful about their switch to apple ads since they make competitive/current pc models sound as if they were stuck running windows 95/98.

the truth of the matter is, pc's can do what apple's mac can do too. graphics packages, creative tools - all these software programs are available for the pc too and with even greater variety. the stability, pre-emptive multitasking and great memory management macOS 10 has has long been enjoyed by pc users in win nt 4 and windows 2000.

lucky for apple, microsoft and all the other pc hardware vendors don't do a concerted advertising attack on apple to discredit their switch ads. because from a pc/mac user who's been able to really compare, when it comes down to how much more i can really do (work and play), my vote stays with my pc.

Yup, firewire is certainly a nice feature. And Apple certainly deserves credit for pushing it as hard as they did and bringing it mainstream. Of course my Dell laptop has firewire built in, the Soundblaster Audigy has firewire on it, as do some PC motherboards I've seen. Pricewatch suggests that you can buy a firewire card for $20, CompUSA has them for $30. USB 2.0 is likely the same price. I just don't think that its a sticking point for the Mac anymore.

There are the advantages to both platforms, and namely I think that the Mac's big advantage is that it looks trendy and is in general sickeningly easy to use for basic purposes. Apple has yet to give me a reason to switch though. Well, except that the TiBook is incredibly cool looking. But that's both too expensive and another story.

As I mentioned in other posts, I'm a long-time dual-platform user (PCs since 1983, Macs since 1987) and have used every version of Windows, from 1.0 to XP Pro. Why do I use MacOS X? Simple. Access to UNIX software -- for which the Windows equivalents cost a lot of money (think MySQL, PostgreSQL, etc.). That, plus the fact that MacOS X is more enjoyable to use than any form of Windows (my opinion based on long-term usage of both platforms) because of the bundled iApps. I find WinXP "digital hub" counterparts to be, well, clunky.

But it is a bit unfair to say that the average PC user has the option of getting external SCSI, firewire, or USB 2.0 simple because of the cost involved. Hell, if those things were integral to my computer experience, I'd have to go with a Mac just for the fact that it would be cheaper.

Also, this is one of those arguments that can just go on forever, with all the PC lovers and Mac lovers coming out and supporting their platform of choice. Anything can be done in either platform. There is nothing you can do on a PC running Windows XP that you can't do on a Mac running OSX. It's all a matter of preference. I run Windows 2000 because I know it better. Noone used a Mac while I was growing up. But that doesn't mean that Macs are inferior. It only means I don't know anything about it (same with Linux).

"My Dell laptop has FireWire built-in." Yes, but can you use that FireWire port to mount your Dell to a FireWire-equipped PC and transfer files between the two at 400Mbps? On iBooks or TiBooks, you can use Target Disk Mode (hold down T when rebooting the notebook) for this very purpose.
"I think that the Mac's big advantage is that it looks trendy and is in general sickeningly easy to use for basic purposes"
Hold that thought. Can you say, "It's a UNIX box that grandma can use, and when grandkiddies come over to visit, they can SSH to UNIX/Linux boxes to pull some files over that they forgot, play games, do INSERTs on their MySQL tables, etc. while completely avoiding Klez32 and SirCam." See, I knew you could! ;-)

I too work on both platforms - for quite awhile now, my oldest backup CD-R is labeled 1993. Working on the PC platform (currently Windows 2000 pro) is like working (fighting) with a crotchety, ridged old man intent on slowing you down and making your life miserable. Working on a Mac (G4 desktop and powerbook, OSX and OS9) is like working with a beautiful, helpful person whose only desire is to help you get the job done.

The Windows machine needs and IT department to keep the old man inside alive, the Mac is easy to upgrade, keep tuned and in good physical shape.

PhotoShop, Director, Illustrator, Office, Explorer, InDesign, Quark, Flash, and a host of other applications seem to work smoother on the Mac. Both platforms work, it's just a question of who (or what) you enjoy working with, on old fart or a young energetic assistant.

Under XP, firewire ports show up as NIC cards. Plug two xp boxes up with firewire and they are networked together at 400 Mbps.

of course apple has to bundle the iapps, or else what will be the compelling offer to switch? that's part of their digital lifestyle hub mantra.

sure the stuff that comes with windows isn't all that great, but that's why there's so much shareware out there to choose from - winamp, kazaa, windac, audiograbber, etc. etc....

It's easy to fault Apple for choosing Photoshop as a tool for doing benchmarks, but consider that in the comparisons, they use an actual production file (e.g. the movie poster for The Lord of the Rings) to see how long it would take to run the relevant Photoshop actions that produce the finished image. Since this is a nontrivial example, and not some raw SPECint or SPECfp shootout, I'd say the comparison is much more meaningful. Time saved at the computer is time you can spend with your family or do other things.

And now that MacOS X is shipping on every machine Apple makes, there's a plethora of UNIX and Linux software that's becoming available. Of course Apple bundles nice apps with their computers -- they want to provide the user with a better out-of-box experience. How would you feel if you got a car and then found you had to replace the built-in seats, radio, etc. because the stuff that came with it was clunky? If MS didn't have so much power, the PC makers would try to differentiate themselves from each other by offering better stuff than what comes with Windows. But they can't, or else MS threatens them with "diluting" the Windows experience. All for the sake of preserving a monopoly. Does this benefit you or me, the consumer? Absolutely not!

i work on both platforms too, athlon 1G/windows 2000, and a 450MHz G4/MacOS 10/9. care to elaborate on what you mean by slow, rickety old man.

in my experience, windows 2000 runs very well on my athlon pc. with 786MB of PC133 RAM, i can run photoshop 7, illustrator 10, dreamweaver ultradev 4, and winamp all at once while working without breaking a sweat.

and with newer motherboard chipset and DDR ram technologies available for the pc, there's no reason windows 2000 to be "slow and rickety". i doubt it's an OS issue, maybe it's more like a hardware issue, at least that's my guess.

but in the end, hey, it's what works for you....

"there's so much shareware out there to choose from - winamp, kazaa, windac, audiograbber, etc. etc...."

Oh, I just love installing spyware on my machine! NOT! ;-)

Plug any two Gigabit-equipped Macs (TiBook or G4 tower) together and you have a 2-node Gigabit network for even faster file transfer than FireWire. Regular Cat5 will do, since the Gigabit ports autoswitch to crossover mode.

one more thing, how is a mac easy to upgrade?

if you mean hardware upgradeability, you're limited to the number PCI cards available to the mac, or FireWire/USB connected peripherals and devices. don't like your mac's motherboard? too bad, we're stuck with it. we'll just have to go and buy a new mac then....

pc's on the other hand are enjoying various new motherboards and chipsets from VIA and Intel. then there's the various types of ram available DDR PC2100 to the newer PC2700, then there's also RDRAM. how about, geforce 4 graphics boards from nvidia? or if you're into CAD/CAM, there are high-end graphic cards available too like the FireGL. let's talk storage, there's ATA100 and the now emerging ATA133 from maxtor.

i can go on and on, but you get the idea. there's a lot of hardware options for the pc and that bodes well for upgradeability. the hardware also helps boost "the rickety old man's" performance to that of a "youthful secretary".

You're dead wrong about costs, $30 or so for firewire from compusa, $60 or so for an audigy which is an awesome sound card and has firewire on it as well. USB 2.0 comes on so many motherboards now its also a non-issue. SCSI is its usual fast but expensive self. The mac a lot of stuff integrated, but it costs much more initially anyway.

But you're right about going with what you know as well as computers can do whatever these days. It really doesn't matter that much anymore as to what the platform is. It might as well be something you're comfortable with. With more and more cross development being done its going to come down to how much people want to pay I think, with Apple being a niche market for those who want the super friendly setup.

"one more thing, how is a mac easy to upgrade?"
On every PC I've ever worked on (quite a few), including whitebox units with onboard Ultra160, etc., it takes quite a bit longer to do upgrades, mostly because of typical case designs. Granted, you can't do a mobo swap on a G4 like on a whitebox PC if you want to go from, say, Asus to Gigabyte or whatever, but it's the same if you have an IBM Netfinity, Compaq Deskpro, or Dell OptiPlex. GeForce4Ti is available for Mac AGP4X G4 towers, and if you're into high-end video, there's no PC version of the Digital Voodoo cards available (see http://www.digitalvoodoo.net). ATA100 and 133 PCI cards are available too, but the selection is much smaller and pricier for Macs. But it's not just hardware cost, it's the actual experience of running the machine daily. I think this simple comparison is illustrative: on an iBook running OS X, I close the lid, it sleeps. I open the lid, it wakes up in 1 second or less. On any recent PC notebook, I'm drumming my fingers while Win2K or WinXP reloads. Makes a difference in daily use, and this creates a perception that Win2K/XP are slow when in fact they're not. I've watched people who've used PCs even longer than I've used Macs, struggling with Windows, and I can see why some of them would switch. It's the annoyance factor, really. That, plus the fact that using Windows means subsidizing a twice-convicted monopolist. :-)

I, too, get tired of seeing the old PC vs. Mac debates based on the same arguments, e.g. the "only idiots would use a Mac over a PC because it's (a) a toy (b) not as upgradeable (c) more expensive" variety. May I suggest reading information about who uses a Mac besides "Real People" in Apple TV ads or artsy-fartsies? Check out http://www.apple.com/scitech and see if the "Mac users are morons" argument stands up.

what if you can't get the machines close enough to network? Oh I guess you could just use a nice floppy disk ... LOL

I wouldn't say we're ENJOYING chipsets by VIA, but yes they are making them :-)

I guess everyone has their own delights, but Macs are what annoy me, not PCs.

You can run Cat5 an extremely long way. FireWire on the other hand can only be run a short distance.

The floppy disk of the 21st century -- CD-R/RW's. Care to dredge up any more tired/invalid arguments to be shot down? A 100-foot Cat5 cable is what, $15?

Continued...I really meant Crotchety old man not Rickety old man (never said "slow"). My 800mhz Win2000pro in more mean spirited than rickety. If I would take the time to relearn DOS and study the underlying programming of my PC machine, then maybe I would be brave enough to upgrade and modify my PC to make it more friendly like my Mac.

The first thing I might do is install two monitors (as I have had for 10 years on the Mac side... back when my Windows machine was just gettin used to Wind95 and many (most) were still poopooing GUI).

As important, I would try to find, purchase and install a vector based mouse; one that moves the curser further when you move the mouse faster (and shorter distances when you move it more slowly). Something I've always had on my Macs. That alone makes image making and manipulation pleasurable on the Mac side and irritating at best on the Window's side. Watch someone on a Mac move the cursor to a button and it goes right to the mark, watch a Window's user and they inevitably over shoot the button and then self-correct and finally get to the mark. The one-to-one mouse movement of most Windows machines make them robotic-like and less human. If we had reach for a glass of water in a one-to-one movement we would most often spill it. I know the drivers are out there, but why must the Windows machine be so mean in the first place? Why so rude? I do find my Window's machine rude.

If I risk installing these drivers and my Window's machine goes down, who will fix it. I am afraid of my Windows machine. (Please don't make fun of me on this point - I'm just being honest here.) Not because it's so overly complex, because it is so kludgy. Stuck together by a myriad of software departments, engineers and manufactures, seemingly waiting for me to make a mistake. When I upgraded to 2000 pro I spent 7 (count them) 7 hours with a Microsoft technician just getting one thing to work - my netBios. He had me going to the deep dark reaches of the operating environment. He took me to places I never wanted to go. We only ever got it to half work.... He said I should have erased my dirve to upgrade. What?

It always seems like the Windows environment is forcing me into doing things their way, and rudely at that, while the Mac is there to help me explore, modify the views, dialogue boxes to maneuver the way I like best. Now, I will say that the Macs OS doesn't always succeed at being helpful, but it seem like Windows OS doesn't even try.

These are just some of my experiences. I say to each his own. Vive la difference.

Am I the only one who gets annoyed every time I fork over more money to Bill Gates? Since no one has brought it up, every time you buy a PC, unless it's a whitebox unit with no OS or a WalMart Microtel with Lindows, you pay the Microsoft tax, whether you like it or not. If you like subsidizing a twice-convicted predatory monopolist that way, go ahead. But at least be aware of what you're actually choosing.

What about that fellow who took his brand-new Gateway PC back to the store and smashed it in with a sledgehammer after multiple attempts to get it working failed? Should he have installed Linux on it in place of Windows? ;-)

"The first thing I might do is install two monitors (as I have had for 10 years on the Mac side... back when my Windows machine was just gettin used to Wind95 and many (most) were still poopooing GUI)."

Dual monitors, hmmm...I had them on a Mac II in 1987 (that's 15 years ago now). Oh, did dual monitors become usable on PCs when Win95 shipped? Gee, that's what, 8 years later? ;-)

Hmm, I paid $12.00 for 150ft of Cat-5 which will work nicely until I get the 802.11b adapter for my son's PowerMac. ;-) Floppies, who even has one of those anymore? :-P

"Yup, firewire is certainly a nice feature. And Apple certainly deserves credit for pushing it as hard as they did and bringing it mainstream."

Of course Apple also deserves all of the credit for the slow adoption of Firewire on PC's.

Every Firewire port installed on every piece of hardware requires a licensing fee that is paid to Apple. Apple made the price per port for PC's several times higher than the price per port for any other hardware. This delayed adoption of Firewire on PC's while a couple of lawsuits were filed over the pricing practice. Now Apple has reversed the policy and charges a flat rate per port for any hardware.

Not very ethical, but still good business. They managed to delay the acceptance of Firewire by PC motherboard manufacturers just long enough to ensure that Apple can use Firewire as an example of their superiority.

(Admittedly, I do not feel that even the triple rate they wanted to charge for PC's was out of line. It would have only amounted to an additional $6 per PC for the standard chipset. But apparently Intel and a couple of others objected on priciple to the different pricing structure)

Yes, which is why I only buy used notebooks, or build the system myself.

"There is nothing you can do on a PC running Windows XP that you can't do on a Mac running OSX." Oh yes there is. You can host Code