macduke
Nov 5, 11:13 PM
LOL @ Chuck Norris kicking an oncoming car in the face. Classic.
Like I mentioned in the first post on this possibility earlier today, I hope they implement this in a way that I can find things. Like tagging my keys or books. I'm always losing crap.
Like I mentioned in the first post on this possibility earlier today, I hope they implement this in a way that I can find things. Like tagging my keys or books. I'm always losing crap.
lostngone
Apr 14, 06:36 PM
You sir, are an epic winner for that comment!
I like the mop behind him. Is he the janitor of the data center?
I like the mop behind him. Is he the janitor of the data center?
Tomorrow
Apr 28, 09:13 AM
so a prius does the same amount of damage to a road as full size RV?
It might - read below.
Highly doubtful it's even twice as much 'damage'. An extra 1000lbs rolling along on the same type of rubber tires isn't going to increase wear all that much.
It's not weight that damages the roads, it's pressure. Too much weight concentrated on too small a space is what damages asphalt (and concrete, to a far lesser extent). That's a function of pressure in the tires - two vehicles with the same tire pressure are doing the same amount of damage to the road, regardless of their respective weights.
True enough, a truck weighted down with a full load might have 60 psi in the tires, whereas most passenger cars are in the 30-35 psi range. But in this sense, a small car and a big car (or light truck) are doing about the same amount of damage to the road.
Here in north Texas, it's very true that the majority of damage to the roads comes not from any vehicle, but from unstable soil underneath the roads. I imagine there are many places across the country where this is true.
It might - read below.
Highly doubtful it's even twice as much 'damage'. An extra 1000lbs rolling along on the same type of rubber tires isn't going to increase wear all that much.
It's not weight that damages the roads, it's pressure. Too much weight concentrated on too small a space is what damages asphalt (and concrete, to a far lesser extent). That's a function of pressure in the tires - two vehicles with the same tire pressure are doing the same amount of damage to the road, regardless of their respective weights.
True enough, a truck weighted down with a full load might have 60 psi in the tires, whereas most passenger cars are in the 30-35 psi range. But in this sense, a small car and a big car (or light truck) are doing about the same amount of damage to the road.
Here in north Texas, it's very true that the majority of damage to the roads comes not from any vehicle, but from unstable soil underneath the roads. I imagine there are many places across the country where this is true.
blacktape242
Feb 18, 04:47 PM
Very skillful in how Jobs face and legs are hidden. Im beginning to think the newspapers are right about his condition.
could just be coincidence....i wouldn't read to much into that....
could just be coincidence....i wouldn't read to much into that....
more...
citizenzen
Apr 12, 06:55 PM
Imagine you move to a country where nobody talks to white people. White people are totally ignored, irrespective of anything. Naturally then, if you employed a white person to work in a shop they'd do an awful job because they wouldn't be able to serve any of the racist clientele.
You're saying "they'd do an awful job," when in reality there's no way to judge how well they were able to perform because they were never given a chance to demonstrate their capabilities.
So let's reword your sentence to be more accurate ...
Naturally then, if you employed a white person to work in a shop they'd never have a chance to prove their capability because they wouldn't be able to serve any of the racist clientele.
You going to fire a person because of that?
Personally, I'd be looking for better customers. Normally, I think of people who do business with disgusting and loathsome customers as whores.
You're saying "they'd do an awful job," when in reality there's no way to judge how well they were able to perform because they were never given a chance to demonstrate their capabilities.
So let's reword your sentence to be more accurate ...
Naturally then, if you employed a white person to work in a shop they'd never have a chance to prove their capability because they wouldn't be able to serve any of the racist clientele.
You going to fire a person because of that?
Personally, I'd be looking for better customers. Normally, I think of people who do business with disgusting and loathsome customers as whores.
tonys
Apr 21, 01:17 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
So what are your bets on when they'll magically appear in a bar?
So what are your bets on when they'll magically appear in a bar?
more...
MontyZ
Jun 3, 02:53 AM
So you were seriously interseted in a widget about folding laundry? :p :D ;)
Hell yea!!
Hell yea!!
eawmp1
Apr 10, 12:44 PM
New bumper sticker: "It's Not A Choice, It's A Consequence"
more...
Lord Blackadder
Mar 15, 08:12 PM
WTF indeed.
itcheroni
Apr 3, 08:43 PM
How would one find the answer to this?
Exactly. I'm just pointing out that it is illogical to draw the conclusion the article did about the effects of tax cuts. The fact that the economy has not improved does not prove that tax cuts were bad for the states that implemented them because we do not know how they would have fared without those cuts. And it is simply a matter of balancing the budget. If they're cutting taxes, they just need to cut enough spending to be balanced. If they expected to cut taxes, not cut spending, and have a balanced budget then stupidity, not the tax cuts, are to blame.
The weather sucks big time in Washington state, Texas is much nicer (so I hear). A great many natives of the PNW can become real excretory orifices when they find out you are from California.
I'm turning 30 next month and have resolved to spend 6-9 months of the each year traveling from now on. So I really just need a little studio in a chill town for me to relax from all that traveling. So tax benefits are a huge motive for me. I'm going to take a road trip to check out all the major cities once I get back from China. I don't think Texans will take it too hard on me since I'm quite laissez faire, although I will disagree with them on religious and social issues... I'll probably go where the best food and nightlife is.
Exactly. I'm just pointing out that it is illogical to draw the conclusion the article did about the effects of tax cuts. The fact that the economy has not improved does not prove that tax cuts were bad for the states that implemented them because we do not know how they would have fared without those cuts. And it is simply a matter of balancing the budget. If they're cutting taxes, they just need to cut enough spending to be balanced. If they expected to cut taxes, not cut spending, and have a balanced budget then stupidity, not the tax cuts, are to blame.
The weather sucks big time in Washington state, Texas is much nicer (so I hear). A great many natives of the PNW can become real excretory orifices when they find out you are from California.
I'm turning 30 next month and have resolved to spend 6-9 months of the each year traveling from now on. So I really just need a little studio in a chill town for me to relax from all that traveling. So tax benefits are a huge motive for me. I'm going to take a road trip to check out all the major cities once I get back from China. I don't think Texans will take it too hard on me since I'm quite laissez faire, although I will disagree with them on religious and social issues... I'll probably go where the best food and nightlife is.
more...
GFLPraxis
Mar 2, 11:06 AM
That's debatable. Apple's reputation in business/enterprise support has never been stellar. Meanwhile, Google literally Velcro together their server farms, using cheap hardware that is vulnerable to failure at single points but is collectively resilient and efficient.
These are extreme ends of the spectrum that I'm using as examples, though.
Google literally Velcro's their server farms? Dang, I should try that.
These are extreme ends of the spectrum that I'm using as examples, though.
Google literally Velcro's their server farms? Dang, I should try that.
leekohler
Mar 11, 02:59 PM
Have you looked at the Chrysler 200 convertible. It's pretty sharp but not as "macho" as the camaro or challenger. I had a sebring years ago, and loved it even though it was iffy as far as "quality." Still, probably the best convertible I've ever had. I rented a g6 hardtop convertible and it was great other than the tiny trunk.
No offense, but that is one ugly car and far too conservative for me. If I was married off and had kids, sure. ;)
No offense, but that is one ugly car and far too conservative for me. If I was married off and had kids, sure. ;)
more...
Ryan1524
Mar 23, 12:21 AM
I understand what most of you are saying, and for the most part agree. I'm still using my D70s, and getting pics that still get compliments from people. On the other hand, I've been wanting a 70-200 for a while now. Not sure if this falls under the superfluous 'let's-buy-more-gear' mentality, or the 'i-want-to-try-new-type-of-vision' mentality.
What do you think?
I've been doing most of my hobby with an 11-16 and 35mm.
What do you think?
I've been doing most of my hobby with an 11-16 and 35mm.
MacRumorUser
Mar 24, 03:11 AM
What is pissing me off at this stage is not that the console launches tomorrow or fears over shortages etc, it's the fact that 95% of the launch titles haven't even made it to review which is never a good sign.
I suspect we are going to see a lot of turkeys tomorrow.
I suspect we are going to see a lot of turkeys tomorrow.
more...
Twe Foju
Apr 24, 11:24 AM
- Thunderbolt ( most likely )
- Backlit Keyboard ( Unlikely )
- AMD combo ( Chip + GPU )
- Upgradeable Ram ( at least 6gb )
- More SSD option ( 512 pretty pleasee )
- Black Color MBA :D
- Backlit Keyboard ( Unlikely )
- AMD combo ( Chip + GPU )
- Upgradeable Ram ( at least 6gb )
- More SSD option ( 512 pretty pleasee )
- Black Color MBA :D
citizenzen
Apr 9, 05:12 PM
Who says people are the greatest asset?
Well, Cao Cao for one.
So I'm eager to hear of all the political programs he suports that enhance the probability of health and livelihood for all people, lest one of those precious assets suffer an untimely demise.
Cao Cao must be a big proponent of speed limits, helmet laws, OSHA, the FDA, the EPA, government regulations, etc.
Well, Cao Cao for one.
So I'm eager to hear of all the political programs he suports that enhance the probability of health and livelihood for all people, lest one of those precious assets suffer an untimely demise.
Cao Cao must be a big proponent of speed limits, helmet laws, OSHA, the FDA, the EPA, government regulations, etc.
more...
dextertangocci
Aug 14, 11:34 AM
I LOVE THE APPLE ADS!!!!!
THEY ARE THE BEST ADS EVER!!!!:cool: :D :D :D :D :cool:
I love the way they make windoze peecees seem like useless boxes, that just take up space in your house, and are only good for paperweights (which is very true:D )
THEY ARE THE BEST ADS EVER!!!!:cool: :D :D :D :D :cool:
I love the way they make windoze peecees seem like useless boxes, that just take up space in your house, and are only good for paperweights (which is very true:D )
jose fuertes s.
Oct 19, 12:23 PM
iHope Apple will make this phones with GSM technology, so everyone worldwide could have one. :)
jsw
Sep 13, 09:22 AM
I know -- just a few minutes with them and they'll have you in stitches.
And surgeons are less boring in bed - anesthesiologists always want to put you under, er, be on top.
And surgeons are less boring in bed - anesthesiologists always want to put you under, er, be on top.
ghostlyorb
Mar 24, 08:33 AM
Doesn't airplay need to work before they can license it?
MikeTheC
Nov 3, 01:19 AM
I'd like to tackle a few points in the discussion here.
Dirt-Cheap vs. Reasonable Economy (a.k.a. "The Wal-Martization of America"):
Apple has always had the philosophy that their name needs to mean a superior product. They have tended to shy away from producing bargain-basement products because it tends to take away from the "high-quality" reputation they are otherwise known for and desire to continue cultivating.
At direct odds with this is the pervasive and continually-perpetuated attitude in the U.S. (and elsewhere, perhaps) that the universe revolves exclusively around the mantra of "faster, cheaper, better", with emphasis on the latter two: cheaper and better. What I have noticed in my own 34 years on this planet is a considerable change in attitude, most easily summed up as people in general having their tastes almost "anti-cultured". It isn't "... cheaper, better" for them, but rather "cheaper = better". You can see this at all levels. Businesses, despite their claims to the contrary, tend to prioritize the executives specifically and the company generally making money over any other possible consideration. They try and drive their workforce from well-paid, highly competent full-time people, to part-time, no-medical or retirement-benefits-earning, low-experience, low-paid domestic help; and the second prong of their pincer movement is to outsource the rest.
Or, in short, "let's make a lot of money, but don't spend any in the process."
My goal here is not to get into the lengthy and well-trod discussion of corporate exploitation of the masses; rather it is to show the Wal-Mart effect at all levels.
More and more over the years I find that people have no taste. Steve Jobs accuses Microsoft of having no taste (a point I am not trying to argue against); I think however that he's hit a little low of the mark. The attitude out there seems to be one of total self-focus -- and not merely "me first", but rather "me first, me last, and ******* everybody else". They're the "I don't want to know anything", "all I want to do is get out of having to do anything I can, including not using my brain except for pleasure-seeking tasks," and "For God's sake, I surely don't want to have to spend more than the minimum on a computer" bunch.
Now, clearly, not everyone in the U.S. is like this; obviously, if they were, Apple would have no customers at all. But this is a real and fairly large group. Short of Apple practically giving away their computers, it's hard to imagine them being all that specifically attractive to that demographic. Moreover, those people are not merely non-enthusiasts; they want all of the benefits of having this trendy computer thing, but wish to be encumbered by none of the responsibilities.
To my way of thinking, frankly however large this group of people is, I would encourage Apple to avoid appealing to them whenever and wherever possible. If this means continuing the perception mentioned above of being a computer "for yuppies", then so be it.
Market Share Percentage and it's Perception:
Clearly, there is something to be gained by having the perception that "everyone's doing it". It's part of the reason why smoking, drinking, under-age sex, and drugs are so amazingly popular with us human beings the world over. It's part of the reason (maybe even a significant part) that iPods are so incredibly successful. Now, before someone here puts forth the argument that, "Well, you know, Apple's got a better design, and that's what attracts people to it," -- and that's quite true in it's own right -- let's break things down a bit.
Many animals develop and learn through a process called "patterning", and through imitation. Humans are not psychologically exempt from this; we do it all the time, and particularly so when we're younger. It's the fundamental force behind fashion, fads, and trends. There are definitely positive benefits to this. Kids, as they develop their social skills, learn from others the socially approved ways of behaving and interacting. Please note I did not use the term "correct" nor "right", but merely the "approved" (or, one might call it the "accepted") way. We also learn and learn from such things as casualty (actions have consequences), and other factors too numerous to pursue here.
Anyhow, all of these factors are in operation when it comes to buying technology (which is the boiled-down essence of what we're talking about here). Microsoft has learned this game, and has played it well for many years. Regardless of the "technically, we know it's bulls**t" truth, the reality of it is (and has been) when an unsavvy person walks into a store to buy a computer, and they see ten Windows-running computers on the shelf, and only one or two Mac OS-running computers there, they get the prima-facia notion that most computers are Windows computers, and by extension that statistically most people must be running Windows; therefore they should buy a Windows computer, too. There's a whole other subject here about how the ignorant sales people in electronics stores essentially use the same process to unwittingly deceive themselves into thinking the same thing. This is one of the factors which helped catapult Microsoft into the major, successful company they became. In truth, this specific scenario is a bit more 1994 than but it helps to explain why most people today who own a computer have only known life in a Microsoft world. As enough people attained this status, it became the dominant developmental factor in the world at large, which sort of helped to self-perpetuate the effect.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that these statistics of percentage of platform used by definition leave out one particular group of people -- those who don't use a computer at all. After all, if you don't own a computer, you can't browse the web, send or receive email, or have your computer platform of choice tabulated in any kind of statistical data sample. One might be tempted to think that such a notion is silly, but it isn't. True, once we get to the point that only a statistically insignificant number of people on this planet don't own a computer (which is still far from the reality of today), counting their numbers won't matter for statistical purposes, it does matter. Why? Well, the statistics as presented make it seem like Macs (or Linux, or anything else) are only used by a subset of people on this planet. Not true! They're only used by a subset of a subset, the latter being the number of people on this planet who have a computer to be counted in such statistics in the first place.
Also, statistics vary depending on a variety of factors. It's also easy to write them off as a business or let them drop "below the radar" by various statistical gathering or reporting agencies; or merely through the informal process on the part of business owners of anecdotal evidence. Here's a perfect example of that very factor.
When the Macintosh came on the scene in 1984, and as it continued through it's early incarnations in the mid 1980s, it entered the fray of lots of non-defacto computer platforms. Or, to put it another way, it "came late to the party". So, you had all these computer dealers who were already trying to sell Apple ][s, TRS-80s, Commodore 64s (and later, C128s), Timex Sinclairs, an assortment of other PCs running proprietary OSs, amongst which were those which ran this thing called MS-DOS, and so forth and so on. Also, people who wound up buying Macs didn't exactly fit the same profile as those who had bought the other computers. You had artists -- literary, graphic, musical, etc. -- buying these things. While they didn't mind being technologically self-sufficent, they were not people who were interested in such things as tearing their computer apart and having a go at it's various electronic innards. Anyhow, they formed their own communities, and for various reasons didn't get a lot of support initially from local dealers and computer software stores. However, Apple did get quite a number of companies to write software or build hardware for their Mac platform. These companies started using mail-order as a significant portion of their sales strategy. Consequently, Mac owners used it as their more-and-more-primary computer-stuff purchasing regimen.
Ultimately, fewer and fewer Mac owners were going locally to buy stuff, due to availability and pricing. What then happened largely was this "perception" on the part of shop owners (and later their suppliers, etc.) that nobody out there used a Mac. As a result of their mis-perception, companies began to simply ignore us Mac users (I was around back then), acting as if we didn't exist; or at the least there weren't enough of us to bother supporting us or even trying to make money from us.
Now, at this point there's no denying there's more Windows boxen out there than Mac boxen, but this is still a valid factor and should not be discounted.
Besides, what number you hear quoted still, as it has for many, many years, depends on what your source is. I've heard numbers within the past month that range from 4.1 percent to 6 percent. Which one is correct? Does anyone even really know?
Since we can run Windows, why run Mac OS? (paranoia of market erosion):
I've been hearing this since before Apple ever disclosed their plans to switch to x86. It was actually one of the topics frequently -- and rather hotly, as I recall -- debated in these forums. However, I think the fear is greatly unjustified, and here's why.
First, let's look at it from an economic standpoint: Buying a Mac to run Windows is hardly the most cost-effective approach.
Second, let's look at it from a socio-economic standpoint: People don't buy a Mac to run Windows so much as they buy it to either try something different, or to escape Windows and the onslaught of problems that, in more recent years, it has brought to them.
Third, and while this really applies more to tech-savvy people: Windows represents a security and stability liability which most other operating systems do not.
In other words, by and large, people out there who are switching to a Mac are doing more than merely switching hardware: they're switching OS platforms. The fact that they can run Windows on a Mac is only slightly more of interest to them than is running an x86-based distro of GNU/Linux.
Bottom Line: Apple will appeal to and convert those that they can, and those are the hearts and minds which are the most vital and important anyhow. Let's not forget the relative merits of dummy-dropping. Sometimes, Darwin's theories of Evolution are more satisfyingly applied sociologically than biologically.
Dirt-Cheap vs. Reasonable Economy (a.k.a. "The Wal-Martization of America"):
Apple has always had the philosophy that their name needs to mean a superior product. They have tended to shy away from producing bargain-basement products because it tends to take away from the "high-quality" reputation they are otherwise known for and desire to continue cultivating.
At direct odds with this is the pervasive and continually-perpetuated attitude in the U.S. (and elsewhere, perhaps) that the universe revolves exclusively around the mantra of "faster, cheaper, better", with emphasis on the latter two: cheaper and better. What I have noticed in my own 34 years on this planet is a considerable change in attitude, most easily summed up as people in general having their tastes almost "anti-cultured". It isn't "... cheaper, better" for them, but rather "cheaper = better". You can see this at all levels. Businesses, despite their claims to the contrary, tend to prioritize the executives specifically and the company generally making money over any other possible consideration. They try and drive their workforce from well-paid, highly competent full-time people, to part-time, no-medical or retirement-benefits-earning, low-experience, low-paid domestic help; and the second prong of their pincer movement is to outsource the rest.
Or, in short, "let's make a lot of money, but don't spend any in the process."
My goal here is not to get into the lengthy and well-trod discussion of corporate exploitation of the masses; rather it is to show the Wal-Mart effect at all levels.
More and more over the years I find that people have no taste. Steve Jobs accuses Microsoft of having no taste (a point I am not trying to argue against); I think however that he's hit a little low of the mark. The attitude out there seems to be one of total self-focus -- and not merely "me first", but rather "me first, me last, and ******* everybody else". They're the "I don't want to know anything", "all I want to do is get out of having to do anything I can, including not using my brain except for pleasure-seeking tasks," and "For God's sake, I surely don't want to have to spend more than the minimum on a computer" bunch.
Now, clearly, not everyone in the U.S. is like this; obviously, if they were, Apple would have no customers at all. But this is a real and fairly large group. Short of Apple practically giving away their computers, it's hard to imagine them being all that specifically attractive to that demographic. Moreover, those people are not merely non-enthusiasts; they want all of the benefits of having this trendy computer thing, but wish to be encumbered by none of the responsibilities.
To my way of thinking, frankly however large this group of people is, I would encourage Apple to avoid appealing to them whenever and wherever possible. If this means continuing the perception mentioned above of being a computer "for yuppies", then so be it.
Market Share Percentage and it's Perception:
Clearly, there is something to be gained by having the perception that "everyone's doing it". It's part of the reason why smoking, drinking, under-age sex, and drugs are so amazingly popular with us human beings the world over. It's part of the reason (maybe even a significant part) that iPods are so incredibly successful. Now, before someone here puts forth the argument that, "Well, you know, Apple's got a better design, and that's what attracts people to it," -- and that's quite true in it's own right -- let's break things down a bit.
Many animals develop and learn through a process called "patterning", and through imitation. Humans are not psychologically exempt from this; we do it all the time, and particularly so when we're younger. It's the fundamental force behind fashion, fads, and trends. There are definitely positive benefits to this. Kids, as they develop their social skills, learn from others the socially approved ways of behaving and interacting. Please note I did not use the term "correct" nor "right", but merely the "approved" (or, one might call it the "accepted") way. We also learn and learn from such things as casualty (actions have consequences), and other factors too numerous to pursue here.
Anyhow, all of these factors are in operation when it comes to buying technology (which is the boiled-down essence of what we're talking about here). Microsoft has learned this game, and has played it well for many years. Regardless of the "technically, we know it's bulls**t" truth, the reality of it is (and has been) when an unsavvy person walks into a store to buy a computer, and they see ten Windows-running computers on the shelf, and only one or two Mac OS-running computers there, they get the prima-facia notion that most computers are Windows computers, and by extension that statistically most people must be running Windows; therefore they should buy a Windows computer, too. There's a whole other subject here about how the ignorant sales people in electronics stores essentially use the same process to unwittingly deceive themselves into thinking the same thing. This is one of the factors which helped catapult Microsoft into the major, successful company they became. In truth, this specific scenario is a bit more 1994 than but it helps to explain why most people today who own a computer have only known life in a Microsoft world. As enough people attained this status, it became the dominant developmental factor in the world at large, which sort of helped to self-perpetuate the effect.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that these statistics of percentage of platform used by definition leave out one particular group of people -- those who don't use a computer at all. After all, if you don't own a computer, you can't browse the web, send or receive email, or have your computer platform of choice tabulated in any kind of statistical data sample. One might be tempted to think that such a notion is silly, but it isn't. True, once we get to the point that only a statistically insignificant number of people on this planet don't own a computer (which is still far from the reality of today), counting their numbers won't matter for statistical purposes, it does matter. Why? Well, the statistics as presented make it seem like Macs (or Linux, or anything else) are only used by a subset of people on this planet. Not true! They're only used by a subset of a subset, the latter being the number of people on this planet who have a computer to be counted in such statistics in the first place.
Also, statistics vary depending on a variety of factors. It's also easy to write them off as a business or let them drop "below the radar" by various statistical gathering or reporting agencies; or merely through the informal process on the part of business owners of anecdotal evidence. Here's a perfect example of that very factor.
When the Macintosh came on the scene in 1984, and as it continued through it's early incarnations in the mid 1980s, it entered the fray of lots of non-defacto computer platforms. Or, to put it another way, it "came late to the party". So, you had all these computer dealers who were already trying to sell Apple ][s, TRS-80s, Commodore 64s (and later, C128s), Timex Sinclairs, an assortment of other PCs running proprietary OSs, amongst which were those which ran this thing called MS-DOS, and so forth and so on. Also, people who wound up buying Macs didn't exactly fit the same profile as those who had bought the other computers. You had artists -- literary, graphic, musical, etc. -- buying these things. While they didn't mind being technologically self-sufficent, they were not people who were interested in such things as tearing their computer apart and having a go at it's various electronic innards. Anyhow, they formed their own communities, and for various reasons didn't get a lot of support initially from local dealers and computer software stores. However, Apple did get quite a number of companies to write software or build hardware for their Mac platform. These companies started using mail-order as a significant portion of their sales strategy. Consequently, Mac owners used it as their more-and-more-primary computer-stuff purchasing regimen.
Ultimately, fewer and fewer Mac owners were going locally to buy stuff, due to availability and pricing. What then happened largely was this "perception" on the part of shop owners (and later their suppliers, etc.) that nobody out there used a Mac. As a result of their mis-perception, companies began to simply ignore us Mac users (I was around back then), acting as if we didn't exist; or at the least there weren't enough of us to bother supporting us or even trying to make money from us.
Now, at this point there's no denying there's more Windows boxen out there than Mac boxen, but this is still a valid factor and should not be discounted.
Besides, what number you hear quoted still, as it has for many, many years, depends on what your source is. I've heard numbers within the past month that range from 4.1 percent to 6 percent. Which one is correct? Does anyone even really know?
Since we can run Windows, why run Mac OS? (paranoia of market erosion):
I've been hearing this since before Apple ever disclosed their plans to switch to x86. It was actually one of the topics frequently -- and rather hotly, as I recall -- debated in these forums. However, I think the fear is greatly unjustified, and here's why.
First, let's look at it from an economic standpoint: Buying a Mac to run Windows is hardly the most cost-effective approach.
Second, let's look at it from a socio-economic standpoint: People don't buy a Mac to run Windows so much as they buy it to either try something different, or to escape Windows and the onslaught of problems that, in more recent years, it has brought to them.
Third, and while this really applies more to tech-savvy people: Windows represents a security and stability liability which most other operating systems do not.
In other words, by and large, people out there who are switching to a Mac are doing more than merely switching hardware: they're switching OS platforms. The fact that they can run Windows on a Mac is only slightly more of interest to them than is running an x86-based distro of GNU/Linux.
Bottom Line: Apple will appeal to and convert those that they can, and those are the hearts and minds which are the most vital and important anyhow. Let's not forget the relative merits of dummy-dropping. Sometimes, Darwin's theories of Evolution are more satisfyingly applied sociologically than biologically.
AppliedMicro
Jun 21, 05:13 PM
I think a lot of people in here are also looking over the fact that the card reader is on the USB bus.
Where did you get that info from? :confused:
I do not think it's on the USB bus. Evidence: while the card reader does not show up in USB tree in System Profiler whatsoever - even though other internal peripherals, namely Bluetooth controller & Infrared receiver do! - System Profiler provides two very interesting lines for the "card reader":
"Link width: 1x
Maximum speed*: 2.5 GT/s"
This strongly suggests the card reader being connected via PCIe. So the speed may, in practical terms, not be limited by the bus at all. Time - and faster SD cards - should eventually tell how fast it can go.
* or something alike. I cannot look it up right now as my currently booted OS doesn't recognize it at all.
Where did you get that info from? :confused:
I do not think it's on the USB bus. Evidence: while the card reader does not show up in USB tree in System Profiler whatsoever - even though other internal peripherals, namely Bluetooth controller & Infrared receiver do! - System Profiler provides two very interesting lines for the "card reader":
"Link width: 1x
Maximum speed*: 2.5 GT/s"
This strongly suggests the card reader being connected via PCIe. So the speed may, in practical terms, not be limited by the bus at all. Time - and faster SD cards - should eventually tell how fast it can go.
* or something alike. I cannot look it up right now as my currently booted OS doesn't recognize it at all.
Ghibli
Jan 14, 02:11 AM
There ia another HUGE drawback in the decision to have over-the-air maps: the roaming fees. If I travel in my country downloading a map can be a boring stuff but you can live with it (although I have to admit that I would not rely on hoping to have cell service in the area where I have to go), but if you go outside the country downloading anything can really boost your cell fees. Imagine to plan a trip from Milan to M�nich (a 5 hour one, not so long) where you have to download data from (in sequence): Italy, Switzerland, Lichtenstein and Germany cell networks...I imagine that a single trip like this can boost your bit up to several hundreds of Euros...
REALLY BAD!
Not buying this...
REALLY BAD!
Not buying this...
jimsowden
Mar 28, 08:52 AM
Appception
No comments:
Post a Comment