Re: Cost of the M$ monopoly-$10BIllion/year.

On 28 Jul 2005 00:30:27 -0700, imouttahere@xxxxxxx chose to bless us
with the following wisdom:

>Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>> On 27 Jul 2005 07:17:05 -0700, imouttahere@xxxxxxx chose to bless us
>> with the following wisdom:
>>
>> >Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>> >> I don't really care how Microsoft does their internal financials. All
>> >> I care about is that they are part of the process that provides me
>> >> with a soution to my needs/wants at a price I want to pay.
>> >
>> >Funny, they don't do that for me. IE6 is a dinosaur,
>>
>> And yet it remains the most popular web browser by far. It must be
>> doing something right. Its not like there's anything stopping anyone
>> from installing Firefox or Opera, etc and using thyem if the dislike
>> IE6.
>
>LOL. Nice tapdancing around the fact that IE6 blows chunks. You can't
>deny it since everyone who has to code to standards knows how bad IE6
>was, and how little investment Microsoft has made to it since bundling
>IE with the OS.

And yet for me at least its Firefox that tends to display things
oddly.

>
>> > Windows was last updated in late 200-fucking-ONE, and that was just mostly a crappy
>> >reskinning of Win2k which was RTM'd in 1999, a whole IT lifetime ago,
>> >and Win2k wasn't anything that great over NT4 other than better DirectX
>> >and USB support.
>>
>> You exaggerate greatly. While it has been a while since there was a
>> major release there's not much need for one AFAICT. What exactly is it
>> that you think Windows should be doing now that its not?
>
>All that crap that was promised for Longhorn, and a lot of stuff that
>10.4 is doing already.

The only thing promised for Longhorn that was an actual improvement
was the new file system. All the other stuff was flash and fluff.
>
>> >Their office suite is a joke.
>>
>> Their office suite rocks and is the standard by which other office
>> suites are judged. I know plenty of people who literally kill anyone
>> who took away their Excel.
>
>Excel was great in 1990. It really hasn't improved much since then. By
>being a joke I mean being worth the incremental upgrade cost. As a body
>of software it is a decent achievement that no other software house has
>right now.

There does come a point when something is done.

>
>> >> Now here's some facts that you like to ignore. Apple prices their
>> >> machines artificially high. They could sell them for significntly
>> >> lower but choose not in order to foster a 'high class'
>> >> mirage...er...image around themselves.
>> >
>> >I don't deny Apple's machines have been priced much higher than eg.
>> >Dell in many cases. When they move to x86 we'll be able to see how much
>> >to the bull*** reason above you charge and how much was the due to the
>> >price penalty of having to go to 2nd-banana suppliers for their CPUs
>> >and motherboards, not to mention develop their own motherboard
>> >chipsets.
>>
>> I don't think anyone but you would label IBM a second banana supplier.
>
>IBM has 1 main fab doing 300mm wafers. Intel ships 10x the quantity or
>more. IBM is certainly second banana to Intel. Plus Intel is willing to
>work with Apple, while IBM is a cash & carry operation as far as doing
>R&D is concerned.
>
>> >Apple was not ripping off its customers 2001-2003, when it was barely
>> >breaking even. I think they made something like $100M profit total over
>> >those 3 years.
>>
>> From what I've gathered they were poorly manged and ran in those
>> years.
>
>Chyeah right. What a clown you are, McCheese.

You seem to be economically ignorant. Just because they had low
profits doesn't mean that that the machines weren't overpriced. From
what I gathered their costs were spiraling out of control and very
little was being done to control them until Jobs returned.

>
>> Again that was a lot of cash wasted that could have gone
>> towards producing a low cost yet powerful machine, which is what Apple
>> needs.
>
>Apple could make a lower cost and more powerful machine, but it is a
>difficult proposition since Apple's job is to maximize shareholder
>value not customer value per se.

Oh geez! Here's the thing. Keeping prices high and the corresponding
loss of sales is not maximizing shareholder value. If Apple lowered
their prices they could increase sales and really maximize return for
their shareholder. Sure there would probably be a couple of rough
quarters while things sorted themselves out. However if you're going
to take the extreme short term view you really shouldn't be running a
company.

>
>It still has to compete to some extent with other PC manufacturers
>though, so it's not totally free to screw the customer like it was in
>the late 80s when Windows was a steaming pile of crap by comparison.

LOL! Are you this pissed off all the time in real life?

>
>> >> They've priced themselves out
>> >> of direct competition with Microsoft.
>> >
>> >Well, economies of scale have a lot to do with it. Microsoft went for
>> >mainstream early, while Apple was happy to push the state of the art
>> >forward.
>>
>> 'State of the art' being flash and fluff largely.
>
>LOL. Fully-composited backing store window server is mighty sweet. You
>can check it out with the Vista beta coming out this summer, while
>we've had it since 2001.

And how does it improve my ability to run my apps?

>
>> > This has meant Windows provides an inferior solution to more
>> >hardware, while Apple (and NeXT) focused on superior solutions for
>> >people who were willing to pay for them.
>>
>> What a lot of you guys keep forgetting is that the OS counts for very
>> little. Its all about the apps. I don't spnd much time playing with my
>> OS. Cramming it with silly features like widgets and such is silly and
>> a waste of resources. All I need is something that will let me run my
>> apps.
>
>And apps depend on API, and Apple has a much better API than Windows,

And others say differently.

>and has been adding to it much more expertly than Microsoft has this
>decade. XP has VERY little new API over Win2k, and the .net stuff isn't
>soup yet since even Microsoft can't use it for their internal stuff.

And somehow my apps still load and run just fine.
>
>The Mac userbase is already on 10.3 largely, which came out in 2003,
>while the Windows userbase is still largely on Win2k/XP API, which
>means Apple is currently 3 years ahead of Microsoft as far as API
>development goes (and this ignores the fact that OS X 10.0 API was
>already advanced since it incorporated stuff from NeXT and some major
>reworkings (CoreAudio, CoreGraphics) that Microsoft is badly trailing
>at the time.

You seem to be more obsessed with the calendar than anything else.

>
>> >LOL. Like anybody gives a *** what is said in csma.
>>
>> Belive me, this goes on in places far removed from CSMA.
>
>Get over yourself. You're just a loser with apparently way too much
>free time.

Says the angry, Maccie who sits a corner all day screaming 'Microsoft
sucks!'.




--
Everyone should know that most cancer research is
largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research
organizations are derelict in their duties to the
people who support them.

Linus Pauling
.