backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 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)


<