PBGPowerbook
Jun 10, 01:22 PM
Everyone should've stopped reading at "Shaw Wu."
He is the shining example of the inanity, irrelevance, and irresponsibility of "tech analysts." It's tough not to be sour grapes when you think about how much these people must get paid...
He is the shining example of the inanity, irrelevance, and irresponsibility of "tech analysts." It's tough not to be sour grapes when you think about how much these people must get paid...
mcrain
Apr 7, 04:21 PM
The tea party is the republican party. There is NO tea party as third party. That's a complete fallacy. If they weren't a wholly owned faction of the Republican party, there would be tea party democrats too.
Pop quiz - name one tea party candidate who ran as a Democrat or name one elected official who claims to be a tea party member or supporter who doesn't vote with the Republicans.
Pop quiz - name one tea party candidate who ran as a Democrat or name one elected official who claims to be a tea party member or supporter who doesn't vote with the Republicans.
.jpg "lake lively nose job. lake")
DCstewieG
Jun 18, 01:38 PM
How beautiful would that be for Time Machine, particularly in a laptop?
ikir
Feb 19, 12:06 PM
Being a vegan is probably what's wrong with him. Friends don't let friends eat veggie burgers !!!!!:eek:
Vegetarians are in general healty. It all depends on what you eat, a vegeratian could eat only fried chips so it would not be healty :-) I'm vegarian and i'm awesome too and sadly i don't get sick even if i want :-( I have many friends who are vegetarian and they are not necessary slim, one of them has some Kg extra.
Last studies finally, after many years of ignorance, state vegans/vegetarians are OFTEN healty. Stop the nosense.
Vegetarians are in general healty. It all depends on what you eat, a vegeratian could eat only fried chips so it would not be healty :-) I'm vegarian and i'm awesome too and sadly i don't get sick even if i want :-( I have many friends who are vegetarian and they are not necessary slim, one of them has some Kg extra.
Last studies finally, after many years of ignorance, state vegans/vegetarians are OFTEN healty. Stop the nosense.
more...
gingerbreadboy
Nov 21, 06:27 PM
first post!
i'm working on my ph.d. in applied physics and our lab researches thermoelectric materials. there is no known material yet that is 30 % efficient, as the article claims. the most common material used in refrigerators (Bi2Te3) is only ~ 5 % efficient. a lot of money is being poured into this field to increase the efficiency, but so far the enhancement has been incremental. companies like general motors want to use the seebeck effect of thermoelectric materials to convert waste heat in automobiles back into electricity. 60% of the energy generated from gas is wasted as heat. NASA has been using thermoelectrics for years as RTG's to power deep space probes. i'd love one to be in my laptop, but the efficiency is being overstated here. it's suspicious. and the small dT values from the chip to the air would also be small, so very little voltage could be generated. although, i heard a rumor that some companies were looking into powering a liquid metal (InGa) liquid coolant system with the computers own waste heat. who knows.
i'm working on my ph.d. in applied physics and our lab researches thermoelectric materials. there is no known material yet that is 30 % efficient, as the article claims. the most common material used in refrigerators (Bi2Te3) is only ~ 5 % efficient. a lot of money is being poured into this field to increase the efficiency, but so far the enhancement has been incremental. companies like general motors want to use the seebeck effect of thermoelectric materials to convert waste heat in automobiles back into electricity. 60% of the energy generated from gas is wasted as heat. NASA has been using thermoelectrics for years as RTG's to power deep space probes. i'd love one to be in my laptop, but the efficiency is being overstated here. it's suspicious. and the small dT values from the chip to the air would also be small, so very little voltage could be generated. although, i heard a rumor that some companies were looking into powering a liquid metal (InGa) liquid coolant system with the computers own waste heat. who knows.
neildmitchell
Sep 15, 02:11 AM
I'm weird. They are going to cut a 6-inch hole in my back and remove one of my lamina and a disc, and I'm worried about anesthesia.
Derrrr...
yowzers ! :(
Derrrr...
yowzers ! :(
more...
maokh
Jun 11, 02:20 PM
The AWS 1700/2100 is a weird beast. And yes, the FCC, as well as TMobile, would have rather harmonized the band allocation with the rest of the world.
The problem is, the reverse allocation (phone to "tower") in the european 2100 band overlaps our existing american 1900 band.
So the FCC had to come up with some weird split band with the free allocations it had, creating a really weird beast that requires custom radios on both the handset and "tower" side.
Also, in case anyone is wondering, the 1800 band has been allocated to the US federal government. Among many other things, a benefit of which is to operate ad-hoc/covert communication networks using commodity european band GSM gear. Go figure.
With the AWS allocation, we will never have a 1800 band either even if the feds ditch it.
In terms of this "analyst" report, what a bunch of idiots. I also highly doubt that apple would create a special iPhone or modify its globally distributed product for what may only be 1-3 million subscribers a year from now. Especially since AWS band handsets will need additional RF circuitry at additional cost due to its obscurity and lack of support on multiband chipsets.
I think that AWS will come only by chance when it just happens to be cheaper than the existing chipset they are using.
The problem is, the reverse allocation (phone to "tower") in the european 2100 band overlaps our existing american 1900 band.
So the FCC had to come up with some weird split band with the free allocations it had, creating a really weird beast that requires custom radios on both the handset and "tower" side.
Also, in case anyone is wondering, the 1800 band has been allocated to the US federal government. Among many other things, a benefit of which is to operate ad-hoc/covert communication networks using commodity european band GSM gear. Go figure.
With the AWS allocation, we will never have a 1800 band either even if the feds ditch it.
In terms of this "analyst" report, what a bunch of idiots. I also highly doubt that apple would create a special iPhone or modify its globally distributed product for what may only be 1-3 million subscribers a year from now. Especially since AWS band handsets will need additional RF circuitry at additional cost due to its obscurity and lack of support on multiband chipsets.
I think that AWS will come only by chance when it just happens to be cheaper than the existing chipset they are using.
jephrey
Oct 26, 04:20 PM
I can see why they'd do it with a "new" program, but SE16 was my audio editing prog of choice even having to open OS9 to use it. Finally, soundstudio came around and went multi track, and although I like it, the bit view in SE16 was priceless for what I do, and that thing saved and opened files in a snap.
Even though it's new, I still had hoped that UBs would be the norm for new stuff for longer, especially from someone like Adobe. I got my G5 in mid 04 and had hoped to have it for 8 years. Looks like it'll be more like the 4 years I had ye olde G3 for. Maybe I can squeeze more out of it, but we'll see.
Whatever,
J
Even though it's new, I still had hoped that UBs would be the norm for new stuff for longer, especially from someone like Adobe. I got my G5 in mid 04 and had hoped to have it for 8 years. Looks like it'll be more like the 4 years I had ye olde G3 for. Maybe I can squeeze more out of it, but we'll see.
Whatever,
J
more...
twoodcc
Oct 10, 09:04 AM
ehh.. you know wikipedia isn't always right, right?
no one is
no one is
Thom_Edwards
May 7, 11:22 PM
don't take this the wrong way, but these "biggots" you speak of are a lot like the born-again christians that corner you at the coffee machine trying to get you to go to church with them. (in fact, i even remember a mac fac site called "evangelista"!) macs offer simplicity, stability, and peace of mind--we do not have to travel through the blue screen of death, because the mac is with us! most of us, at one time, were just like you, using those evil windoze machines. but now "we have seen the light!" and can't possibly imagine how you could continue in your suffering. you don't know the peace you could have if you just gave the mac a chance. do you see the metaphor here?
and one thing many windoze people say is, "if macs are so much better, why only 5% market share?" well, christianity started with less market share than that, and it is certainly better than baal or ishtar, just to name a few!
and just for the record, i am a mac biggot. would you like to come over sunday? i can show you how to use iMovie!!!!:D
PS-like i said, i mean no offense by this. in fact, i tried to tie some humor into this, so take it all with a grain of salt.
and one thing many windoze people say is, "if macs are so much better, why only 5% market share?" well, christianity started with less market share than that, and it is certainly better than baal or ishtar, just to name a few!
and just for the record, i am a mac biggot. would you like to come over sunday? i can show you how to use iMovie!!!!:D
PS-like i said, i mean no offense by this. in fact, i tried to tie some humor into this, so take it all with a grain of salt.
more...
room237
Jan 6, 05:04 PM
I had to delete the Facebook app and reinstall for the push notification options to come up on my phone. Did try restarting the phone before that but made little difference.
I've done both those things as well but the push still is not working for me.
I've done both those things as well but the push still is not working for me.
Seasought
Oct 26, 06:40 PM
I think it's a little early to start worrying about PPC support being dropped entirely. I see this more as an exception than an oncoming norm.
If not and suddenly all PPC support is dropped...it's upgrade time! :eek: :D
If not and suddenly all PPC support is dropped...it's upgrade time! :eek: :D
more...
Small White Car
Jan 4, 10:04 AM
Whoever advised them to now put the maps onboard and download as needed, needs to be fired- poor decision.
bad decision. apps like motion gps I'd pay $0.99 for and use the maps over the air.
If I'm going to pay $40 for a gps app it'd be cause I relied on it. Wouldn't chance having service.
I've been using the iPhone's Google maps in that way for almost 3 years and I have not once had that be an issue.
I dunno, I guess something bad could happen, but it sure doesn't seem likely to me at this point. And even if it does happen to me soon I'm prepard for "once every 3 years" as a failure rate.
Agreed. Downloading anything on Edge is awful, but downloading mission critical graphical maps and directions when you get lost? Just dumb.
Ok, but when a road changes and you don't have the newest map then what are you doing? Manually downloading is what.
I'd rather it be an automatic process.
Both methods have drawbacks: "Not always available" vs. "Not always current."
Given that I've never had a problem with availability, I'm actually interested in an app that promises to stay current without my having to download maps manually ahead of time.
bad decision. apps like motion gps I'd pay $0.99 for and use the maps over the air.
If I'm going to pay $40 for a gps app it'd be cause I relied on it. Wouldn't chance having service.
I've been using the iPhone's Google maps in that way for almost 3 years and I have not once had that be an issue.
I dunno, I guess something bad could happen, but it sure doesn't seem likely to me at this point. And even if it does happen to me soon I'm prepard for "once every 3 years" as a failure rate.
Agreed. Downloading anything on Edge is awful, but downloading mission critical graphical maps and directions when you get lost? Just dumb.
Ok, but when a road changes and you don't have the newest map then what are you doing? Manually downloading is what.
I'd rather it be an automatic process.
Both methods have drawbacks: "Not always available" vs. "Not always current."
Given that I've never had a problem with availability, I'm actually interested in an app that promises to stay current without my having to download maps manually ahead of time.
fulldecent
Mar 24, 09:54 AM
Are you people seriously applauding this? What a waste of our tax dollars!! I do contracts with the Navy every single day and I know that the technology that they have will not be benefited by the use of iPad/iPod/iPhone. The military does not offer wi-fi to their staff on base. Everything is hard wired and the conduit is sealed with a tamper proof silicon. The Government is very very particular about their SIPRnet (as they call it). Without wi-fi, what use is the iPad for the military other than to give them a little treat and waste our tax dollars? They already have mobile equipment in the vehicles that is far superior to Apple's products.
Because COTS products are always cheaper than contracts.
Because COTS products are always cheaper than contracts.
more...
trainguy77
Jun 1, 07:48 PM
I really like your pic redeye_be it reminds me of something. :rolleyes:
aus_dave
Aug 19, 12:54 AM
I like it (the message and the graphic :D). It would probably look just as good without the headphones too.
more...
MikeTheC
Nov 3, 01:19 AM
I'd like to tackle a few points in the discussion here.
Dirt-Cheap vs. Reasonable Economy (a.k.a. "The Wal-Martization of America"):
Apple has always had the philosophy that their name needs to mean a superior product. They have tended to shy away from producing bargain-basement products because it tends to take away from the "high-quality" reputation they are otherwise known for and desire to continue cultivating.
At direct odds with this is the pervasive and continually-perpetuated attitude in the U.S. (and elsewhere, perhaps) that the universe revolves exclusively around the mantra of "faster, cheaper, better", with emphasis on the latter two: cheaper and better. What I have noticed in my own 34 years on this planet is a considerable change in attitude, most easily summed up as people in general having their tastes almost "anti-cultured". It isn't "... cheaper, better" for them, but rather "cheaper = better". You can see this at all levels. Businesses, despite their claims to the contrary, tend to prioritize the executives specifically and the company generally making money over any other possible consideration. They try and drive their workforce from well-paid, highly competent full-time people, to part-time, no-medical or retirement-benefits-earning, low-experience, low-paid domestic help; and the second prong of their pincer movement is to outsource the rest.
Or, in short, "let's make a lot of money, but don't spend any in the process."
My goal here is not to get into the lengthy and well-trod discussion of corporate exploitation of the masses; rather it is to show the Wal-Mart effect at all levels.
More and more over the years I find that people have no taste. Steve Jobs accuses Microsoft of having no taste (a point I am not trying to argue against); I think however that he's hit a little low of the mark. The attitude out there seems to be one of total self-focus -- and not merely "me first", but rather "me first, me last, and ******* everybody else". They're the "I don't want to know anything", "all I want to do is get out of having to do anything I can, including not using my brain except for pleasure-seeking tasks," and "For God's sake, I surely don't want to have to spend more than the minimum on a computer" bunch.
Now, clearly, not everyone in the U.S. is like this; obviously, if they were, Apple would have no customers at all. But this is a real and fairly large group. Short of Apple practically giving away their computers, it's hard to imagine them being all that specifically attractive to that demographic. Moreover, those people are not merely non-enthusiasts; they want all of the benefits of having this trendy computer thing, but wish to be encumbered by none of the responsibilities.
To my way of thinking, frankly however large this group of people is, I would encourage Apple to avoid appealing to them whenever and wherever possible. If this means continuing the perception mentioned above of being a computer "for yuppies", then so be it.
Market Share Percentage and it's Perception:
Clearly, there is something to be gained by having the perception that "everyone's doing it". It's part of the reason why smoking, drinking, under-age sex, and drugs are so amazingly popular with us human beings the world over. It's part of the reason (maybe even a significant part) that iPods are so incredibly successful. Now, before someone here puts forth the argument that, "Well, you know, Apple's got a better design, and that's what attracts people to it," -- and that's quite true in it's own right -- let's break things down a bit.
Many animals develop and learn through a process called "patterning", and through imitation. Humans are not psychologically exempt from this; we do it all the time, and particularly so when we're younger. It's the fundamental force behind fashion, fads, and trends. There are definitely positive benefits to this. Kids, as they develop their social skills, learn from others the socially approved ways of behaving and interacting. Please note I did not use the term "correct" nor "right", but merely the "approved" (or, one might call it the "accepted") way. We also learn and learn from such things as casualty (actions have consequences), and other factors too numerous to pursue here.
Anyhow, all of these factors are in operation when it comes to buying technology (which is the boiled-down essence of what we're talking about here). Microsoft has learned this game, and has played it well for many years. Regardless of the "technically, we know it's bulls**t" truth, the reality of it is (and has been) when an unsavvy person walks into a store to buy a computer, and they see ten Windows-running computers on the shelf, and only one or two Mac OS-running computers there, they get the prima-facia notion that most computers are Windows computers, and by extension that statistically most people must be running Windows; therefore they should buy a Windows computer, too. There's a whole other subject here about how the ignorant sales people in electronics stores essentially use the same process to unwittingly deceive themselves into thinking the same thing. This is one of the factors which helped catapult Microsoft into the major, successful company they became. In truth, this specific scenario is a bit more 1994 than but it helps to explain why most people today who own a computer have only known life in a Microsoft world. As enough people attained this status, it became the dominant developmental factor in the world at large, which sort of helped to self-perpetuate the effect.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that these statistics of percentage of platform used by definition leave out one particular group of people -- those who don't use a computer at all. After all, if you don't own a computer, you can't browse the web, send or receive email, or have your computer platform of choice tabulated in any kind of statistical data sample. One might be tempted to think that such a notion is silly, but it isn't. True, once we get to the point that only a statistically insignificant number of people on this planet don't own a computer (which is still far from the reality of today), counting their numbers won't matter for statistical purposes, it does matter. Why? Well, the statistics as presented make it seem like Macs (or Linux, or anything else) are only used by a subset of people on this planet. Not true! They're only used by a subset of a subset, the latter being the number of people on this planet who have a computer to be counted in such statistics in the first place.
Also, statistics vary depending on a variety of factors. It's also easy to write them off as a business or let them drop "below the radar" by various statistical gathering or reporting agencies; or merely through the informal process on the part of business owners of anecdotal evidence. Here's a perfect example of that very factor.
When the Macintosh came on the scene in 1984, and as it continued through it's early incarnations in the mid 1980s, it entered the fray of lots of non-defacto computer platforms. Or, to put it another way, it "came late to the party". So, you had all these computer dealers who were already trying to sell Apple ][s, TRS-80s, Commodore 64s (and later, C128s), Timex Sinclairs, an assortment of other PCs running proprietary OSs, amongst which were those which ran this thing called MS-DOS, and so forth and so on. Also, people who wound up buying Macs didn't exactly fit the same profile as those who had bought the other computers. You had artists -- literary, graphic, musical, etc. -- buying these things. While they didn't mind being technologically self-sufficent, they were not people who were interested in such things as tearing their computer apart and having a go at it's various electronic innards. Anyhow, they formed their own communities, and for various reasons didn't get a lot of support initially from local dealers and computer software stores. However, Apple did get quite a number of companies to write software or build hardware for their Mac platform. These companies started using mail-order as a significant portion of their sales strategy. Consequently, Mac owners used it as their more-and-more-primary computer-stuff purchasing regimen.
Ultimately, fewer and fewer Mac owners were going locally to buy stuff, due to availability and pricing. What then happened largely was this "perception" on the part of shop owners (and later their suppliers, etc.) that nobody out there used a Mac. As a result of their mis-perception, companies began to simply ignore us Mac users (I was around back then), acting as if we didn't exist; or at the least there weren't enough of us to bother supporting us or even trying to make money from us.
Now, at this point there's no denying there's more Windows boxen out there than Mac boxen, but this is still a valid factor and should not be discounted.
Besides, what number you hear quoted still, as it has for many, many years, depends on what your source is. I've heard numbers within the past month that range from 4.1 percent to 6 percent. Which one is correct? Does anyone even really know?
Since we can run Windows, why run Mac OS? (paranoia of market erosion):
I've been hearing this since before Apple ever disclosed their plans to switch to x86. It was actually one of the topics frequently -- and rather hotly, as I recall -- debated in these forums. However, I think the fear is greatly unjustified, and here's why.
First, let's look at it from an economic standpoint: Buying a Mac to run Windows is hardly the most cost-effective approach.
Second, let's look at it from a socio-economic standpoint: People don't buy a Mac to run Windows so much as they buy it to either try something different, or to escape Windows and the onslaught of problems that, in more recent years, it has brought to them.
Third, and while this really applies more to tech-savvy people: Windows represents a security and stability liability which most other operating systems do not.
In other words, by and large, people out there who are switching to a Mac are doing more than merely switching hardware: they're switching OS platforms. The fact that they can run Windows on a Mac is only slightly more of interest to them than is running an x86-based distro of GNU/Linux.
Bottom Line: Apple will appeal to and convert those that they can, and those are the hearts and minds which are the most vital and important anyhow. Let's not forget the relative merits of dummy-dropping. Sometimes, Darwin's theories of Evolution are more satisfyingly applied sociologically than biologically.
Dirt-Cheap vs. Reasonable Economy (a.k.a. "The Wal-Martization of America"):
Apple has always had the philosophy that their name needs to mean a superior product. They have tended to shy away from producing bargain-basement products because it tends to take away from the "high-quality" reputation they are otherwise known for and desire to continue cultivating.
At direct odds with this is the pervasive and continually-perpetuated attitude in the U.S. (and elsewhere, perhaps) that the universe revolves exclusively around the mantra of "faster, cheaper, better", with emphasis on the latter two: cheaper and better. What I have noticed in my own 34 years on this planet is a considerable change in attitude, most easily summed up as people in general having their tastes almost "anti-cultured". It isn't "... cheaper, better" for them, but rather "cheaper = better". You can see this at all levels. Businesses, despite their claims to the contrary, tend to prioritize the executives specifically and the company generally making money over any other possible consideration. They try and drive their workforce from well-paid, highly competent full-time people, to part-time, no-medical or retirement-benefits-earning, low-experience, low-paid domestic help; and the second prong of their pincer movement is to outsource the rest.
Or, in short, "let's make a lot of money, but don't spend any in the process."
My goal here is not to get into the lengthy and well-trod discussion of corporate exploitation of the masses; rather it is to show the Wal-Mart effect at all levels.
More and more over the years I find that people have no taste. Steve Jobs accuses Microsoft of having no taste (a point I am not trying to argue against); I think however that he's hit a little low of the mark. The attitude out there seems to be one of total self-focus -- and not merely "me first", but rather "me first, me last, and ******* everybody else". They're the "I don't want to know anything", "all I want to do is get out of having to do anything I can, including not using my brain except for pleasure-seeking tasks," and "For God's sake, I surely don't want to have to spend more than the minimum on a computer" bunch.
Now, clearly, not everyone in the U.S. is like this; obviously, if they were, Apple would have no customers at all. But this is a real and fairly large group. Short of Apple practically giving away their computers, it's hard to imagine them being all that specifically attractive to that demographic. Moreover, those people are not merely non-enthusiasts; they want all of the benefits of having this trendy computer thing, but wish to be encumbered by none of the responsibilities.
To my way of thinking, frankly however large this group of people is, I would encourage Apple to avoid appealing to them whenever and wherever possible. If this means continuing the perception mentioned above of being a computer "for yuppies", then so be it.
Market Share Percentage and it's Perception:
Clearly, there is something to be gained by having the perception that "everyone's doing it". It's part of the reason why smoking, drinking, under-age sex, and drugs are so amazingly popular with us human beings the world over. It's part of the reason (maybe even a significant part) that iPods are so incredibly successful. Now, before someone here puts forth the argument that, "Well, you know, Apple's got a better design, and that's what attracts people to it," -- and that's quite true in it's own right -- let's break things down a bit.
Many animals develop and learn through a process called "patterning", and through imitation. Humans are not psychologically exempt from this; we do it all the time, and particularly so when we're younger. It's the fundamental force behind fashion, fads, and trends. There are definitely positive benefits to this. Kids, as they develop their social skills, learn from others the socially approved ways of behaving and interacting. Please note I did not use the term "correct" nor "right", but merely the "approved" (or, one might call it the "accepted") way. We also learn and learn from such things as casualty (actions have consequences), and other factors too numerous to pursue here.
Anyhow, all of these factors are in operation when it comes to buying technology (which is the boiled-down essence of what we're talking about here). Microsoft has learned this game, and has played it well for many years. Regardless of the "technically, we know it's bulls**t" truth, the reality of it is (and has been) when an unsavvy person walks into a store to buy a computer, and they see ten Windows-running computers on the shelf, and only one or two Mac OS-running computers there, they get the prima-facia notion that most computers are Windows computers, and by extension that statistically most people must be running Windows; therefore they should buy a Windows computer, too. There's a whole other subject here about how the ignorant sales people in electronics stores essentially use the same process to unwittingly deceive themselves into thinking the same thing. This is one of the factors which helped catapult Microsoft into the major, successful company they became. In truth, this specific scenario is a bit more 1994 than but it helps to explain why most people today who own a computer have only known life in a Microsoft world. As enough people attained this status, it became the dominant developmental factor in the world at large, which sort of helped to self-perpetuate the effect.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that these statistics of percentage of platform used by definition leave out one particular group of people -- those who don't use a computer at all. After all, if you don't own a computer, you can't browse the web, send or receive email, or have your computer platform of choice tabulated in any kind of statistical data sample. One might be tempted to think that such a notion is silly, but it isn't. True, once we get to the point that only a statistically insignificant number of people on this planet don't own a computer (which is still far from the reality of today), counting their numbers won't matter for statistical purposes, it does matter. Why? Well, the statistics as presented make it seem like Macs (or Linux, or anything else) are only used by a subset of people on this planet. Not true! They're only used by a subset of a subset, the latter being the number of people on this planet who have a computer to be counted in such statistics in the first place.
Also, statistics vary depending on a variety of factors. It's also easy to write them off as a business or let them drop "below the radar" by various statistical gathering or reporting agencies; or merely through the informal process on the part of business owners of anecdotal evidence. Here's a perfect example of that very factor.
When the Macintosh came on the scene in 1984, and as it continued through it's early incarnations in the mid 1980s, it entered the fray of lots of non-defacto computer platforms. Or, to put it another way, it "came late to the party". So, you had all these computer dealers who were already trying to sell Apple ][s, TRS-80s, Commodore 64s (and later, C128s), Timex Sinclairs, an assortment of other PCs running proprietary OSs, amongst which were those which ran this thing called MS-DOS, and so forth and so on. Also, people who wound up buying Macs didn't exactly fit the same profile as those who had bought the other computers. You had artists -- literary, graphic, musical, etc. -- buying these things. While they didn't mind being technologically self-sufficent, they were not people who were interested in such things as tearing their computer apart and having a go at it's various electronic innards. Anyhow, they formed their own communities, and for various reasons didn't get a lot of support initially from local dealers and computer software stores. However, Apple did get quite a number of companies to write software or build hardware for their Mac platform. These companies started using mail-order as a significant portion of their sales strategy. Consequently, Mac owners used it as their more-and-more-primary computer-stuff purchasing regimen.
Ultimately, fewer and fewer Mac owners were going locally to buy stuff, due to availability and pricing. What then happened largely was this "perception" on the part of shop owners (and later their suppliers, etc.) that nobody out there used a Mac. As a result of their mis-perception, companies began to simply ignore us Mac users (I was around back then), acting as if we didn't exist; or at the least there weren't enough of us to bother supporting us or even trying to make money from us.
Now, at this point there's no denying there's more Windows boxen out there than Mac boxen, but this is still a valid factor and should not be discounted.
Besides, what number you hear quoted still, as it has for many, many years, depends on what your source is. I've heard numbers within the past month that range from 4.1 percent to 6 percent. Which one is correct? Does anyone even really know?
Since we can run Windows, why run Mac OS? (paranoia of market erosion):
I've been hearing this since before Apple ever disclosed their plans to switch to x86. It was actually one of the topics frequently -- and rather hotly, as I recall -- debated in these forums. However, I think the fear is greatly unjustified, and here's why.
First, let's look at it from an economic standpoint: Buying a Mac to run Windows is hardly the most cost-effective approach.
Second, let's look at it from a socio-economic standpoint: People don't buy a Mac to run Windows so much as they buy it to either try something different, or to escape Windows and the onslaught of problems that, in more recent years, it has brought to them.
Third, and while this really applies more to tech-savvy people: Windows represents a security and stability liability which most other operating systems do not.
In other words, by and large, people out there who are switching to a Mac are doing more than merely switching hardware: they're switching OS platforms. The fact that they can run Windows on a Mac is only slightly more of interest to them than is running an x86-based distro of GNU/Linux.
Bottom Line: Apple will appeal to and convert those that they can, and those are the hearts and minds which are the most vital and important anyhow. Let's not forget the relative merits of dummy-dropping. Sometimes, Darwin's theories of Evolution are more satisfyingly applied sociologically than biologically.
CTYankee
Aug 19, 10:51 AM
oh, great. Just the thing aliens will use to find out where I am and abduct me again. Yeah, sure I had to opt in, but do you know how hard it is to say no to location features?! I mean seriously, don't they realize all the bad ways people, er 'others', can use technology like this.
If they get me again I'm
If they get me again I'm
icode4food
May 3, 11:02 AM
I have an old 2006 MBP 17" 2.16GHz Intel Core Duo 2GB RAM. Game runs slow on the "recommended settings" which puts the majority of the settings on Low. Tried bumping up the resolution which caused the game to crash when the match began.
I'm not happy with the performance of the game on my Mac however it handles the game better than my 2008 Dell Precision laptop running XP. Time to upgrade my MBP.
I'm not happy with the performance of the game on my Mac however it handles the game better than my 2008 Dell Precision laptop running XP. Time to upgrade my MBP.
Gondry
Oct 24, 07:55 AM
it's 6pm local time on friday. 10/26/07
cheers!
cheers!
abbstrack
Aug 19, 09:59 AM
not available in my region yet.
my 'region' is NYC.
I dont throw this term around much, but i'd say this is a launch *fail*
my 'region' is NYC.
I dont throw this term around much, but i'd say this is a launch *fail*
lgutie20
Apr 5, 08:47 AM
Apple would not use a such a touch sensor instead of a button. This would limit the ways that people would be able to hold the device. Can you imagine watching a movie or playing a game and having to hold it in a specific way because otherwise the sensor will rip you out of your app or media onto the home screen? Not good, not real!
hans-martijn
Mar 4, 05:15 AM
Does push-mail actually work this time? In SLS it is supported, but not with an iPhone. iPhone push thus far only works with Exchange, Google or MobileMe.
Thanks!
-Hans-Martijn
Thanks!
-Hans-Martijn
aristotle
May 5, 02:57 PM
Canada, you're screwed. :(
Oh please. If the NDP had got in then Canada would be royally screwed. The NDP has a poor record in a number of provinces of running the provincial governments into deep deficits and scaring away businesses.
I would take the opinion piece from someone with the Toronto Star with a little bit of salt. They are like the Huffington Post of Canada or a left leaning Canadian version of those British tabloids that they try to pass for "newspapers" in England.
Oh please. If the NDP had got in then Canada would be royally screwed. The NDP has a poor record in a number of provinces of running the provincial governments into deep deficits and scaring away businesses.
I would take the opinion piece from someone with the Toronto Star with a little bit of salt. They are like the Huffington Post of Canada or a left leaning Canadian version of those British tabloids that they try to pass for "newspapers" in England.
No comments:
Post a Comment