Re: I really do like OS X but . . .
- From: foo@xxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 23:40:56 GMT
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 17:46:00 -0500, TheLetterK
<theletterk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> George, we've been over this time and time again. XP (and Vista) have
>> _nothing_ to do with DOS. It's an emulation environment, just like
>> OS9 (Classic) is an emulation environment in OS X. Just as OS X's
>> origins are FAR from OS 9, so are XP's origins FAR from DOS. You see
>> a command line window and you think that's DOS. You're wrong. PLEASE
>> stop endlessly repeating this.
>
>I don't think he was talking about that. Or, at least, I hope he wasn't.
>I think he was pointing out that Microsoft has to ensure backwards
>compatibility with the older MS-DOS based versions of Windows, which
>introduces a number of problems.
Huh? The NT VDM is well-documented and well-known, and I doubt MS has
anyone working on it anymore; why would they?
>Like their reliance on Win32 instead of
>.NET...
Huh? Win32 is just an environment, one of several. Don't like it?
Put in another one.
http://mipagina.cantv.net/jjaguilerap/w2k_arq.html
>>>Certainly, Microsoft's insistence that each new
>>>edition of Windows maintain a general compatibility with pre-existing
>>>software must compromise what they are able to do with new versions of
>>>the OS,
>>
>>
>> I don't know about that. What issues are you talking about?
>>
>>
>>>and most assuredly handcuff the development team and limit new
>>>features.
>>
>>
>> I don't see XP as feature-crippled at all. What's the issue you're
>> talking about?
>
>XP is the very definition of feature crippled.
How so?
>>>This is likely why each new version of Windows ends up being
>>>just a mild facelift with no real improvement in operability or
>>>usability.
>>
>>
>> And this from the Mac guy? 10.2 to 10.3 to 10.4 - talk about minor,
>> incremental changes for $130 each!
>
>You do realize that Microsoft also charges for major point updates?
>Unless XP was free for Windows 2000 users? If so, I would like a refund...
>
>Windows 2000 == NT 5.0
>Windows XP == NT 5.1
>Windows Server 2003 == NT 5.3
>
>Would it help if Apple had completely removed version numbers from their
>marketing campaigns, like Microsoft does?
$130 for this year's OS. Every year. Only Apple.
>>>You make the mistake of most Windroids. You assume that because Macs
>>>have lower CPU clock speeds that the machines themselves are somehow
>>>slower,
>>
>>
>> They are. Particularly once you include $ in the equation. C'mon
>> George, this is an old one too.
>>
>>
>>>or that if they are, that the speed difference is enough to make
>>>any difference in productivity.
>>
>>
>> It is. Else why buy new Macs?
>>
>>
>>>These are all strawman arguments. There
>>>is no real evidence that Macs are slower accross the board than are PCs,
>>
>>
>> Oh please. Obviously the evidence of 'benchmarks' is too much for
>> you.
>
>Benchmarks tend to be mixed, and I think there are causes for benchmark
>differences that most people don't really consider. Like poorly
>optimized code.
So clearly every application is poorly written.
Or else, as is vastly more likely, the CPU's slower.
>>>and there is certainly no evidence that Macs are less productive. But
>>>there is plenty of evidence that Macs are the MORE productive of the two
>>>platforms.
>>
>>
>> Not in a long, long time have I seen Gartner and similar for modern
>> Mac systems.
>>
>>
>>>That's not surprising, but what is surprising is that you feel the need
>>>to "go back to Windows" to get your work done. I do all my work on the
>>>Mac. I produce documents with strong graphic content on my Mac on a
>>>daily basis, yet my entire corporate clientele is Windows based. They
>>>never know the difference. The idea that "business" MUST be carried out
>>>on PCs is largely a myth.
>>
>>
>> ...because all businesses work just like you do, right?
>>
>>
>>>I think that you'll find that Intel Macs won't be significantly faster
>>>than PPC Macs.
>>
>>
>> I hope you are completely wrong on this. Just speaking of the new
>> Pentium-M designs alone (Yonah?), I believe this is another one of a
>> seemingly endless string of stupid and wrong comments from you.
>
>I have no doubt they will be faster for many uses. Though I don't know
>if moving the Xserves over is a good idea.
Why?
>>>The G5 isn't particularly faster than a Intel chip, but it's not slower
>>>either.
>>
>>
>> This is funny, George. Really.
>>
>>
>>>Again, you are making assumptions based on no evidence. For instance,
>>>where did you get the idea that Intel-based Macs will be any cheaper
>>>than PPC based Macs? Just because there exist ultra cheap Windows boxes
>>>made in China with virtual slave labor that are often sold by big PC
>>>manufacturers like Dell as loss-leaders for practically nothing doesn't
>>>mean that Apple will go the same route.
>>
>>
>> You're now suggesting Apple doesn't outsource to China, to Quanta and
>> Asustek, the same guys that make most of the PC hardware? What
>> fantasy world DO you live in, George?
>
>Indeed, they do. However, the Intel Macs will probably not drop in
>price. If anything, they'll be more expensive.
Why?
>>>LOOK at a G5 Tower. Take the
>>>sides off of it and peer inside. Now, do the same for $299 Dell special
>>>and you'll see the difference. I'm not saying that everyone values the
>>>difference between the build quality of a $300 Dell and a $2000 Mac
>>>tower, but, you see, APPLE DOES. And as long as that's the market that
>>>they feel comfortable participating in, that won't change. And there is
>>>nothing to indicate that Macs won't always be more expensive, often much
>>>more expensive, than at least SOME similar Windows PCs, processor costs
>>>notwithstanding.
>>
>>
>> One is silver, the other black. And they both sit below a desk
>> identically.
>
>Surely even you realize that there are other differences between the
>case of your average PC and average PowerMac G5. Apple spends a lot more
>on cases than most OEMs.
Their loss.
>>>As for the PPC becoming obsolete; if it happens at all, it will be after
>>>the end of this decade and by then we'll all be ready for a new
>>>computer. But ponder this. It will also, likely be the end of the decade
>>>before Mac applications support and device driver support has migrated
>>>away from the PPC processor to the Intel processor, so the PPC Macs will
>>>remain the most viable products in the line until at least that time.
>>>Remember, we Mac users have been down this road before (68K to PPC) and
>>>we know how it unfolds. We know from experience that being an early
>>>adopter is not the smartest move in such cases. If you simply must have
>>>the earliest Intel Macs, be prepared to run PPC applications in
>>>emulation and to have virtually NO driver support for many printers,
>>>scanners, and other hardware for a couple of years at least.
>>
>>
>> What's new?
>
>The lack of support.
Again, what's new?
>>>My next Mac will not be an Intel Mac for the reasons stated above, but
>>>likely the one AFTER the next one will be Intel based. I'm not planning
>>>on going Intel until the next decade.
>>
>>
>> You'll, as usual, be the laggard, in this case technically.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: I really do like OS X but . . .
- From: TheLetterK
- Re: I really do like OS X but . . .
- References:
- Re: I really do like OS X but . . .
- From: TheLetterK
- Re: I really do like OS X but . . .
- Prev by Date: Re: No more Intel Inside
- Next by Date: Re: I really do like OS X but . . .
- Previous by thread: Re: I really do like OS X but . . .
- Next by thread: Re: I really do like OS X but . . .
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
