backtop


Print 161 comment(s) - last by goku.. on Nov 10 at 2:28 PM


iMac  (Source: Apple)

iPod touch  (Source: Apple)

iPhone  (Source: Apple)
It looks like somebody else had a great fiscal fourth quarter, besides Intel.

The latest fiscal quarter brought a mixed bag of news for major electronics and technology firms.  Intel reported its quarterly profit up 43%, as covered by DailyTech, while its rival AMD saw a far less rosy picture with a $396 million USD net loss.

Now Apple Inc.'s numbers have been released for its fourth fiscal quarter, ending September 29, and it appears that the company has overcome numerous obstacles to post massive growth.

The Cupertino-based Apple, headed by quirky CEO Steve Jobs, saw its share of troubles this last quarter.  First there was a class action lawsuit about the expensive replacement costs for iPhone batteries.  Then there was the financial burden of the cutting the iPhone's price and the discontent among Apple's usually loyal ranks, about the cut insulting early adopters.  Then came news that the new iDevices' screens were having quality issues

This news was quickly followed by reports of iFires and massive media coverage of Apple's now infamous v1.1.1 firmware update for the iPhone and iPod touch, which turned unlocked iPhones and iPhones or iPod touches with third party applications into iBricks.  Apple next saw two new class action suits over this development, along with allegations by Greenpeace that the iPhone is toxic (update).

Despite all of these problems, Apple was buoyed by a new line of iPods, which included the nano with color screen, the iPhone lookalike iPod touch and the mildly refreshed iPod Shuffle.  Apple also drew upon the new low price of its iPhone and on an active new marketing campaign promoting the iPhone on TV.

The results are enough to turn the heads of even Apple's harshest critics.  Apple recorded a whopping 67 percent increase in profits and made a net profit of $904 million USD, topping estimates. Apple stockholders made $1.01 per share in profits.

Apple sold 10.2 million iPods over the quarter and 1.11 million iPhones.  iPhone sales topped the million mark early in September and were aggressive due largely to the price cut.

Despite laying off its trademark "Mac Guy, PC Guy" advertising campaign, Apple recorded landmark sales of 2.16 million Macs.  To put the number in perspective; this is the largest quarterly sales of Macs in the company's long history which stretches over two decades.

Apple is now in third place in the domestic computer market -- behind only Dell and Hewlett Packard -- according to the IDC.

Apple is convinced its success is here to stay.  Steve Jobs released a statement, saying "We're looking forward to a strong December quarter as we enter the holiday season with Apple's best products ever."

Strong indeed.  Apple, usually conservative in its sales and profit predictions, is predicting profits of $9.2 billion and earnings of $1.42 per share next quarter, which ends in December.  Whether Apple will be able to sustain its torrid growth and meet these marks will only be revealed by holiday season sales.

Apple's recent success may even have taken the company itself aback.  Following weeks of rumors that the software and hardware giant is understaffed, particularly with the iPhone, Apple posted help wanted ads on social network Facebook, seeking an iPhone software designer.

As Apple continues to grow and transform, it will likely continue to experience some growing pains.  As a corporate leader, you often lose the "cool guy" image that has been Apple's bread and butter.  Apple will almost surely endure some more harsh press, but for now they can bask in the glory of their massive fourth quarter success.





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By Hare on 10/23/2007 1:54:36 PM , Rating: 6
The title says it all.

• Microsoft (MSFT) - $290,326,101,760
• Google (GOOG) - $206,137,075,350
Apple (AAPL) - $163,814,662,910
• Intel (INTC) - $156,278,400,000
• IBM (IBM) - $154,610,255,550
• Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) - $133,260,024,780
• Disney (DIS) - $67,680,019,880
• Dell (DELL) - $64,241,243,920
• Sony (SNE) - $45,994,645,800
• Yahoo! (YHOO) - $40,641,873,724
• Amazon (AMZN) - $39,037,267,570

Source, macdailynews.




RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By Hare on 10/23/07, Rating: 0
RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/23/2007 2:19:57 PM , Rating: 2
Not always, I find some of my posts get a 1 rating immediately upon posting, might be a bug in the CMS.


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By tuteja1986 on 10/24/2007 12:36:43 AM , Rating: 1
Apple stock is so over bloated now , i am going to sell my apple stock around Q1 2008, probably after Apple yearly conferences. I still don't think Apple is bigger than Intel , IBM and half of Microsoft.

Selling iphone at 400% of its manufacturing cost at start gave em huge profit boost for this quarter and stupid AT&T giving cash to Apple for exclusive iphone deal was stupid. I don't think Apple will reach 10million iphone sales by Q3 2008.


By spluurfg on 10/24/2007 8:31:14 AM , Rating: 2
Market capitalization isn't really a direct measure of the size of a firm. Stocks are traditionally valued based on the future (and potential future) dividend payouts. Hence a company will have a higher total capitalization than another firm if it is expected to distribute more earnings to shareholders.

A small firm (by measure of assets, revenue, employees, etc) that is highly profitable can have a much higher capitalization than a massive corporation that has very thin margins.


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By James Holden on 10/23/2007 2:25:13 PM , Rating: 2
There's some "background noise" when it comes to ratings. Don't take it all personal.


By MADAOO7 on 10/23/2007 2:34:49 PM , Rating: 3
I'm sorry, it was my fault, I left a "hanging chad"......lol


By scrapsma54 on 10/23/2007 4:19:50 PM , Rating: 3
It happens, Don't worry, there are also people who don't act very professional.


By Aerius on 10/23/2007 7:26:05 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't star you, but your title is wrong. The market capitalization is higher, but the value of the company (EV) is not. Apple is not worth as much as IBM and is about tied with Intel depending on what numbers you want to use.

Thus you either introduced bias due to you misconstruing the data, or your source was biased. If that was the title of the article you sourced, it once again shows how misleading those fanboy mac sites are. Same sites who are arguing that macs are cheaper than PCs, no?


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By Mitch101 on 10/23/2007 2:25:39 PM , Rating: 2
I can never understand why google is worth so much.

There isnt a single product in my home that has google on it. Yes I use thier search engine from time to time however I dont ever recall paying them a penny. All the other companies on the list I have purchased something from. This cant be all google ads.

I guess I need to write my own search engine.


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By cochy on 10/23/2007 2:32:03 PM , Rating: 2
Google makes mountains of money from their ads. They don't sell anything to consumers which explains why you haven't bought anything from them.


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By Mitch101 on 10/23/2007 2:41:35 PM , Rating: 3
That I know but does google ads really make that much coin to be worth so much? To me search engines come and go. AltaVista was my original king of search then Yahoo was popular yesterday and google is most popular today. Who is next dogpile?

MSN will never be as popular because its name is lousy. Try using MSN in a sentence. If they change the name to something catchy I believe it would make a world of difference for them. Same for AOL search but that is google now.

I have been finding that google page ranking isnt what it used to be as a lot of searches I do dont return valid information im searching for instead I get a lot of ad sites that just contain nothing but just that ads. Its either they have figured out googles rank system and are exploiting it or google's page ranking isnt what it used to be and may be taking a turn for the worse.

Turn me on to another search engine. Who does everyone use beyond Google today?


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By TomZ on 10/23/2007 2:46:57 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
That I know but does google ads really make that much coin to be worth so much?

Yes, they do, because the popularity of google gets your ads exposed to a lot of viewers who click through to your site.
quote:
Who does everyone use beyond Google today?

Don't ask us - use google to find some other search engines. :o)


By Mitch101 on 10/23/2007 4:35:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Don't ask us - use google to find some other search engines. :o)

LOL.


By euclidean on 10/23/2007 5:16:27 PM , Rating: 2
Ads and Corporate search engines....they sell their technology all the time. Plus they do a lot of R&D for other software companies and such.

And I believe the issue with the adsense and the reason it's not what it use to be is because people got a hair up their ass when they found out how long they kept your search information stored for you... cut half of it away and you loose a ton of data that helped it find what you wanted...though, that's just my thought.


By fk49 on 10/23/2007 3:52:29 PM , Rating: 2
They have mindshare -- I think that's pretty valuable. Can't really put a price tag on information right?


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By Hase0 on 10/24/2007 11:18:45 AM , Rating: 2
I also agree with your opinion on the current MSN never being popular because not only is the name not very catchy, but i think the user interface is far to cluttered compared to Google, one of Google's key advantages is it's sheer simplicity, making it one of the most user friendly search engine.


By TomZ on 10/24/2007 11:23:31 AM , Rating: 2
Are you sure about that?

http://www.live.com/

Looks pretty simple to me. I don't think you could reasonably call that "cluttered."

Remember msn.com is a portal (like aol.com), while live.com is a search engine interface (like google.com). You just need to compare apples-to-apples.


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By retrospooty on 10/23/2007 2:57:29 PM , Rating: 1
Cool. I really hope they do well. We need a viable alternative product that people are willing to buy to keep MS pushing things. We have not had that the past decade and look what we got... Vista. Blah.

I hope people start massively defecting and buying Macs. It will help drive prices for PC's down (as well as Macs) and force MS to re-prioritize thier OS direction (reduce the bloat)


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By thebrown13 on 10/23/2007 4:27:39 PM , Rating: 3
You know nothing about Microsoft. Please educate yourself. Thanks.


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By Alexstarfire on 10/23/2007 4:52:17 PM , Rating: 2
Well then, please tell me what Vista offers that I can't do on XP, other than DX10 of course. The took out WinFS in Vista which was the biggest feature that Vista had, other than DX10, to begin with. They also took out DirectSound hardware acceleration so that all sound drivers had to be completely rewritten. This is why you can't use EAX anymore.


By TomZ on 10/23/2007 4:59:09 PM , Rating: 2
Here's the "official" list which describes quite a few features that Vista has over XP:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsv...

Vista is more than DX10, and WinFS was not included because its value to customers is questionable (at best).


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By retrospooty on 10/23/2007 7:13:02 PM , Rating: 4
"Well then, please tell me what Vista offers that I can't do on XP"

It does have improvements, but it is extremely bloated. Even MS themselves admit that.


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By TomZ on 10/23/2007 7:55:57 PM , Rating: 2
More functionality -> more disk space and RAM requirements.

More caching -> more RAM requirements.

More security -> more CPU, disk space, and RAM requirements.

More sophisticated graphics -> more disk space, CPU, RAM, and video requirements.

More drivers -> more disk space.

64-bit EXEs -> more disk space and RAM requirements.

The pattern is "more <functionality> -> more <resources>." Therefore, the way to reduce <resources> is probably to reduce <functionality>.

How well do you think a next-gen OS will go over that has reduced functionality? I can't answer that, because I'm not aware of any company being dumb enough to do that.

And I would add that lots of people complained about XP being "bloated" compared to Win9x when it first came out. Did XP's resource requirements somehow drop through the years, because I don't seem to hear people complaining about that any more? Or did Microsoft manage to figure out something that the whiners don't know yet? Hmmm....what could that be...?!?


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By retrospooty on 10/23/2007 10:22:53 PM , Rating: 1
"lots of people complained about XP being "bloated" compared to Win9x when it first came out. Did XP's resource requirements somehow drop through the years, because I don't seem to hear people complaining about that any more?"

Yes, and I know you have made this argument before as well.. XP was larger compared to 9x when it came out, and some older systems with out enough horsepower were slow and some people complained... The difference you seem to miss is that at the time of XP's release, a newer (at that time) computer with at least 512mb ram was able to run it just fine, without it being slow. Vista on the other hand can take the latest greatest computer of today and its still slow as hell. An overclocked quad core Intel CPU with 4GB ram and the latest fastest 1gb hard drives or Raptor 150's is STILL slow on Vista. There is no denying that fact, MS doesnt, so why are you?


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By TomZ on 10/23/2007 10:31:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Vista on the other hand can take the latest greatest computer of today and its still slow as hell. An overclocked quad core Intel CPU with 4GB ram and the latest fastest 1gb hard drives or Raptor 150's is STILL slow on Vista. There is no denying that fact, MS doesnt, so why are you?

Because it's BS, and you know it. I've got a bunch of machines here, 3-4 years old and newer, running Vista, and they are not slow. Not any slower than XP, and the newer machines probably run faster than XP, but it's hard to tell that for sure.

And where does Microsoft not deny that Vista is slow? You made that up. Proof by repeated assertion won't convince me.

I think you're just making up your "knowledge" of Vista - I don't think you actually have any credible experience with it.


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By retrospooty on 10/23/07, Rating: 0
RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By rdeegvainl on 10/24/2007 4:23:48 AM , Rating: 3
I don't know how you messed up your computer into running like crap. I can run vista great on a laptop with mobile graphics, and only 2 ghz proc and only 2 gb ram.
You did a crap job providing any sort of links to these quotes you claim. uhh it's on another thread believe me guys.
If you want someone to see your point of view, you find the quotes and link to them.


By TomZ on 10/24/2007 8:54:51 AM , Rating: 1
Exactly - I'd like to see reports of Vista running "slow" on some reputable web site - I haven't seen that yet.


By goatfajitas on 10/27/2007 12:34:43 PM , Rating: 2
I would say Retro hit it right on the nose, too many people experience this same issue for you to just dismiss it. Vista does not behave the same on all hardware


By wordsworm on 10/25/2007 3:23:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Vista on the other hand can take the latest greatest computer of today and its still slow as hell. An overclocked quad core Intel CPU with 4GB ram and the latest fastest 1gb hard drives or Raptor 150's is STILL slow on Vista. There is no denying that fact, MS doesnt, so why are you?
I don't see how his computer is slow. Maybe it's because it's Intel... I have AMD running mine - 64 bit Vista seems to be faster than the more expensive Intel machine I have at work that runs XP. The Vista machine, though, has 2 GB of RAM whilst the work machine has 512MB. Another big difference is at work I have an 7900 GeForce and at home a 8800 GTS. I have a standard Hitachi 500GB hard drive at home, 80 GB at work. Everything I have is relatively mainstream, so I can't imagine any other reason why his monster machine has so poorly underperformed. The only thing I can think of is that perhaps he has a problem with his CPU.

Most of the AMD to Intel comparisons I've noticed are based on 32 bit machines... does 64 bit make a difference in performance between the two?


By Domicinator on 10/24/2007 2:24:15 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, you really don't know what you're talking about. I am running Vista Home Premium on my gaming machine (2 GB of ram, Core 2 Quad 6600 NOT overclocked, 8800gts 640 MB) and on my notebook (Pentium Dual Core 1.73 Ghz, 1 GB ram, etc.) It's running flawlessly for me on both machines.

Not only that, but I've gotten both my machines to communicate flawlessly with each other over my wireless network, which is something I was never able to do with XP. There were always problems that kept me from doing everything I needed to do. Now I'm media/printer/file sharing with absolutely zero problems and it's because of Vista's much improved network features.

It sounds like you need a reality check. Computers need more and more power all the time, it's just a fact of life. In fact, these days, many computers are shipping standard with at least 1 GB of ram. It's not the year 2000 anymore. Get over yourself.


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By Oregonian2 on 10/30/2007 2:20:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, and I know you have made this argument before as well.. XP was larger compared to 9x when it came out, and some older systems with out enough horsepower were slow and some people complained...


Never a good comparison. XP is a dramatically better OS than the Win DOS extender. 9x was unstable. XP is stable. 9x ran out of resources constantly (16-bit address on resource memory), not an issue on XP (32-bit). Despite being much larger, there was an extremely dramatic improvement in performance. 9x was *NOT* an adequate OS, it was bad. XP is a good one, works fine. Vista may be 'better' but not not anywhere nearly so dramatically so, and for compatibility problems less good. Yes, XP wasn't fully compatible (although amazingly good at it, esp. with the emulation modes), but it was worth it because of the dramatic improvements. I don't see that level of dramatic improvement that make the pain of upgrade worthwhile. Buying a new computer and new applications from scratch with vista won't be a problem. The problem is with upgrades.


By goku on 11/10/2007 2:28:33 PM , Rating: 2
Funny that people like comparing XP to 9X and say that it's "necessary" for XP to use more resources. What about Windows 2000? Why is it that XP uses twice as many resources (at the minimum) as windows 2000? 9X to Windows 2000 shows that 2000 doesn't use nearly as many resources as XP and can infact be stable at the same time.


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By retrospooty on 10/23/2007 7:19:36 PM , Rating: 4
"You know nothing about Microsoft. Please educate yourself. Thanks."

Oh come on... Call a terd a terd here. Even MS themselves admit it, offiically and on camera when demoing the next version of Widows, that is on a smaller footprint, addressing the bloat. If they are admitting and addressing the bloat, I'd say it exists no?

http://www.istartedsomething.co...

The bright side is help is coming in 2010


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By TomZ on 10/23/2007 7:48:12 PM , Rating: 2
Did you watch the video you linked?!?

I heard several times of MinWin, "This is internal only. You won't see us productizing this."

I also heard him talk about how MinWin is a component of all the Windows versions.

He also said a few times that MinWin has basically just the kernel - not enough features/functionality even for a basic web server. Not even any GUI.

He also said that MinWin would be about 1.5GB footprint in Windows 2008 Server. And that Server would be more modular and just load what is needed (which is a good thing).

Needless to say, I don't think the video supports your assertions very well.


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By retrospooty on 10/23/2007 8:41:33 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, did you listen to the whole thing? While of course it is not complete, Traut mentioned it is being designed much smaller from the ground up, so that the end result of the completed OS is much smaller, and he even admitted that current versions of windows are totally bloated.

The development team at MS has been tasked to reduce the bloat and increase the efficiency of the next released OS due in 2010. This speakes directly to the fact that Vista is overbloated and MS knows it. They wouldnt be fixing it if they didn't admit it (at least internally).


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By retrospooty on 10/23/2007 8:44:24 PM , Rating: 3
here... I even googled it for you so you can see its all over the place, how MS is developing the next OS on a smaller footprint to reduce the bloat.

http://www.google.com/search?q=windows+7+kernel&so...


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By TomZ on 10/23/2007 9:31:39 PM , Rating: 2
You are extrapolating like crazy here. All those search results are various sites repeating links back to Eric's video. I also couldn't find any other information/rumors to support what you're concluding.

In a nutshell, Eric said that Server 2008 (not the 2010 release) would be more modular so that features that are not needed do not need to be loaded. This can reduce the footprint for lite installations, yes.

But that is a far cry from "admitting that Vista is bloated" and that the "development team at MS has been tasked to reduce the bloat and increase the efficiency of the next released OS due in 2010." Where did you get all that?!?

Heck, Eric even said that just the core of Server 2008 would be 1.5GB without any features loaded. How do you think that compares to Server 2003 - more or less?


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By retrospooty on 10/23/2007 10:07:22 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, it is all over the web, and many sites are talking about it, but it is all primarily based on the same 1 hour long presentation. The video was just a 7 min portion of it.

More info from the full pres...

"MinWin can run on less than 40MB of RAM, he said. "That's kind of proof there is actually a pretty nice little core inside of Windows," But Microsoft still wants to shrink it. "It's still bigger than I'd like it to be," Traut said."

"A lot of people think of Windows as this really large, bloated operating system, and that may be a fair characterization, I have to admit," said Eric Traut"

Of course he cant come out and say Vista is a hog, it is still MS's bread and butter for the next few years.

"Microsoft has been knocked in the past for Windows' poor performance and its large size, two criticisms that have been leveled against Vista since its release earlier this year. By stripping the current kernel to the bare minimum and then using that as the code base for Windows 7, Microsoft is trying to reduce the operating system's memory footprint and boost its speed at the same time."

"The core code for Microsoft's Windows OS is undergoing a rewrite to make it slimmer for use in a wide range of future products, including Windows 7, the OS that will succeed Vista. The internal project, code-named "MinWin," is not being readied for a product just yet but will be part of Windows 7, said Eric Traut, a distinguished engineer, during a recent presentation at the University of Illinois"

A couple of points that everyone else on the web is getting from this presentation that you seem not to be.

1. All windows versions are based on this core.
2. This core has been/is being reworked to make it much more efficient and smaller, and less of a memory hog.


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By TomZ on 10/23/2007 10:19:18 PM , Rating: 2
Remember, Eric is not part of the core OS team - he's involved with virtualization. So even though it may be his desire to get the core smaller, that doesn't mean that it is Microsoft's priority. Did Eric say "but Microsoft still wants to shrink it"? No.

And again, Eric stated that the reason Windows is so bloated is because of all the functionality it contains. He did not say anywhere that it was coded inefficiently, or that any efforts are underway to re-write it. He also didn't say that any functionality is being removed, he just said that it was being factored into individual modules, e.g., in Windows 2008. This is being done to cut install times, like they did in Vista. This is well-known already.

Where did you pull those last two quotes from? Those are ridiculous extrapolations if they are based on Eric's presentation. People hear what they want to hear, but if you listen very carefully to what Eric said, he did not say the things that you and others are concluding.

quote:
This core has been/is being reworked to make it much more efficient and smaller, and less of a memory hog.

Where did Eric say anything like that? Unreal.


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By retrospooty on 10/23/2007 10:31:17 PM , Rating: 2
That was taken from the full 1 hour pres, not the 7 min clip. I honestly did not watch the full hour, I relied on the dozens of websites that did for my info.

" quote:
This core has been/is being reworked to make it much more efficient and smaller, and less of a memory hog.
Where did Eric say anything like that? Unreal."

No, I wrote that, Eric did not say it. Eric did say this...
"The core code for Microsoft's Windows OS is undergoing a rewrite to make it slimmer for use in a wide range of future products, including Windows 7, the OS that will succeed Vista. The internal project, code-named "MinWin," is not being readied for a product just yet but will be part of Windows 7, said Eric Traut"

You seem to want to defend Vista to the end, regardless, and thats cool. I am glad it works well for you. I respect your opinion, but according to everything we have seen MS is aware of the issue and is working toward a solution.

If as you say, Eric Traut is not on the OS team and may not be fully aware of the final intentions, and tehy dont reduce the bloat, and this is all a load of poop, then we all lose, except Apple, they may benefit.


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By TomZ on 10/23/2007 10:39:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Eric did say this... The core code for Microsoft's Windows OS is undergoing a rewrite to make it slimmer for use in a wide range of future products, including Windows 7, the OS that will succeed Vista.

No, Eric did not say that. He describes MinWin at about 4:00, and again, if you listen yourself to what he says, he says that the team worked to isolate the kernel by "stripping out the layers above." That means they isolated the kernel from other OS services - it doesn't mean they are "undergoing a rewrite." Do you understand the difference? He never once said the word "rewrite."

And for the record, I'm not defending Vista - I'm just arguing as a point of fact that you and others are extrapolating like crazy from Eric's comments. There is no corroboration anywhere that I can find on the Internet to support the conclusions you and others drew from Eric's talk.


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By retrospooty on 10/23/2007 10:58:22 PM , Rating: 3
"No, Eric did not say that."

That was quoted directly from Eric on the full 1 hour pres, I feel I must remind you that the 7 min video was just a 7 min portion of the 1 hour pres.

"The core code for Microsoft's Windows OS is undergoing a rewrite to make it slimmer for use in a wide range of future products, including Windows 7, the OS that will succeed Vista. The internal project, code-named "MinWin," is not being readied for a product just yet but will be part of Windows 7, said Eric Traut"
See the part at the end where is says "said Eric Traut" That is an indication that he said it. See? ;)

"The core code for Microsoft's Windows OS is undergoing a rewrite to make it slimmer for use in a wide range of future products, including Windows 7, the OS that will succeed Vista."

That is specifically the part where we get the term "re-write" (the part where he says re-write).

They stripped out the layers, isolated the Kernel and rewrote as well. Can YOU understand the multiple aspects of it?

I am not sure if you are not fully reading and/or paying attention tonight or are just being stubborn, but I feel you are missing some things here.



RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By TomZ on 10/23/2007 11:10:15 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
They stripped out the layers, isolated the Kernel and rewrote as well. Can YOU understand the multiple aspects of it?


No, they didn't re-write the kernel! Argh!

Stop quoting other web sites and just listen to what Eric says - the site/blog you are quoting is wrong. Here is the link to the entire video:

http://www.acm.uiuc.edu/conference/2007/video/UIUC...

Where in there does he say that? At what time? I listened to the whole thing, and the only part he talks anything about this subject is at about 4:00 in the subset on istartedsomething.com. And there he only talks about stripping upper layers - he never says anything about re-writing the kernel.

Think about it - do you really think that Microsoft is going to re-write the NT kernel? No way!

I think you must be trying to get my goat tonight.


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By retrospooty on 10/23/2007 11:18:36 PM , Rating: 3
OK, I give... You win. Vista isn't bloated and the kernel was not re-written and will not be, the next version of Windows will not be slimmer, in spite of what is all over the web, its all just wishful thinking, and MS is not giving people free downgrades to XP, Dell and other major manufacturers did not bring XP back as well, due to issues with Vista. I am also not getting a headache and am not logging off now to go slam a few beers ;)


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By Mach Omega on 10/25/2007 1:51:30 AM , Rating: 2
'spooty, don't bother with TomZ. Here is his tactic:

1) You write something critical of MS that can be found anywhere on the Web;
2) He write in a self-righteous, authoritative way that "you don't know what you are talking about" and "prove it";
3) MS fanbois immediately jump on his giblets, co-signing his non-rebuttal;
4) You provide proof or ask him to provide a rational counter-argument;
5) TomZ either sticks with his non-argument or opts out entirely;
6) Fanbois continue to cradle TomZ's swizzle stick with their own non-arguments;
7) You continue to offer cogent arguments and/or proof, being downrated the entire time;
8) Rinse and repeat

This guy is a nimrod. I read an article in the Wall Street Journal that pretty much backs up everything you wrote... Microsoft has notoriously bad coding procedures, many of which had to be overhauled when Vista was being developed. That "spaghetti code" was actually considered a security measure... every piece of MS's operating systems are, for all intents and purposes, developed in a vacuum and then grafted together like some kind of Frankenstein OS. Since TomZ is going to whine about "proof," here it is:

http://gotads.blogspot.com/2007/01/allchin-vista-i...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB112743680328349448...

http://icrontic.com/articles/vista_not_ready_for_g...

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com...

http://www.scripting.com/2006/03/25.html

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/11/24.htm...

I could continue but I get the feeling TomZ won't be convinced regardless. Another wannabe expert who's really just a shill.

As an aside, Leopard looks like its going to piss on Vista.


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By TomZ on 10/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By tmouse on 10/25/2007 10:06:45 AM , Rating: 2
Well from what I have deduced he was talking about how some feel vista is bloated and they are working on a streamlined kernel mostly to integrate a MS OS into smaller devices (probably like phones) while this may decrease the size of the OS some this is NOT the majority of the OS. Those devices will not have all of the functionality of a desktop OS but the “new” kernel will reduce the size a bit (or more than likely reduce the increase a bit). BTW when last I checked I have not seen a single OS that is getting smaller, the more features the larger the size, the more security the larger the size...see the point. There are a lot of kluges to fix problems created by criminals (Trojan and virus writers) who cost society a fortune and force an increase in the size of the OS software so its not just sloppy programming. To the MS bashers I ask have you ever even seen a kernel. Its never a thing of beauty (except to its creators) and every one is a “can of worms” MS is probably not much worse than anyone else except for the retro “fixes” which they have a lot more of through no fault of their own (OSX and Linux would be equally “bloated” if they were forced to re-patch due to even 1/10000th of the hacker attention MS gets) Periodically a re-write to incorporate these changes better will result in smaller code. For the Blah Blah Blah crowd I also have built 100’s of machines and done IT support as well as high level programming ect since the 80’s (this means zilch to me but some feel its necessary to quote experience ;)


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By Mach Omega on 10/25/2007 4:53:03 PM , Rating: 2
This is BS. To state that the Windows kernel is "no worse" than any other is completely conjectural. When the people who actually WORK with the system say it sucks, then it probably does. You get a lot of spin from MS but, in moments of rare honesty and major frustration, there have been a ton of quotes from people who actually work with the Windows code stating that it is a mess. Let's call a damn spade a spade. Apple didn't want to admit that iPhones got bricked because its mobile version of OS X was an immature kludge of code but eventually the story got out. I don't think people criticize MS because its code isn't perfect but because, based on its resources in cash and intelligence, its EXCEPTIONALLY BAD. Backwards compatibility is no longer a good excuse because, based on MS's dominance of the market, it can easily afford to introduce an entirely new code base. "No," you say? IT ALREADY HAS ONCE BEFORE, with NT. There have also been many articles mentioning how Microsoft's internal project management is abysmal and that the company is not run efficiently even by corporate standards. I'd provide more links but I'll get the same BS response from TomZ. That's why I don't even bother to provide links anymore because proof is ignored. If I state something that someone disagrees with let THEM provide the argument for why I'm wrong.


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By TomZ on 10/25/2007 7:50:01 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'd provide more links but I'll get the same BS response from TomZ. That's why I don't even bother to provide links anymore because proof is ignored. If I state something that someone disagrees with let THEM provide the argument for why I'm wrong.

Well, it depends on the links, doesn't it. Any monkey can dig up links of bloggers and journalists complaining about any topic, including Vista. But how about some links to some well-thought through or reasoned criticism?

Also, Eric didn't say anything negative about the Windows kernel, did he? In fact, what he said is that the kernel is really solid, and that he believes based on crash reports that the kernel has few if any bugs.

I sometimes wonder about how people can listen to such a straight-forward discussion by someone like Eric and read into it all kinds of stuff that he simply didn't say. I think you folks are just desparate to see Microsoft insulting itself, like it would be some kind of admission of guilt or something.

You mentioned that microsoft's code is "exceptionally bad" - could you please give me some specific examples of what/where their code is so bad?

One final request/suggestion - you would come across as more credible if you talked up the facts instead of the personal insults. While I might be flattered to be the target of your attention (not really actually), it doesn't add too much to the discussion, IMO.


By Mach Omega on 10/25/2007 10:13:32 PM , Rating: 1
Virtually all of my links were either directly to credible sources (including the WALL STREET JOURNAL and a member of MICROSOFT'S DEVELOPMENT TEAM) or linked through to credible sources, blogging and mainstream. As I stated before, it doesn't matter how much proof anyone offers you, you'll say the same BS regardless. You've been exposed. It's apparent that you can offer nothing but pseudo-intellectual conjecture and basic opinion, neither of which makes you an expert. As for making it "personal," you made it personal the minute you decided to call someone on his facts and then bitch-out by falling back on semantics when you were proven wrong.

As for examples, READ THE DAMN ARTICLES, there are plenty.


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By Mach Omega on 10/25/2007 4:34:03 PM , Rating: 3
Umm, the discussion started when spooty criticized the quality of code in Vista. As always, your response was "You don't know what you are talking about, prove it." When he did, you resorted to BS semantics. Read the WSJ article, none other than Allchin himself, the man who RAN the Vista project, stated that the quality of code was awful. All the articles I linked to talk about the bloat and poor code quality of Vista. And, of course, you refuse to acknowledge the proof that was presented. It's the same story with you, over and over again. The simple fact is you are full of !@#$, just a shill. You just got a ton of solid proof that what spooty was writing was accurate and now you're claiming I'm not sticking to "the facts?" You are a world class nimrod.

As far as the video, what I DID hear was admissions that Microsoft's code quality could definitely be SIGNIFICANTLY improved. No, I don't expect ANYONE doing a presentation for MS to come out and say "Our code looks like it was written by 100 monkeys at 100 computers" anymore than I expect G.W. Bush to say "Hell yeah, I bombed Iraq to steal the damn oil." Save the semantics. It's no secret that virtually every version of Windows is a kludge, a mish-mash of code that requires massive IQ points just to get the damn thing to work. Granted some of that has been by necessity for backwards compatibility and MS's corporate culture, but a great deal of it has been simple coding laziness.


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By TomZ on 10/25/2007 7:55:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's no secret that virtually every version of Windows is a kludge, a mish-mash of code that requires massive IQ points just to get the damn thing to work.

That's a gross exaggeration, or maybe an outright lie. After all, you probably believe that I have a low IQ, but I actually have no problem setting up and using Windows desktops and servers.

Even my dad, who is very smary but is not tech savvy, was able to install and use Vista without really any help from me. I haven't got a single "tech support" call from him yet since he upgraded to Vista either, which is surprising.


By Mach Omega on 10/25/2007 10:20:21 PM , Rating: 2
I meant the IQ points of the guys that actually BUILT the OS. Vista was delayed ridiculously because MS developers had a difficult time GETTING IT TO WORK. Some parts, like WinFS, had to be scrapped altogether. I don't think you are stupid, just arrogant and condescending. You're an apologist for MS which is fine as long as you don't attempt to undermine the credibility of someone's argument by pretending to be an expert yet offering no credible rebuttal.


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By retrospooty on 10/27/2007 6:17:09 PM , Rating: 2
Wow.. thanks for the defend. I did feel he was being more than a little bit hard headed about this. DANG!


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By SavagePotato on 10/28/2007 1:37:31 PM , Rating: 2
Nah he was just calling you on all out lies and stupidity. He was right.

I've seen so many self proclaimed techs like you that have "built hundreds of computers" but don't know their ass from their elbow.

Here is a simple fact, If you can't get vista to run well on a brand new core2 system then you don't know what you are doing. It's simple and it's a fact. You do not know how to properly troubleshoot a hardware problem. That or you are pure and simple an outright liar.

The second you come off spouting stupidity like that your credibility ran off in the other direction.

Spouting nonsense over vista as fact just doesn't fly anymore, people are using it, liking it, and realising that most of the detractors are either know it all kids or utter liars. Which one are you? I don't realy care but it's a waste of time entertaining your lies and bs, good day.


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By Mach Omega on 10/28/2007 8:31:17 PM , Rating: 2
Hey jackass, a lie is something you can't prove. As for stupidity, reread your own post for a heaping helping of it. As for not knowing my ass from my elbow, WTF have YOU ever done? Have you and TomZ created a Jackass Committe without telling anyone? C'mon don't hold back, I'm sure your mother is dying to become a member.

As for Vista, I could pack this entire thread with articles written by or containing quotes from people who BUILT Vista that says its code is bloated and shaky. I included a lot of those links in my previous post and you want to call them "lies"? The sum of your post is that I am lying and that I am stupid. You offer no proof and your only real statement, that Vista is "easy to use," is completely conjectural. All of the nonsense you ACCUSE me of doing, you are ACTUALLY doing. You are a JACK-ASS!

If you are going to claim something is a fact, PROVE IT because I ALREADY HAVE. Don't come at me like you're some type of f___in' expert when you can't even back up ONE spurious claim. Remember my post on TomZ's tactic? I guess I'm at the "MS fanboi co-signing with their own non-arguments" portion of the thread. Actually MAKE A F___IN' ARGUMENT if you are going to call me out. Jackass.


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By SavagePotato on 10/29/2007 1:04:08 AM , Rating: 2
Calm down there tiger you are going to pop a blood vessel.

Point number one, I was adressing the other poster who described system specs and his having built hundreds of systems not you.

Point two, You are an ignorant troglodyte of the first order there is no need to debate that. It's obvious in the tone you use. Signs of being an ignorant troglodyte may include using rude personal attacks against people who were not adressing you, out of the sheer ignorance of not comprehending what they said. Oh look, thats you.

For those that think they are capable of setting up systems and clearly aren't, maybe it would be a good idea to stick to package systems till you realy learn some clue what you are doing.

As to vista, yes as a matter of fact it is easy to use, easy to set up, very stable and secure, all in all it has been quite a pleasure to use over the last several months. I base my opinions of personal use rather than escalating rants back and forth between hostile troglodytes on message boards.

As for yourself and all your nonsense on vista being "bloated", it realy isn't worth adressing. I guess Tomz is a bit of a sucker for an argument. However it's perfectly clear misiterpretation and exageration is the name of the game in your dilusions on the situation. That or your realy just also yet another foolish troll who's goal is to agravate. Either way, chill out and have a coke and a smile. Vista is working well, and it's not going away anytime soon. Have a nice night kiddie.


By Mach Omega on 10/29/2007 4:23:28 PM , Rating: 2
1) "Personal experience" is not "fact";

2) It wasn't clear who you were addressing. In any case, proof had been provided to show that spooty was indeed CORRECT. You and TomZ did not provide any for your arguments;

3) You insulted someone and attempted to discredit their argument with a complete non-argument. So who's the "troll"?

4) I think "ignorant" is someone who makes a statement they can't backup, especially when someone has already proven his counterclaim. As for "troglodyte," I prefer to think better of your mother.


By Oregonian2 on 10/30/2007 2:10:12 PM , Rating: 2
As the other fellow said in different terms... "duh". Microsoft doesn't make/sell computer systems like Apple does. So buying an Apple computer isn't an alternative to buying a Microsoft computer. Microsoft doesn't sell computers unless you want to count the Zune.


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By sprockkets on 10/23/2007 5:27:25 PM , Rating: 2
errr, how the hell did Apple go from being almost out of business to 165 billion?

Oh yeah, that f----ing ipod.

No wait, just the i alone makes them worth now billions.

Note to people who control the english language: please remove the letter "i" and both *ntel and Apple will die in peace.


By Polynikes on 10/23/2007 5:31:14 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I'd like to keep Intel around a while longer. If we lose them, we lose constantly improving CPU technology due the lack of competition in the x86 CPU market.


By Polynikes on 10/23/2007 5:28:57 PM , Rating: 2
You just blew my mind. How is this even possible?


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By Imperceptible on 10/23/2007 9:35:25 PM , Rating: 2
So much profit due to the rip off prices they charge for their products.


By TomZ on 10/23/2007 10:21:05 PM , Rating: 4
A "rip off" implies deception, and since Apple customers are willingly purchasing Apple products at known prices, nobody is getting "ripped off." It's all "honest" profit. They are charging what their customers are willing to pay.


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By tmouse on 10/25/2007 10:24:10 AM , Rating: 1
Well they get profit from cradle to grave from everything they make. Funny thing is how successful they are at separating their public image from their corporate identity. They are one of the most draconian corporations out there Hard to believe I know but they make Microsoft and Intel look like pussy cats). Some of this has leaked out recently (iPhone policies) and I think they will have to yield some control due to governmental and market demands. That control is what made their products seem more reliable, you HAD to use their APPROVED software, hardware and services, so they worked out the bugs at the price of limiting your choice. People seem to LOVE it when it comes from Apple can you imagine the public outcry if MS was telling you which vendors to use? At one time repair persons were forced to return every defective part to get new inventory, people also forget the apple clone wars where they were sanctioned by Apple UNTIL Apple felt a pinch then they pulled the licensing and re absorbed the biggest and killed the smaller ones. They ARE a successful company they has one of the BEST marketing groups (and most vicious legal groups) but they are not a group of toga wearing peace, hope and love singing tree huggers out for the good of all their public seems to see them as.


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By Mach Omega on 10/25/2007 5:14:19 PM , Rating: 2
I could give a damn less about Apple's internal politics, it makes products that just f___in' WORK. Controlling the platform makes good business sense. I'd rather have my choices limited and get products that function as I expect than have a ton of choices, none of which works properly. Sometimes an abundance of choices is BAD... I know that's hard for some to accept, but it's true. Apple provides a computing EXPERIENCE that includes hardware and software and damn if its not simpler and more elegant than anything provided by anyone else. Is it perfect? No. Is Apple perfect? HELL NO!!! Are there a ton of jack-ass Mac snobs who think S. Job's poop doesn't stink? OF COURSE!!! But the same could be said of MS fanbois, Sony fanbois, etc. Apple is just one of many choices and harping on the culture it inspires is hypocrisy.


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By TomZ on 10/25/2007 7:59:36 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree - I'd rather have an open platform any day of the week, even if that is a commercial platform like Windows. I like being able to choose to build or buy my PC (or upgrade older boxes), buy any brand I like (and mix/match), buy whatever apps I want, and plug in whatever hardware I like. It would suck to have to stick to Apple-only HW and/or Apple-approved software and devices. How can that be good for consumers?


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By Mach Omega on 10/25/2007 10:31:02 PM , Rating: 2
Because some consumers prefer to just USE their computers and not configure and maintain them. Computers should ENABLE users, not paralyze them. It's fine if you prefer choices but to act as if Apple is wrong for creating a more stable platform with fewer choices shows how little you understand market dynamics or the user experience.


RE: Apple is worth more than IBM and Intel
By tmontana on 10/26/2007 5:18:23 PM , Rating: 2
I think your the one who doesn't understand user experience and market dynamics. Most people are and will continue to become more computer literate. Computers are not difficult to use for most people. I do agree that Apple computers are easier to use and have shinier colors, but most reasonable people when purchasing anything will look at both function and price. For as long as Apple has been around, their prices don't seem to justify slightly easier functionality.

For those out their who are a the bottom of eschelon of computer literacy, I think it does make sense to use Apple. And I don't think it is wrong for Apple to create a more stable/locked platform, I think it is wrong for them to make attacks on other pc/sotware companies to make themselves look better. It just seems to much to me like propaganda than marketing. I think Apple would be a shoe-in for a political office.


By Mach Omega on 10/27/2007 10:35:59 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, how do you address something that is so wrong on so many levels? Considering my experience in technical support, I can state unequivocally that people generally only learn what they HAVE to learn in order complete any given task. Saying that they are becoming more "computer literate" is such a loaded statement as to be laughable. It's a myth, just like the whole "Apple's are overpriced" thing. There are enough articles regarding Apple's being generally good values in comparison to PCs that making the statement is redundant.

As for those "who are at the bottom eschelon of computer literacy," you DO realize that a great many scientists, computer and otherwise, use Apples because of its UNIX underpinnings, right?

Finally, let's address your market/propaganda complaint. If you are so naive as to think one company's marketing is more sincere than another's, then you need help. It's a proven marketing technique to point out your competitor's flaws to illuminate the strength of your product. I think your issue is more that it's WORKING. It wouldn't work if it wasn't true.


By tmouse on 10/26/2007 8:12:32 AM , Rating: 2
I actually do not care one way or another about Apple or MS I was pointing out some facts people overlook about how Apple works in public vs what they do in private (which affects the "experience" you so cherish. Let’s see recent examples: if your iphone is bricked "get a new one". How about the leaked "proposed update" to the ipods which would munge the itunes database (losing all of the songs) IF you used a different program from itunes to enter them after the update(lets see if they impliment this now). People are saying why is Apple turning this way? The fact is this has ALWAYS been their culture it just seems it’s leaking out more.


By vignyan on 10/23/2007 10:58:11 PM , Rating: 2
thats the market cap that you are talking about.... but still surpassing IBM and Intel is pretty cool for Apple. Anyways, the profits still need to match these guys! :)


Apple users
By pauldovi on 10/23/2007 1:43:32 PM , Rating: 2
Apple users remind of conspiracy theorists. They feel like they are in on some great secret that the rest of the world isn't smart enough to figure out and they feel a sense of superiority for it.

It is a way for the not so smart people to feel really smart.




RE: Apple users
By T4RTER S4UCE on 10/23/2007 2:05:13 PM , Rating: 2
Oh will people ever stop attacking Apple's user base? Their people like you. Just because they don't like the same products as you doesn't give you the ability to insult them.


RE: Apple users
By mdogs444 on 10/23/2007 2:09:29 PM , Rating: 2
People just think that anything mainstream is bad. Not sure why - perhaps lacked enough love as children? Don't know. But im wiht you, even if you dont want a certain product, or dont like it, doesnt mean you should talk down against the PEOPLE that do.


RE: Apple users
By pauldovi on 10/23/2007 2:40:36 PM , Rating: 1
Well I don't normally dislike users of a specific product. But in Apple's case it is very different. Their users are arrogant.


RE: Apple users
By mdogs444 on 10/23/2007 2:43:25 PM , Rating: 5
Thats like saying everyone who doesnt have an apple product is a daft prick.

Generalizations - leave them to the politicians.


RE: Apple users
By Polynikes on 10/23/2007 5:32:47 PM , Rating: 2
There's plenty of a-holes in the Windows and Linux crowds as well.


RE: Apple users
By TomZ on 10/23/2007 2:35:59 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Just because they don't like the same products as you doesn't give you the ability to insult them.

Apple's advertising gives everyone justification for insulting those who the advertising works on. Just think about the personality traits a person would need to identify with the Mac Guy or Steve Jobs. Arrogance is just the beginning.


RE: Apple users
By mdogs444 on 10/23/2007 2:47:56 PM , Rating: 1
I really expected more from you TomZ.

Example. An 10 yr old elementary school girl wants an ipod. Her parents buy it for her to make her happy.

Its nice to see you can call a child arrogant.

Its not right when you guys think that everyone is your age, and iformed as much as your are, on the tech products that they buy. Alot of parents dont know anything about them and buy them for their kids. Doesnt make them arrogrant......it makes you arrogant.


RE: Apple users
By TomZ on 10/23/2007 2:55:56 PM , Rating: 1
First, I didn't say all Apple users or buyers are arrogant - I said that they are attracted to and/or influenced by those that are arrogant, e.g., Jobs and the Mac Guy. Are you denying that Jobs is arrogant?

Second, your logic is kind of goofy. But I see you are calling Apple users ignorant. By your own logic, I guess you're calling children ignorant as well. :o)


RE: Apple users
By mdogs444 on 10/23/2007 3:10:44 PM , Rating: 2
First, if you've read my other posts, you would know that I dont own any apple products, and nor do i plan on buying any. I dont know about the whole steve jobs thing, but i just dont feel their products are worth the price, i dont like iTunes, and i dont agree with the way the iPhone people were treated from the company (not just steve jobs).

With all that being said, that is just me not liking apple products. That has nothing to do with the people who purchase apple products.

I didnt call apple user's or children ignorant, so dont try and turn this around like a Media Matters showcase. I was giving an example of how wrong it is to make a generalization that "everyone who buys apple is ignorant".

You dont know everyone who owns an apple product, so unless you have some sort of special powers that enable you to know what every person is all about, then it would be wise not to say that apple users are all attracted to those who are arrogant.


RE: Apple users
By TomZ on 10/23/2007 4:05:11 PM , Rating: 2
No sense of humor, I guess. :o)


RE: Apple users
By mdogs444 on 10/23/2007 5:02:07 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry tom, its hard to tell "tone in text" i guess.

Either way, i hope you dont feel i was singling you out or anything like that. It just really irks me when people put down individuals for not liking the same products.


RE: Apple users
By Hare on 10/24/2007 1:40:14 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
No sense of humor, I guess. :o)
I have to agree, if we are talking about your attitude regarding the ads. ;)

I just don't get it. Why do people take the ads so personally? Apple is not alone. There are plenty of other companies that do the same thing. Nokia vs. iPhone, BMW vs. Mercedes, Sun vs Intel, AMD vs Intel etc. Only PC nerds are ridiculous enough to be offended.


RE: Apple users
By TomZ on 10/24/2007 8:59:49 AM , Rating: 2
It's not a question of taking the ads personally. It's just that a lot of people (me included) are turned off by arrogant or smug attitudes projected in advertising, especially when Apple's product is not so superior to others as they believe. It becomes, for people like me, a form of deceptive advertising - it is so easy to see through the lies or exaggerations.

I haven't seen many ads that outright mock their competitors in a condescending way. I guess I'd probably react negatively to them as well.

If Apple products are so great, then their ads should focus on why they are great and what they can do for potential customers, instead of putting down the other company's products.


RE: Apple users
By Mach Omega on 10/25/2007 1:55:31 AM , Rating: 2
Anyone who reads your posts will find this ridiculously hypocritical.


RE: Apple users
By Sunner on 10/24/2007 6:19:48 AM , Rating: 2
I suppose Microsoft users are attracted to or influenced by Steve "Monkey Boy" Ballmer then?
That said, I use Linux, OpenBSD, Windows, and Solaris, so I guess I'm only missing a Mac(which I might get soonish) and an Oracle server, and I'll be simultaneously attracted to just about every loon the IT industry.


RE: Apple users
By MADAOO7 on 10/23/2007 2:37:01 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously, if you have nothing constructive to say, don't say it.


RE: Apple users
By mdogs444 on 10/23/2007 2:49:38 PM , Rating: 2
I believe that also includes you MADA007.

That poster at least made a valid point. You make Drive By media shout outs.


RE: Apple users
By Yawgm0th on 10/24/2007 3:59:49 AM , Rating: 2
First, Apple's entire marketing strategy for the Mac revolves around insulting competing products and, in a roundabout way, their users. On that same note, the vast majority of Mac enthusiasts do seem to frequently find it worthwhile to insult those who prefer other platforms.

In other words, "But he started it!" But seriously, will Apple's user base ever stop attacking people?

More importantly though, the ability to insult them has nothing to do with one's opinion on the product or on any sort of justification. That would be more due to the existence of language and the concept of insulting.


RE: Apple users
By rcc on 10/24/2007 4:20:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In other words, "But he started it!" But seriously, will Apple's user base ever stop attacking people?


Are you listening to yourself? I didn't notice any Apple users saying yeah, we're great you guys suck. Just a bunch of detractors slamming an article about Apple.

I am not a Mac/Apple owner, but I've used their stuff. I find it interesting that these discussions are always about how horrible Apple stuff is, not how good what you are using is. It's a pretty telling trend.


RE: Apple users
By Domicinator on 10/24/2007 2:32:54 PM , Rating: 2
I'm partly with you on this. I don't think that Apple users are necessarily "not so smart". I just think they don't know very much about computers. Apple gives them a ready made, ready to use, cookie cutter computer that has all the software that Steve Jobs has decided they need on it. They fire up the computer, it works, and they think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread simply because they figured out how to turn the damn thing on.

I actually met an Apple user the other day who honestly thought that you could only burn CDs and DVDs on a Mac, and not on a PC. That's how brainwashed some people really are, and it just shows you how willing people are to trust every single thing they see in advertisements.


RE: Apple users
By Mach Omega on 10/25/2007 10:54:31 PM , Rating: 2
I've built some of the fastest personal computers ever. I've performed virtually every maintenance, configuration and optimization task that can be performed on a PC. I've plummed the depths of virtually every version of MS Windows and quite a few Linux versions as well...

And I switched to Apple.

Why? Because they JUST WORK. I can't remember how many times I beat my head up against the wall trying to figure out some random configuration issue that screwed up my system or network. I don't do that anymore with Apple products. Now, I get so much more accomplished and I don't have to baby-sit my computers or network. Even when issues do occur (which rarely but DOES happen), I can fix them almost immediately. I'm looking forward to Leopard because Time Machine is going to solve my last real headache, which is back-up. Anyone who knows anything about human interface design knows that Apple's expanded use of Cover Flow is a MAJOR advance in GUI design. I'll be the first to admit that the eco-system in Windows is superior... in other words, there are more people making more quality software for Windows than the Mac. But the Mac is a far better EXPERIENCE than Windows.


Hrm?
By Vim on 10/23/2007 2:00:32 PM , Rating: 3
As far as I'm concerned, the only thing company has been good for (recently) is investing.




RE: Hrm?
By Vim on 10/23/2007 2:01:58 PM , Rating: 2
Nice going genius... ^this company


RE: Hrm?
By Darnell021 on 10/23/2007 2:20:01 PM , Rating: 2
Haha I know right, I was never much of a fan. I owned an ipod in high school and enjoyed mathblast back in elementary school, but thats about it. When i heard about the iphone i invested a paycheck in apple stock to see if their marketing could really push the iphone into mainstream(roughly around $124 a share, and now its turned around to $180 a share in a few months). Seems like a good move so far, I hope they dont mess this up.


RE: Hrm?
By Vim on 10/24/2007 8:45:50 AM , Rating: 2
I own an Ipod, 2 actually. One 60GB and another 80GB, bought the 60GB at a higher price than the 80GB (go figure /rolleyes).

Aside from the natural reason to buy one (music), my main emphasis was a portable external hard drive/"big flash" drive. Since I'd probably be carrying my music player along with me everywhere, why not double up and use the music player as a portable hard drive for: school files, work files, random e-books, etc.

Right, well, it works fine as both, but quite frankly I have a love/hate relationship with my Ipod. More hate than love. I've NEVER been an advocate for Apple as a company and I don't think I ever will be, aside from making some nice cash off investing... Like you and I mentioned...

Bottom line, I mostly dislike Apple's products or Apple's products that I've bought. Not only that, their customer service or customer relations is non existent.

So... What am I getting at? Wanna take Apples music player market share? HP, Dell or any other electronics company (except Microsoft, you guys failed miserably)! Make an Ipod device that is rugged, durable, efficient, extremely compatible, with a big viewing screen, cheap(ER) and relatively small = success!


Style
By Kyanzes on 10/24/2007 1:11:57 PM , Rating: 2
Damn, if anything, Apple does have style, their comps, monitors and accessories look awesome. Well, sometimes their mobiles are poisonous and all but they certainly look cool.




RE: Style
By TomZ on 10/24/2007 1:36:30 PM , Rating: 2
The iMac pictured above would be 10X sexier if the keyboard and mouse were wireless. The wires destroy the aesthetics (and impact the usability), if you ask me.


By crystal clear on 10/23/2007 1:49:26 PM , Rating: 2
This for those interested-

Apple F4Q07 (Qtr End 9/29/07) Earnings Call Transcript

http://seekingalpha.com/article/50846-apple-f4q07-...

This is more interesting taken out from the above link--

"Apple estimates that 250,000 iPhones were sold with the intention of unlocking"



To Quote Timothy D. Cook:

Toni, we were very happy with the elasticity that we saw. It enabled us to far surpass our expectation of hitting around a million units cumulatively by the end of the quarter. Some number of these were sold to people that have an intention to unlock and where we don’t know precisely how many people are doing that, our current guess is there is probably 250,000 of the 1.4 million that we sold where people had bought them with the intention of doing that. Many of those happened after the price cut.




what is selling those Macs ...
By crystal clear on 10/24/2007 4:07:18 AM , Rating: 2
Worth analysing-

The manufacturer moved 2,164,000 Macs in the third quarter of 2007, up 400,000 from a year ago and eight times the industry average growth rate, propelling it to the number three PC manufacturer in the U.S., all despite the delay of Leopard, the new version of its OS X, which kept some potential buyers on hold.

More surprising still is the fact that more than half of those Mac sales went to first time buyers, prompting the question: what is selling Macs at eight times the rate of any other PC on the market?



the possible answer-
Peripherals are selling the PCs at Apple,

"It is primarily [the] 'halo effect' driving the jump in Mac sales," said Van Baker, a research vice president at Gartner in San Jose, Calif., that is mainly "realized in the Apple stores," he added. "Consumers come in to buy an iPod and stop to check out the MacBook Pros while they are there."

"Apple continues to gain ground in the PC market and more and more people are drawn into the Apple stores due to their interest in iPods and iPhones," agreed Tim Bajarin, the president of Creative Strategies, based in Campbell, Calif.



Summary-

"We haven't asked this question of consumers so we don't actually know," Golvin said. "My guess is that because [the] iPod and iTunes have exposed lots of Windows users to an Apple experience they find positive, in conjunction with reviews extolling the virtues of the Mac, and (to a lesser extent) the switch to Intel chips and programs like Boot Camp/VMware/Parallels that address concerns about access to Windows, consumers are indeed much more favorably inclined toward Macs than in the past."



http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2205468,00.as...




I'm converted...
By Xavian on 10/24/2007 2:49:14 AM , Rating: 1
For a long time i didn't like iPods because they didn't provide what i wanted (i also don't like steve jobs in general for what he says and does), but i won an ipod shuffle in a competition and i gave it a try and i have to admit, the thing is a lot more easier to use then a creative/archon mp3 player (i should know, i have a creative 20GB Zen MP3 player).

Sure you can only fit 250-350 songs on it, but with the song shuffler thats usually not a real problem, unless you listen to an mp3 player 24/7.

Ofcourse i still can't stand iTunes and quicktime, so i use quicktime alternative and a free, low resource intensive program called "Shuffler" to do the same job as iTunes would. It also helps that all my songs are in high-bitrate mp3 format instead of WMA or AAC.

The point is, I'm converted, i prefer the shuffle to my creative mp3 player everytime, because its just so quick and easy to use.




Thats a lot of wool
By darkpaw on 10/23/07, Rating: -1
RE: Thats a lot of wool
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/23/2007 1:23:14 PM , Rating: 2
Well that whole "3rd place" thing is somewhat out of context. Acer will displace them once their buyout of Gateway is finalized.


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By gradoman on 10/23/2007 1:23:32 PM , Rating: 2
I think people are taking that "smug", "sheep", "flock" thing a bit too far. You really think that everyone out there is a computer/electronics enthusiast who will want to do in depth research for alternatives to the popular shit that have been proven to simply work?

Have you met all Apple product owners to say that they're all fanatics?


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By TomZ on 10/23/2007 1:25:59 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
...that have been proven to simply work?

Hate to break it to you, but products that "simply work" are the norm, not the exception. I've personally got tons of non-Apple computers and electronic products that "just work." Not all the stuff is perfect, but neither is the Apple gear either.

In other words, the "simply work" thing is just PR-speak - don't take it so literally.


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By James Holden on 10/23/2007 1:27:35 PM , Rating: 2
When did Apple stuff "just work" anyway? Last I checked all the iMacs had condensation forming, the iPhone was completely bricked, the Nano scratched like crazy...


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By solgae1784 on 10/23/2007 1:35:10 PM , Rating: 2
True, but majority of the users use their products without problems, and those "majority" are the people who are not likely going to voice out in the forums or anywhere. You might think tons of people have problems, but that's because only people with problems tend to post something on the forum. This isn't just for Apple either. It's true for every manufacturers.

That's not to say I'm denying the problem, of course - if there's a problem that's not the user's fault, the company should take charge in fixing it. And a lot of people are reporting that Apple is doing very well on support compared to many other PC manufacturers. I myself was quite satisfied with their support as well, when I had to take back my iPod and my Macbook Pro battery.


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By omnicronx on 10/23/2007 1:43:31 PM , Rating: 2
He just said it's all PR, not that all apple products 'just work'. For the most part though, apple products do 'work'. As they should though, especially with the computers as they only have a limited amount of hardware they have to support. It's mostly been first generation products that Apple has had its fair share of problems with.

-As the condensation article states, they do not know if it was just once batch are a major issue, so you have really jumped the gun on this one. Not only that, I am sure anyone effected can go return their broken computer to apple.

-Iphone bricked has to do with user update and although unfair, does not mean the product is defective in any way.

-Nano- LCD screens scratch?


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By akugami on 10/23/2007 1:52:59 PM , Rating: 1
For the most part, and there are always exceptions, Apple products just work. They don't need a computer science degree to work.

Apple was an early pioneer of the GUI as we know it today. Which was in turn based on work they licensed (not stole) from Xerox. As a general consumer computer, Apple has long been at the forefront until Windows 95 and especially XP closed the gap so that today, OSX and XP/Vista are merely different OS's and while each has advantages and disadvantages, there's no major difference.

Apple marketing aside, Apple has always been on the forefront of usability and design. It was one of the reasons why I used Macs for the early part of my computing years though I haven't owned one in over a decade. I am however likely to buy a Macbook Pro next year and dual boot OSX/Vista.


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By FITCamaro on 10/23/2007 2:18:28 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
They don't need a computer science degree to work.


When has Windows ever required a computer science degree to operate it? I find Windows far easier than my Mac. With my Mac, if a program isn't on the little startup bar, I have to go find it in the Applications folder on the hard drive. The start menu in Windows, to me, is far better because everything is in one place. I have my most commonly used programs list, and then the All Programs menu. Far fewer clicks and mouse motions are required if a program has to be found.

Doing some tasks on the Mac are far more cumbersome to me than they are on a Windows PC. I also hate how when I close a program by clicking on the X in the upper left hand corner, it doesn't end it. It just closes the window while the program continues to run. You have to go to the File menu and select Quit to get it to stop. This means your RAM is still used or your page file. Yes some Windows Apps have this behavior when they can run in the background (antivirus, AIM, Windows Messenger, etc.), but the majority stop running when you close the window. Even with most of those that don't, its an option.

The biggest thing I hate about Apple's is you have to buy one. You can't build one. I don't like being locked into an extremely limited hardware platform. I want to be able to buy whatever PC gear I want and install an OS on it. But then Apple would suffer from the same issues Microsoft does in trying to support any and all hardware. And they'd loose their profit margin.


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By solgae1784 on 10/23/2007 2:25:31 PM , Rating: 2
Every one is accustomed to different things - You're accustomed to Windows from what you say, so Windows is easy and more like-able for you. The rest may not.

Same goes for Mac OS X - not everyone is going to like how OS X operates, especially if they're already accustomed to one thing. Some may like it over any OS, though.


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By cochy on 10/23/2007 2:39:25 PM , Rating: 2
It's all just a matter of opinion. Both OS X and Windows work well at their core competencies. Interestingly the two most experienced IT admins at my company both use Macs exclusively. Apples markets OS X as very easy to use yada yada, but don't forget it is built on a very powerful and solid BSD foundation. It's an excellent operating system.


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/23/2007 2:56:24 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm. While I have nothing against the OSX Operating System on a desktop, I can't stand the OSX Servers.


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By cochy on 10/23/2007 3:37:41 PM , Rating: 2
Haven't been exposed to OS X Server a whole lot so I don't have much of an opinion either way on that one.


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By AlphaVirus on 10/24/2007 12:35:19 PM , Rating: 2
You might feel its a "very powerful" OS but thats because they do not support everything like MS Windows does. Next time you think about how powerful it is, compare size of userbase; trying to make 1 million people happy is much more difficult than making 100 people happy.


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By Mach Omega on 10/25/2007 11:15:45 PM , Rating: 2
You're comparing Windows to BSD... just stop. One is essentially UNIX, the foundation of the Internet and one of the most stable and powerful operating systems ever created and the other one is Windows which, by the way, borrows heavily from the BSD code base (or at least did when NT first came out... I don't know how much of the "borrowed" code has been reengineered). OS X is basically just a state of the art graphics system on a core of FreeBSD and Mach, both very mature, powerful technologies. For all of Microsoft's intellectual resources, MS relies heavily on technology that has been around a very long time.

MS DOES have awesome homegrown technologies including its audio and video compression and DX10. But the OS itself really isn't that great, especially from a user perspective.


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By TomZ on 10/23/2007 2:20:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Apple was an early pioneer of the GUI as we know it today. Which was in turn based on work they licensed (not stole) from Xerox.

Funny, then how would you explain the lawsuit that Xerox launched against Apple (and Microsoft) for stealing their GUI?


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By gradoman on 10/23/2007 3:07:54 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, you're right. You're taking that piece out of context though. Quote the rest of it, yes? It's popular, for one, and, two, people who aren't that tech-savvy aren't going to go do the research to see if there are comparable products that "simply work". That's a result of marketing, sure, but their products are pretty simple to get into -- from my experience with them.

It's part of the reason why I've got a Cowon D2 and my girlfriend's got an iPod. Too bad on her part for not looking around, but once she saw the D2 she put up her iPod for sale.


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/23/2007 1:35:06 PM , Rating: 2
I've met a few and yea I would qualify them as fanatics. On the other hand, Mac's "simply work" as much as your standard XP machine. Except when the Mac crashes good luck debugging and recovering, pop in the disk and reload the OS.

Something that I've never liked about Mac's is that their debugging and crash logs are nonexistant or completely worthless. At least with Windows when it crashes, it gives me something to work with to troubleshoot. People whine about the BSOD, but it provides useful information. Mac's used to give you the flashing Question Mark or the Sad face. Now they give you the Panic Message. Yea at least OSX has some sort of crash debug, but I find it completely useless unless I'm the developer for the application and I'm trying to debug. For regular crashes (Failing or malfunctioning hardware/drivers/software) its hit or miss based on your best guess.

Just a personal complaint I've had about Mac's for the longest time. They have a really slick GUI, but be damned if they want to include some sort of error reporting like Windows has had since NT. (The 9X error logs weren't very good, NT is the first one that really gave you reliable information)


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By helios220 on 10/23/2007 2:08:29 PM , Rating: 5
Every person has their own perception, and whether we are willing to admit it or not that perception is often preconceived.

I know about five people with iPhones, mostly coworkers but a friend or two as well. They are just people with phones, they don't try to brag about them or convince me that the phone is a manifestation of god's own image. The same generally goes for most people I've met with iMacs.

Have I met obnoxious Mac zealots before? Of course. Have I met people who wouldn't shut the f#%^k up about Linux and open source? Of course. There are people who feel the need to associate their identity and sense of self worth with pretty much useless piece of consumer goods that exist, it's nothing new. Apple products having faults is nothing new either; they've suffered with their fair share of mistakes for the last two decades.

The only thing that is relatively new is that the paradigm has shifted, where it used to be cool to bash other platforms it has now become in vogue to use the word 'iBrick' at least 4 times in any post even moderately related to Apple, Phones, Fruit, Sexually Transmitted Diseases and Clowns (+/- 1 or 2 topics).

I'm not an Apple fan, but I find it just as funny when people run around under the banner of enlightenment exhibiting the same type of blind fanaticism against Apple as they accuse in its supporters.

In the end though I'm just wasting my breath all the same as everyone else, people will buy what they want, hate what they want or think what they want regardless of what you or I have to say about it.


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By kelmon on 10/24/2007 2:37:21 AM , Rating: 2
With respect to error reporting following a kernel panic, I suspect that Apple is again trying to keep things simple for the user. The Windows BSOD definitely provides useful information as long as you are in a position to decode it - for the non-technical person I have no doubt that it's an almost terrifying sight since it's so much gibberish that you weren't expecting. Both OS do send an error report once the system has restarted that can be inspected but of course that does require that you can restart the machine to begin with.

I've never seen the sad Mac but did encounter the Question Mark recently when a 5-year old hard drive finally surrendered. The diagnostic tools that came with the PowerBook confirmed that although the complete absence of sound was a dead giveaway...


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By tmouse on 10/25/2007 11:36:27 AM , Rating: 2
As an aside I once was called in for a doctor who actually dragged his hard drive to the trash in Mac 0s8 (apparently it did ask if "you really want to do this" but it did not let him know he was about to delete his drive) then he watched as the machine did a self-lobotomy and hung. When he tried to restart it the Mac gave the "sad face" a VERY sad face indeed..... ;)


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By Luna M on 10/23/2007 6:34:51 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not saying all Apple users are like this, but EVERY SINGLE Mac user I have ever met has openly mocked people who use PCs. Every time a PC user complains about problems, they respond with "get a Mac, it's worth the extra money, you won't have problems like that."

If not exactly smug, it does make it seem like the majority of Mac users are walking advertisements. When you call into technical support, the last thing you want to hear is "buy this expensive product, it will solve your problem, what you have isn't good enough." Statements like that make people feel like their choice in purchasing is being judged unfavorably, and that feels insulting. It may very well be that these Mac users are simply trying to share the love, but the way they phrase it makes it sound like they think people who buy PCs are just stupid.


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By mdogs444 on 10/23/2007 6:39:41 PM , Rating: 2
I do agree that many Mac users purchase their computers out of pure cosmetic appearance, as well as because its the "in" thing. However, there are many that used to purchase them for audio/video/picture applications. Many probably still purchase them for this reason - whether it is still true that they are better for it or not is a different story.

But there are also people who dont know much about computers and purchase a Mac because everything is together in the monitor and looks better to them on a desk, or maybe its that the system is more compact and space freindly.

Either way, its not right for them to say your stuff sucks because they have a mMc, but stooping down to their level is exactly mature either.


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By honeg on 10/24/2007 3:21:22 AM , Rating: 2
I'm a professional software developer, and have used PowerBooks and MacBook Pros as my primary development environment for years. I don't really care that I get some audio/video/picture apps (though iMusic makes my coding time more productive), nor do I care that my Mac looks "cool".

What I do care about is that its a fully fledged *nix system, and that it supports all of the tools I need to do my job. I'd be equally comfortable on a linux laptop, but having used those for years before I got a Mac, I'm happy to spend a bit more money to avoid the hours an hours and hours it took getting all my hardware to work.

You may think I'm an outlier, and in the overall market for consumer computers, I probably am. But you'd be simply amazed at how many sys admins and developers use Macs, because...

They JFW.

They are hands down more reliable and flexible for what I need than Windows, and way less effort than linux.

As many people in this thread have said, there are a lot of different market segments out there, and Macs are the best fit for quite a few. Just don't fall into the trap of thinking that none of those segments are tech-savvy people.


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By TomZ on 10/24/2007 9:11:02 AM , Rating: 2
What's your experience using Windows for a development machine? It's pretty laughable that you say that Mac is somehow a better machine for development since clearly Windows hosts software development tools that are far-and-away better than those on Mac. For example, Visual Studio.

Also, for the record, Windows XP and Windows Vista JFW. LOL. I can't think of the last time I couldn't get useful work done because of an OS problem. The last time I lost work time was due to a crashed HDD, which is probably solved now that I run RAID1.

Finally, if you knew anything about Windows, you would realize that the Windows kernel and Windows security are technically superior than Unix. Remember, NT was based off of Microsoft's experience with Unix, after which they invested hundreds of thousands of man years improving. Unix has only had a tiny fraction of that much invested in evolving the core OS. And the Mac OS is, as you surely know, a hodgepodge of different things glued together - Mach kernel, BSD Linux, GUI - all pulled together. It was not designed as an integrated whole.


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By honeg on 10/24/2007 1:06:52 PM , Rating: 2
It boils down to this: For always-on, distributed, large scale systems, Windows doesn't cut it.

Every system (bar one) I'm worked on in the last 20 years has been *nix based, and in the last 10 years every system I've worked on has been distributed on hundreds of machines. The one windows based system I worked on (also distributed to hundreds of machines) was a nightmare in comparison - development, deployment, and production were all significantly more time-consuming, error-prone and expensive than the equivalent unix projects. Windows simply doesn't have the same level of support tools, not just development tools, that *nix has.

Yes, you can make Windows work at scale, but it costs far more than it should, and doesn't JFW in production. When you're managing hundreds of machines to deliver a service that has to be available 24/7, you can't use an OS that slows down and needs a reboot every week, or doesn't provide access to or control of whats going on under the hood. Unix is simply a better environment for the work I do. And the tiny number of large scale Windows systems out there in the wild show that this isn't just my opinion.

Your comments about security are laughable. Running our windows cluster was a constant PITA because of the endless deluge of attackers and patches. We spend far far far more time and energy on securing our Windows machines than we did securing our unix boxes.

As a development environment, Windows + VS is good for developing Windows apps. For anything else, not so much.


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By tmouse on 10/25/2007 11:58:59 AM , Rating: 2
Well there are some serious flaws in your logic. While there are FAR more Unix servers most of this has little to due with any evaluation of superiority its just the business mindset UNIX for servers and MS for applications. That’s why MS has such an enormous lead that will never be lost. Business simply will not change unless there is an ENORMOUS benefit. Most are filled with people with years of UNIX experience so when asked what new servers systems they want it goes to UNIX, also all of the software (especially custom software) pushes the balance. A properly configured windows box is every bit as efficient as a properly configured Unix box and an improperly set up Unix box is equally crap. I have over seen dozens of MS servers running 24/7 for years without any major hiccups. I wouldn't be very good at working at Unix boxes and you are simply not good at working on MS boxes. BTW if your Unix boxes had as much serious hack activity as MS has it would not be any easier or better. OS's are not religions (although some treat them so) I personally think its completely IMPOSSABLE to say X is better than Y or more secure. MS is a MUCH larger target and the secure UNIX code is simply not as available for the hackers. ALL systems have been hacked some are given MUCH more attention.


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By honeg on 10/25/2007 3:54:49 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that mindsets are hard to change, but dispute that this is the primary reason that *nix is the server OS of choice. As I said above, *nix has much better support for large scale production environments, and its also more stable, and uses fewer resources than windows. These things count when you're deploying 100's (not dozens) of boxes in a clustered environment. There is no question that you can run small numbers of windows boxes reliably. There are serious questions about the type of deployment I'm talking about. Look how long it took MS to redo HotMail as an example.

By the way, I happily admit I'm "not good at working on MS boxes", but I wasn't admin'ing the MS boxes I mentioned above. We had a team of highly experienced, highly competent Windows admins, who still tore their hair out on a regular basis. We had a team of equally experienced and competent Windows developers, who worked closely with the admins to make sure the app wasn't doing anything stupid. It was still a painful experience. And the number of times we had conversations along the lines of "Q: does windows have something like <unix utility>? A: no" was quite depressing. Yes, there were times when that was flipped on its head ("Does Solaris/linux/... have <windows feature>?") but they were far less common, highlighting Windows shortcomings - to me, at least.

Windows is a pretty decent single-user OS, and Office/Exchange/etc is ubiquitous because it provides the things that business focussed single-users want from their computers, in a way thats easy enough for IT departments to support. But thats an entirely different world than the world I'm talking about. Linux + FOSS is getting closer, OSX is closer still (thanks to MS-Office, funnily enough), but I don't see either really denting Microsoft's market share in business for quite a while.

Say what you like about religion, mindset, etc, the bottom line is that there are significant differences between Windows and *nix, and their current uses reflect that. Its horses for courses.


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By omnicronx on 10/23/2007 1:29:16 PM , Rating: 2
Who cares, let users spend twice the money on products with less functionality. We all know Apple can market just about anything, hell they could market an apple or orange with racing stripes and people would buy it.

Image is everything, quality means very little (although sprite would disagree)


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By mdogs444 on 10/23/2007 2:01:30 PM , Rating: 2
I dont know about all this "twice the price, half the quality" stuff. I dont buy any Apple products, but thats because Im no longer a "tech geek" anymore. I prefer more expensive toys - cars, suv's, my house, etc.

But I dont see why all the hatred because someone wants to buy a product that you dont want to buy?

You are argue against its quality, someone else argues for its quality. Its a never ending cycle. The bottom line is, if you do not want the product, then dont buy it.

Opening your mouth to bash others because they like things that you dont is stupid.


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By helios220 on 10/23/2007 2:18:37 PM , Rating: 2
I don't share your same opinion.

The Zeroth law of thermodynamics states that:

quote:
If two thermodynamic systems are each in thermal equilibrium with a third, then they are in thermal equilibrium with each other.


Therefore you are wrong and I am right, and I don't like you anymore because we don't share the same opinions on everything.

Try and combat that logic, it's like I'm a genius or something.


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By mdogs444 on 10/23/2007 2:20:58 PM , Rating: 2
I choose: or something


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By helios220 on 10/23/2007 2:30:42 PM , Rating: 2
Hah the risk you run when you are kind of a satiric prick (like me) is that no one can tell if you seriously believe the BS that you spout or if it's supposed to be a joke.


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By mdogs444 on 10/23/2007 2:33:30 PM , Rating: 2
You know i was joking too....i already knew you and i were preaching the same thing lol


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By solgae1784 on 10/23/2007 2:19:52 PM , Rating: 2
Apple product hardly has any "less features" than the competing products, and lately, their price is just about on a range or even better than the competitors. With that said, I agree with mdogs444 - Apple products aren't the all-in-one solution that's meant to fit everyone. Nobody's forcing you to buy Apple products. Every consumer has its opinions.

In the end, it's all up to users, and they're responsible for getting the product based on what they need.


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By TomZ on 10/23/2007 2:24:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Apple product hardly has any "less features" than the competing products

That's not true. A couple of examples - lots of MP3 players have FM tuners and voice recorders in them, but not the iPods.

The iPhone is also missing a number of features that other smartphones have, e.g., sending text messages, voice dial, recording video.

So I think the OP made a valid point.


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By solgae1784 on 10/23/2007 2:29:12 PM , Rating: 2
iPhone DO have the ability to send text message. If you were talking about picture messaging, then it's a different story......


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By TomZ on 10/23/2007 2:32:59 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I mean instant messages, not text messages.


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By MagnumMan on 10/23/2007 2:46:28 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't buy an iPhone because there was no GPS Nav software for it when it came out. TeleNav on the other hand works quite well on many other phones...


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By kelmon on 10/24/2007 2:53:05 AM , Rating: 2
It's all swings and roundabouts. No, the iPods don't include an FM tuner but they do include decent games and the ability to add new ones. It's a case of what is important to you. All radio stations that I listen to are on LW or MW so an FM tuner is useless to me. Mind you, since the BBC started podcasting pretty much all their shows I don't have use for radio beyond listening to the news on the way to work.

Honestly, if people were at all bothered about radio on their MP3 players then they won't buy an iPod. I'm 100% certain that Apple knows this and that they also know that people aren't that interested otherwise it would be included. Sure, they'll be some people (possibly yourself) who think FM is important but I am absolutely positive that the number is very small. Apple does far better (as should any manufacturer) to concentrate on what is important to consumers.


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By Ringold on 10/23/2007 7:01:34 PM , Rating: 3
Better prices than the competition?

I just specced out the equivalent Mac Pro, subtracted 300 to compensate for it having two processors, and even though it doesn't even offer a current generation video card (my god, it's been a bloody year!), it still manages to come in at least $1000 more than what I paid custom building mine.. oh, and that's even after I include my watercooling setup. Roughly a $3200 machine from Apple, for something I built in Feb for around $2200, after discounting the Apple machine for the extra processor. The equivalent XPS from Dell, actually a slightly better configuration than my own, is $2499.. To be honest, I thought before checking that it'd come out higher then that, which will make me think twice before I hand build another rig, but there you go. Nearly a grand to have an Apple machine.

My baseline specs: E6600 (tried to adjust the prices for the different specs), 1GB x 4 DDR2, 500gb HD, no monitor.

Main difference between the Apple at an actual cost of 3576 and the XPS was that the Apple had two dual core Xeons at 2.66ghz and the XPS had a single quad core at 2.4 (I think thats what a Q6600 runs at). Oh, and the XPS was specced with an 8800GTX, the Apple with an X1900XT. Price delta: $1077 in favor of Dell.

Of course, my case isn't half as sexy or trendy, but for an extra couple hundred I could've got an equivalently sexy case and still saved a ton of money.

But hey, if you want to think they're competitive in price, go right ahead.


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By TomZ on 10/23/2007 8:09:18 PM , Rating: 2
Your post was downrated because it contained too many facts that were hard for Apple enthusiasts to cope with. :o)


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By aliasfox on 10/23/2007 11:15:06 PM , Rating: 1
So... why don't you compare Xeon to Xeon? A baseline Mac Pro goes for $2499 with quad core 2.66 Xeon (two dual core), a gig of memory, a DVD burner, and 250 GB of HD space. A Precision 490 with 2.66 GHz Xeon quad core (1 quad core processor), a gig of memory, a DVD burner, and 250 GB of HD space, goes for... $2877. I included Vista Business, a Firewire card, and got rid of the floppy drive, if you're wondering.

No, Apple does not make a gaming system or a high end consumer tower. We've been through this. The Mac Pro is designed as a Xeon Workstation - a task at which it excels. Go play Half Life 2, Crysis, etc on a watercooled Core 2 Quad Extreme with 512 MB 8800GTX cards in SLI - Apple will be the last company/person to try and stop you.

The price of Apple's baseline Mac Pro is actually quite competitive (I'm actually surprised Dell hasn't closed the gap in the past year). The add ons from Apple are ridiculously priced though - $300 to upgrade from 250 GB to 500 GB? And yes, the GPU selection (not to mention price) is beyond embarrassing.

But if you're looking for a baseline Quad Core Xeon system that can grow with you, a Mac Pro is actually very competitively priced.

Now if you want to argue that Intel overcharges for the Xeon and that the FB DIMMs that it needs are too slow to justify the price... well, I think you should bitch about Intel's profits instead...


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By Ringold on 10/24/2007 2:55:09 PM , Rating: 2
What a waste of a post. I don't care that you can get a Precision 490 or Mac Pro for whatever other specs. Without spending all bloody night scouring the site, I tried to pick specs from both high end lines to be as close as possible -- and the resulting price delta was $1000. You changed the nature of configuration entirely from my mid-range or lower-eschelon enthusiast configuration to low end consumer one. That's no way to make comparisons.

Also, if it's a workstation, why is it that there are no professional card options but they do at least attempt to offer high end gaming cards? What on earth does a workstation need with an X1900XT? The Mac Pro is clearly meant as an XPS-equivalent "Bad Ass" machine. Mac's not being a gaming solution is the same excuse used by Linux zealots when backed in to a corner. They also go pretty far out of their way to exude a degree of sexiness for a product that, according to them and you, is meant for lowly workstation tasks like video rendering or Excel. Maybe if you OC its X1900XT it'll run a regression analysis faster...

I'll concede that sure, perhaps the baseline models are more competitive, but if you're going to buy a car, how often do you get the lousy baseline models? The baseline specs were lousy enough that it once again becomes much more competitive -- and enjoyable -- to custom build the machine by hand.

Also, not my fault nor Dell's fault that Apple is going with Xeon's. To get a closer comparison, could look at the iMac I suppose, but it's not configurable to quite the same specs as I was trying to get at, namely in that it uses a pathetic mid range video card with no option at all to upgrade.. and still comes out to over $2700 for a machine with considerably less functionality than the one I built in Feb for much lower cost - though it does include a 24" LCD, but that doesn't justify the price delta either, as I could now build the same machine for much, much less than the $2200 or so it originally cost me.

It should only make logical sense that either Apple loses money or is forced to be overpriced; it's a lower volume manufacturer of computers sold partly in very expensive retail stores. Dell, by comparison, sells almost exclusively online and doesn't bother much with sex appeal, has massive economies of scale in almost everything it does and makes use of components interchangeable freely with the vast majority of other manufacturers out there. Steve Jobs may have an ego the size of the Moon but he can't change economics.

Thankfully for him, the snob appeal (or whatever) allows Apple to sell at a premium. Sorry if you bought a Mac and don't like to be told what I thought was common knowledge for over a decade -- that you got ripped off on the metric of hardware priceing. Just be happy you got a pretty OS.


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By aliasfox on 10/24/2007 11:27:05 PM , Rating: 2
Ringold, stop being an idiot and understand that Intel sells your Core 2 Quad for a helluva lot less than it sells the Xeon - your Q6600 goes for $279 at Newegg, whereas two dual core 2.66 GHz Xeons (as in the Mac Pro) go for $678 or one quad core Xeon (as in the Dell) goes for $780. If you want to compare apples to apples to apples, then compare apples to apples to apples. That's why I chose a Precision vs a Mac Pro - both using Intel's workstation line of processors.

BTW, in your comparison, did you pay for Windows? A lot of people forget about that.

Is the Mac Pro supposed to be bad ass? Yes. Is it supposed to be bad ass for games? No. It (nor the Power Mac G5 before it) was ever supposed to have gaming as a primary function. Video editing, sound editing, and massive CPU crunching are its strengths. It *is* offered with a Quadro of some sort - too bad the drivers for it suck. And yes, actually, in applications such as Motion, a fast PCI-E graphics card can cut rendering time (http://www.barefeats.com/quad12.html).

Apple doesn't have anything that competes with the XPS, nor with your gaming machine. Get your head out of your ass and get over it - the Mac Pro is not meant primarily as a gaming machine - come on, there're all of... five FPS games available for Mac released in the past two years. The Mac Pro might be closest to what you want, but it's not the same. The Dell and the Mac Pro cost more? Well gee. FB DIMMs cost more than DDR2. Xeons and motherboards cost more than Core 2 Quads and their motherboards.

As for functionality: that's all relative, isn't it? For you, functionality means the ability to wring every last frame out of a game. If something goes wrong, you'll happily pop your case open, fix hardware, check the BIOS, drivers, etc. For someone else, functionality could mean batch processing of thousands of photos, or the ability to run Windows and Mac OS on one box. Their functionality could mean they want to run Pro Tools or Final Cut Pro. For these people, a warranty adds functionality - you can't bring your homebuilt into a store, throw it at a clerk, and tell them to fix it. For these people, not having to handpick individual components adds functionality.

For these people, a Mac Pro is a great choice at a fairly competitive price. In your case, it sucks.

And for the record, Excel on a Mac kind of blows.


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By Ringold on 10/25/2007 6:50:07 PM , Rating: 2
Whose fault is it that Mac picks a more expensive equivalent and Dell goes the cheaper route? The end consumer looking for a high end machine doesn't care what name is on the chip, just price/performance ratios.

And yes, Vista was included. That's basically a given for a manufacturer like Dell.

You can't even get a Precision in anything approaching similar specs with the Xeon option; being a REAL workstation, it doesn't offer comparable video cards.

I give up, though, as you make a valid point. Apple simply does not offer a mid-range or high-end enthusiast machine, but instead offers sexy business machines; boxes that do work, but with style!

I'll instead compare the following, of which my computer, which is clearly too awesome despite approach it's first birthday for Apple, is not a part of:

iMac: $2449
20" embedded LCD
2.4ghz C2D
4gb DDR2 667mhz
500gb HD
ATI HD 2600 Pro
OSX, and the standard issue free stuff

Dell Vostro 400 Mini Tower: $1678
2.66 ghz C2d (2.4 not offered)
Vista Business (Home Prem not offered, equiv. price likely)
20" Dell LCD (2007FP)
4gb DDR2 800mhz
8600GT
30w sweet speakers
+ Free assorted junk software

Noticeably better specs, at least equivalent in all ways, with the primary advantage of the Mac being stylish and having OSX -- at $771 more.

As for functionality, whatever you definition of it is, unless it includes OSX eye candy or Apple-specific software, this Vostro can do it better.

Any more excuses? I'm entirely ready to admit that the market has clearly decided sex appeal and style is worth the price premium, I'm simply saying that with that side the price comparisons are FAR from pretty.


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By Aarnando on 10/23/2007 2:47:34 PM , Rating: 2
Houses are overrated. My cardboard box in the alley packs in 3 times the quality at 1/1,000,000th of the price of your "home."


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By ChipDude on 10/23/2007 9:31:22 PM , Rating: 2
LOL someone who debates money spent for a phone free vs 399 and monthly fee of 40 50 bucks versus 70 bucks and talks about cars, house and SUVs probably can't afford none of those mentioned items.

He probably has a 'babe' fitting of his car that he can ill afford that is banging his friend while he works his second job at night..

:-) :-) Not bashing but trying to make a point about being penny wise and pound foolish? Or is that vice versa pound foolish and penny wise!


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By mdogs444 on 10/24/2007 9:11:08 AM , Rating: 2
You are way off base, and sound jealous to me.

There is a difference between buying what you want, and wasting your money.

Why would i buy a $400 phone if i have absolutely no need for it, and have no want for it? Why spend $70/mo on a phone plan if others cost $40 for what i want to do?

The point is not having the money to spend - its deciding how you want to spend your own money. People have different interests - mine happen to be cars and real estate. Yours may happen to be iPhones and a yearly membership to your GrabAss Class.

I happen to personally think that spending my money on an expensive car brings more joy to me than spending my money on an expensive phone. THey arent even close so the same price range, but just giving you an idea of things i see as hobby and have my interest versus things that i see as just basic necessity items. Does it mean that i cannot afford the phone? no. It just means that i dont want the phone and see no use for it because the feeling that i wasted my money on something that serves no purpose to me.

Some will argue that buying expensive cars that get low gas mileage are a waste of money too. Well, truth be told, all cars are a waste of money. Cars are not investments. But at the same time, i spend quite a bit of time in my cars, and will purchase what i want. Some people worry about gas mileage/fuel efficiency, i just happen to not be one of them.

Just because some of us have the money to spend, doesn't mean that we still aren't cost concious about certain things. Its human nature when it comes to spending money - some things people will pay full price for (iPhone, video games, cars, etc) , some things people will pay MORE than full price for (PS3 at launch on ebay anyone?), and other things some people will wait until they go on sale (clothing? computer items?).

So basically, don't judge a person by what material items they decide are important to them. Everyone likes material items, no matter who they are. Its just that some people's taste are much more expensive and some people can afford much more than others.


RE: Thats a lot of wool
By kelmon on 10/24/2007 2:40:17 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Wow, Apple sure is collecting a lot of sheep in their flock.


You'd better be using some obscure OS to get away with a comment like that. If you are running Windows then you are guilty of hypocrisy to a whole new level.


Its only the beginning!
By ChipDude on 10/23/07, Rating: -1
RE: Its only the beginning!
By nitrous9200 on 10/23/2007 4:04:55 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, and how about when a mugger sees those signature white headphones on the street?
Most people don't even know they have a choice besides Apple in terms of music players, they think iPods are the only ones that exist. They have some unique products, but nothing else is really that special.
I tell people about other players, and sometimes they don't even know what I'm talking about (Example: a friend of my dad's asks him what kind of ipod he should get for his son, I say get [whatever other player] because it's cheaper and has more features. He seems a little puzzled, so my brother chimes in that he should probably get a 30GB video, which completely destroyed my whole argument!) Other times though they are quite surprised on what they are missing out on.

By the way, what is a "communicator"?? Isn't that what the phone and internet access does? It makes you sound like Jobs when he first introduced the iphone.


RE: Its only the beginning!
By ChipDude on 10/23/2007 10:50:41 PM , Rating: 2
Yup I've been long and leverage in Apple for a year now.

The more I see muggers want those earphones the more it confirms the value of the product. Frankly what the geeks slam vs what the muggers and theifs want, tell me what is most important.

Can't wait to see the dissapointment when your friend takes your electronic recommendations for higher tech and higher value then iPOD. Frankly I don't know too many people that get dissapointed when they get an apple and say shucks I wish I got a Zen, Zune, Sony... LOL


RE: Its only the beginning!
By Yawgm0th on 10/24/2007 4:02:37 AM , Rating: 2
Because they don't know anything but the iPod or possibly the Zune exists. I know I feel thoroughly disappointed anytime I have the displeasure of using an iPod. I find it no better than the Zune, and my again Zen Vision: M is vastly superior.


RE: Its only the beginning!
By TomZ on 10/24/2007 9:02:16 AM , Rating: 2
My sister-in-law (not super tech-savvy) has an iPod and is getting annoyed with it to the point of asking me for suggestions about different brands. Also, when it came time to buy an MP3 player for the dad, she suggested to get something other than an iPod because they thought it would be too cumbersome for dad to use. We bought a Samsung player for him.


RE: Its only the beginning!
By Ringold on 10/23/2007 6:22:09 PM , Rating: 2
That was such a glowing review I almost expected full disclosure at the end: "I'm massively, leveraged 100-1 long AAPL." :P

I don't think competitors will sit idly by and watch Apple steam-roll over them. There's too much money to be made. I don't doubt their continued growth, though, either.

As as I said a guy I met at lunch the other day thats an employee of some sort at a local Apple Store that just wouldn't stop going on about how every facet of Apple is gloriously superior to all other things in the universe, "pride comes before the fall." In the mean time, though, I'll continue to be with you in owning some shares, heh.


“So far we have not seen a single Android device that does not infringe on our patents." -- Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith
Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki