

-----------------------------------

Martin

Sun Apr 24, 2005 10:06 am


Microsoft to launch Windows XP 64 Bit Edition on Monday

-----------------------------------

http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=161501060&tid=5979

About time. It'll be nice to have though, supposedly it'll give a 10% - 20% performance increase.

Anyway, it's a step in the right direction and some food for thought before Longhorn comes out and trounces OSX Nevermind that by this time OS 11'll be out...


-----------------------------------

wtd

Sun Apr 24, 2005 11:05 am



-----------------------------------

Hah!  I'll wager users see, if anything, a performance loss.  Two reasons:

64-bit pointers will basically cut in half the effective cache.
Drivers, drivers, drivers.  The mass of Windows drivers out there now are optimized for the 32-bit version of Windows.

It also means Longhorn will never materialize.  How many codebases does Microsoft now have to maintain?  Windows 2000 Professional, Windows 2000 Server, Windows XP SP1, Windows XP SP2, Windows 2003 Server, Windows CE, Windows CE.NET, the modified Win2k kernel that the Xbox and its successor use, Windows XP Media Center Edition and Windows XP Tablet Edition, and that's just operating systems.  Add Windows XP 64-bit to the mix and that's eleven codebases to develop and maintain, just to make computers turn on.


-----------------------------------

Martin

Sun Apr 24, 2005 11:34 am



-----------------------------------

The Windows XP 64 beta benchmarks showed performance increases with the exception of 3d acceleration, and that was only because they didn't have drivers for it.

Linux nor Apple has had any problems with the transition to 64 bit, so I don't see why Microsoft will. Also, a lot of those codebases overlap. Plus Microsoft is rich as sin, and can always hire more people.


-----------------------------------

wtd

Sun Apr 24, 2005 1:36 pm



-----------------------------------

More people often makes software harder (and slower) to develop.


-----------------------------------

Universal

Sun Apr 24, 2005 3:01 pm



-----------------------------------

alright longhorn. Im still going to use XP though.


-----------------------------------

Martin

Sun Apr 24, 2005 4:30 pm



-----------------------------------

More people often makes software harder (and slower) to develop.

And that changes Microsoft how...? ;)


-----------------------------------

wtd

Sun Apr 24, 2005 4:33 pm



-----------------------------------

More people often makes software harder (and slower) to develop.

And that changes Microsoft how...? ;)

It means that there's only so much their money can do for them.  It can let them bribe people certainly, but it can't make them a better company.


-----------------------------------

Martin

Sun Apr 24, 2005 5:07 pm



-----------------------------------

wtd, Microsoft isn't nearly as bad of a company as you think they are. They've realized the error in their ways, and right now Longhorn is a late attempt to fix that. Regardless of the number of versions of Windows out there, the majority of the development can be done by a small group of people.

They've come to realize that in order to maintain their domination of the computer market they're going to start having to release better software. The .net framework was their first step in the right direction. The problem isn't that Microsoft is incapable of writing good software (look at Visual Studio .net 2003 and Microsoft Office 2003 for example), but rather that they haven't had the need to truely innovate. Right now, with Firefox, Apple and Linux all having breakthroughs in useability over the past year or so, they are finally feeling the need to.

Longhorn the much needed upgrade that they'll be releasing. No, it won't be the be all and end all of operating systems, but I have no doubt that it will be powerful. If the task gets too daunting for them to maintain so many projects, they'll start to drop support for the older ones.


-----------------------------------

rizzix

Sun Apr 24, 2005 6:59 pm



-----------------------------------

ack.. they are simply trying to compete with Apple alone.. (Linux is no where near the technologies that Apple provides).. Apple did make windows look like a horrible, cheap OS, and literally it showed how poor it is in quality, stability and mainly implemented technologies.

Longhorn is basically the "windows OS" with similar technologies present in a mac that was released 2-4 years ago.. As of tiger.. apple has taken a huge leap again. It has surpassed the technologies that microsoft "would implement in Longhorn". 

Linux is no where to be seen as a competable desktop OS. Sure there is Project Looking Glass by Sun,, but that is not OS specific, it runs on Java & OpenGL technology and was designed to "Run Anywhere".


-----------------------------------

Martin

Sun Apr 24, 2005 7:43 pm



-----------------------------------

Fortunately for Microsoft, Windows is much cheaper than OSX.

What don't you like about Windows XP rizzix?


-----------------------------------

wtd

Sun Apr 24, 2005 8:44 pm



-----------------------------------

Fortunately for Microsoft, Windows is much cheaper than OSX.

Really?  $129USD for OS X.  $199USD for Windows XP Pro.  Comparisons to XP Home are inapproriate, as Apple doesn't artificially cripple a version of OS X, as Microsoft does with Windows XP.

What don't you like about Windows XP rizzix?

Well, I'm not rizzix, but...

Lack of respect for open standards.  Microsoft has a huge case of not invented here syndrome that causes them to cook up their own "standards".  Windows Media Audio vs. AAC, for instance.  The later is not simply an Apple-specific technology, but rather an industry standard file format.  Or the Office document formats rather than the Open Document standards OpenOffice 2 implements.  DirectX vs. OpenGL.

Lack of a basic level of security.  Many apps still need to be run as administrator or will not work at all.  This forces users to run with the ability to destroy or sabotage the entire system.  The user system Microsoft has in place is good enough (there's no need to change it for "Longhorn"), but they simply don't use it.  Even as an administrator, the OS should do what OS X does and prompt a user for the admin password everytime system-level access is needed.  No, there should not be a way of turning this off.

As for Microsoft being a bad company, I don't merely speak of their propensity for evil.  They simply can't get the job done competently.  They have no passion.  Oh, sure, individuals within Microsoft may love their work, but he company as a whole has none.  It has no goals, other than maintaining its current empire.  It has no direction.  It's an amoeba trying to move in a thousand different directions at once. These intangible qualities are what Microsoft lacks, and what their greatest competitors (Apple, OSS) have in abundance.


-----------------------------------

rizzix

Sun Apr 24, 2005 8:50 pm



-----------------------------------

oooh well i woudn't know really.. i only use it as my gamming box and for programming at times... but for what i've used it for,, its too sluggish.. and that Explorer hogs too much memory... Sometimes i experience CPU lag within my games (i know this since my ping is low, the the game feels laggy now-and-then).. thats just plain stupid.
 
Besides,, it dosen't have any proper font anti-aliasing, but i think longhorn will fix this.. and its window rendering is soo sluggish, that is at times i see "grey or white (or unrefreshed) areas " now and then within opened windows.. and the explorer does not really resonpond "quickly" either.

it. just. feels. so. bulky. bulky. bulky.

oooh and btw to uninstall an applicaiton at times i need to switch to the admin account and uninstall it.. argh.. in osx i can do it from any account. (sudo)


-----------------------------------

Martin

Sun Apr 24, 2005 9:07 pm



-----------------------------------

Fortunately for Microsoft, Windows is much cheaper than OSX.

Really?  $129USD for OS X.  $199USD for Windows XP Pro.  Comparisons to XP Home are inapproriate, as Apple doesn't artificially cripple a version of OS X, as Microsoft does with Windows XP.

That's not a fair point. Macs start at $630. PC's at much less.


-----------------------------------

rizzix

Sun Apr 24, 2005 9:09 pm



-----------------------------------

what? are you trying to imply something.. cuz if not.. i dont think you understood his point. :wink:


-----------------------------------

Martin

Sun Apr 24, 2005 9:22 pm



-----------------------------------

I don't see why OpenGL should be considered the standard over DirectX. People seem to like DirectX more.

And rizzix, I'm saying that Macs are more expensive than PC's. There's no argument there.


-----------------------------------

wtd

Sun Apr 24, 2005 9:58 pm



-----------------------------------

I don't see why OpenGL should be considered the standard over DirectX. People seem to like DirectX more.

Because it's an open standard.  No one company can dramatically alter OpenGL and then say to the rest of the computing world that it's tough bananas if they don't like it.

And rizzix, I'm saying that Macs are more expensive than PC's. There's no argument there.

Yes, there is.  Aside from the fact that we were talking about the software itself (boxed Windows is significantly more expensive than boxed Mac OS X), Macs are generally less expensive than comparable machines from other respected brands.  The economics are a bit more complex, of course, but on the whole they're less expensive.


-----------------------------------

Martin

Sun Apr 24, 2005 11:56 pm



-----------------------------------

Take the PC that I'm building. It costs about $1250 with a 17" LCD.

Take off the monitor and add a copy of XP pro and let's assume that the cost will remain relatively unchanged. So, for $1250, what Apple computer would get me more bang for my buck?


-----------------------------------

wtd

Mon Apr 25, 2005 12:06 am



-----------------------------------

Take the PC that I'm building.

I did specify a PC from a major manufacturer.  ;)


-----------------------------------

Martin

Mon Apr 25, 2005 12:08 am



-----------------------------------

Hey, this is like the 5th computer that I'll have built. When do I count as major?

Besides, if we're talking major manufacturers, they all suck. Except Vodoo PC...anyone who lets you custom build a $40,000 PC with a custom paint job is good in my books. And they're Canadian.


-----------------------------------

wtd

Mon Apr 25, 2005 12:14 am



-----------------------------------

When you ship 5.4 million PCs a year.  And with those kinds of shipments, Apple's only the 5th largest manufacturer in North America.


-----------------------------------

Martin

Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:31 am



-----------------------------------

To anyone with Windows XP Professional wishing to upgrade to Windows XP x64:
http://microsoft.productorder.com/clientx64/

Microsoft is providing an exchange for only $12 US.

According to a few reviews that I've read, the performance jump in games is absolutely incredible. Both nVidia and ATI have released 64 bit versions of their drivers.


-----------------------------------

Amailer

Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:05 pm



-----------------------------------

If I remember correctly- if you had MAC OS 9 something you could get OS X for free :S


-----------------------------------

wtd

Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:50 pm



-----------------------------------

If I remember correctly- if you had MAC OS 9 something you could get OS X for free :S

Apple's typical policy is that if you buy a Mac right before (usually a few weeks) a new version of OS X is released, they'll give you the new one (the full kit) for free (though you pay for S&H).


-----------------------------------

Martin

Tue Apr 26, 2005 7:31 am



-----------------------------------

Take the PC that I'm building.

I did specify a PC from a major manufacturer.  ;)

Okay. For under $1000 US before tax, with no monitor, find me a better Mac than this:
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=1188787&CatId=0


-----------------------------------

Mazer

Tue Apr 26, 2005 7:59 am



-----------------------------------

Looking at the case, does anybody else get the idea that there should be an anime character with a sword standing behind it with his back to us, and a group of people standing all around looking completely shocked?


-----------------------------------

Martin

Tue Apr 26, 2005 8:19 am



-----------------------------------

Hah yeah, I'd have to agree that is the ugliest case I have seen in a while.


-----------------------------------

wtd

Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:21 am



-----------------------------------

Ok, I did mention there were details about the opriving situation, and this shows one of them quite well.  Apple has upgrade cycles that are more in line with the rest of the consumer electronics industry than the PC industry.  Whereas it's usually 6-9 months between Mac updates, Wintel manufacurers are continually making much smaller, incremental upgrades.

This means a few things:

Macs are very good deals at the beginning of their upgrade cycle.  Less so toward the end of that cycle.  With trade shows coming up, it looks like we're due for a slew of updates soon.
Most Wintel manufacturers are destroying themselves because many many models means inventory hell.  I mean, imagine a business where, before one product line has even hit the shelves in most retail outlets, it's been surpassed by the next model.  To sell the previous model at all and clear it out of the channel you have to have price cuts, even to the point of taking a loss.  Steve Jobs saw this when he came back o Apple and cut everything down to just 3 or 4 product lines.

Apple conquers this by tightly controlling its retail presence, having long upgrade cycles, and sometimes artificially limiting supply to build demand so that units sell faster.

Dell conquers this by having no retail presence at all, and by using largely indistinguishable machines that can easily be customized on the fly.

The rest... well... they haven't conquered it at all, and it will kill them, eventually.
Macs have (much) higher resale value.  People don't protest paying for a Mac if they know they can sell it for nearly what it cost them in a year's time and put that money toward a new Mac.

Consider the two scenarios over the course of five years.  Let's say I buy a 20" iMac G5.  I sell it after a year for a $100USD loss.  I buy an uprated version of the same thing for the same price I paid originally.  I do the same 3 more times, each time losing $100.  At the end I have a fairly new machine, with specs that are likely far more impressive than where I started.

Now, on the Wintel side, I buy the Sony and a decent monitor to accompany it.  I hold onto it for five years because it doesn't hold resale and I don't want to take a bath on it.  Plus, it's a decent machine and I don't want to part with it.  At the end of five years I'm left with a $1000USD machine that's basically worthless due to the commodity nature of the Wintel marketplace (systems like that will be everywhere in 5 years).  The monitor's probably not in that great a shape either (LCDs aren't forever).

The Mac guy or gal is out $400 and has a year old computer.  The Sony guy's out ~$1000 and has a five year old computer.  Which is more expensive?


-----------------------------------

md

Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:29 am



-----------------------------------

It's also a piss poor computer; the only good things about it are that it has 1gb or memory standard, and two 250gb drives; the rest is rather shoddy

Why doesn't it have a p4 3.6? Why such a crappy sound card (one that is actually mostly software driven...)? Why not the latest generation of video card? Why no gigabit lan? It's a decent computer but not anywhere near the specs you'd think... but then it IS < $1000...


-----------------------------------

Martin

Tue Apr 26, 2005 12:37 pm



-----------------------------------

It has a Radeon 9800 pro. That's a pretty fast video card.

What I am getting from your statement is that it's a good thing to create artificial demand (hey, look at how well the diamond market is doing) and keep the prices artificially high.

I've never had any trouble selling my year or two old computers for decent prices.

And Cornflake, I was comparing it to a Mac. It easily outpaces any Mac in its price bracket.

Oka, suppose that that computer has what I need: enough ram to run my memory intensive applications, a lot of disk space and a DirectX 9 capable video card.

Now ignoring resale value for now, with cost not being an issue, what Apple computer would you recommend as having comparable specs?


-----------------------------------

wtd

Tue Apr 26, 2005 12:50 pm



-----------------------------------

What I am getting from your statement is that it's a good thing to create artificial demand

In many cases, yes, it's been good for all involved, save perhaps third parties selling Macs in the retail environment.  Here's the logic:

If you seel something in retail at all, and Apple does, then the killer is inventory management.  If I have 100,000 iMacs sitting in a warehouse and I release a new version of the iMac, then those machines just became a liability.  Now I either won't be able to sell them at all, or I'll have to discount them heavily and take a loss.  The latter has the added detriment of adding lower-cost hardware to the market, reducing the appeal of the new offerings.

Having planned supply shortages helps with this.  If I'm behind schedule, that's not necessarily good, but it also means I'm not doing any more work than necessary.  :)

Along the lines of the first point, the lack of Apple as a major seller of older machines at discounted prices opens that up for customers.  Want to know where to look for good deals on Apple equipment?  eBay.  This way the income from that market goes to people likely to buy new Macs.  Apple would rather sell a new machine than a refurbished one.

And lastly, artificial supply shortages have a physhological impact.  They create demand for Apple's products.  If you see four people crowded around a display iMac G5 at a store, it draws most people more than a display of 20 Wintel PCs with 4 people checking them out.


-----------------------------------

Martin

Tue Apr 26, 2005 12:55 pm



-----------------------------------

I looked on Apple's website, and the most comparable model is the Apple G5 with a single 1.8GHz processor, upgraded to have a Radeon 9600XT (slightly worse than the 9800 pro, but the only other choice was the 6800 Ultra which costs twice as much as a 9800). I upgraded it to have 1GB of ram and 2 x 250GB hard drives. The subtotal: $2,299.00 US.

So there, we have a comparable Mac at 2.5 times the price of the PC.


-----------------------------------

wtd

Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:02 pm



-----------------------------------

Actually you have a significantly better system.  The PowerMac is unrivaled for ease of use, and I'm just talking about the case itself.

Also, get the extra hard drives and RAM elsewhere.  This is a perfectly legitimate thing to do, and it bypasses Apple's rather pricy upgrades.

But seriously, the PowerMac is a much better machine.  It's more reliable, ad just generally better balanced (all of its parts work better together, with fewer bottlenecks).  The Sony system isn't even close to being a match in these matters, so it's apples (no pun intended) to oranges.


-----------------------------------

Martin

Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:12 pm



-----------------------------------

But doing that will void your warrenty. And the PowerMac is still more expensive.

I don't think that Macs are bad computers. As Tony said :

A Beamer will run you $200,000. A WRX STi will run you $60,000 and beat the Beamer in a race no problem. So does that mean that nobody should buy Beamers? Of course not. It means that when you buy a Beamer, you are getting something more than just power. You are buying style and the social status that owning it affords.

If you want to buy the best bang for your buck computer that you can, then an Apple computer is not for you, just like if you want to buy the fastest car you can a Beamer isn't for you. When you buy an Apple, you are paying for the prestige (which is the same reason that, even though they only may have $100,000 worth of hardware in them, Beamers will sell for twice that). You are paying for the little gray Apple logo on the case.

Apple isn't a perfect company. They are catering to a specific niche in the market that for the most part hasn't been filled by any other company. They are selling luxury computers, and with that comes a luxury price tag.


-----------------------------------

wtd

Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:28 pm



-----------------------------------

But doing that will void your warrenty. And the PowerMac is still more expensive.

No, it won't.  

You're falling for the old myth.  Macs are not luxury computers, and they're not more expensive.  The fact that Windows is the Yugo of the computing world and Linux the GM perhaps, doesn't make Apple, as the VW of the computing world, a luxury brand.

Compare a Mac to a PC and compare hardware and software.  Match the iLife suite.  I guarantee it'll come out to an extra $300 or so.  Add a completely unlimited OS with all of the standard Unix (client and server) tools, first-rate support, completely free (and also unlimited) GUI development tools, and access to things like Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop, Macromedia DreamWeaver, etc. without cheesy emulation.  Get all of that with no virus/spyware/adware concerns.  Oh, and get all of that out of the box.


-----------------------------------

Martin

Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:34 pm



-----------------------------------

What if I want to use Linux? Would you still recommend buying a Mac?

EDIT: I use LaTeX as my main word processor, and I am more than happy with it. It's free, but I would be more than willing to fork over $200 for it. Others probably do not feel the same.

Now, let's just ignore the software for a minute. Software is very much subjective and, although I'll agree that OSX is a hell of a lot nicer than Windows XP, putting a subjective dollar value to it isn't fair.

So, purely on the hardware that you get for the price you pay, nobody thinks that they're getting the best deal out there. You said it yourself: upgrades for Apple computers are rediculously expensive. This is where the software comes in, and that's what you are paying for. Although it comes in a box, like Microsoft I imagine that the majority of the money that Apple makes from OSX comes from computers shipped with it preinstalled, and it's up to you to determine what it's worth to you.

If you think it's worth the markup, then great, buy a Mac. I don't (now, I don't think Windows is worth it either though, I just didn't think it would be fair to compare free software with non free software).


-----------------------------------

wtd

Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:59 pm



-----------------------------------

What if I want to use Linux? Would you still recommend buying a Mac?

Yes.  Of course, I wouldn't object as strongly as I would if you were planning to use Windows.

Now, let's just ignore the software for a minute. Software is very much subjective and, although I'll agree that OSX is a hell of a lot nicer than Windows XP, putting a subjective dollar value to it isn't fair.

There's nothing subjective about it.  The iLife suite has comparable equivalents on the Wintel side of things, and they have concrete prices.

You said it yourself: upgrades for Apple computers are rediculously expensive. This is where the software comes in, and that's what you are paying for. Although it comes in a box, like Microsoft I imagine that the majority of the money that Apple makes from OSX comes from computers shipped with it preinstalled, and it's up to you to determine what it's worth to you.

If you think it's worth the markup, then great, buy a Mac. I don't (now, I don't think Windows is worth it either though, I just didn't think it would be fair to compare free software with non free software).

No, upgrades for Macs from Apple are expensive.  But they use pretty much standard stuff, so you can buy your extra RAM elsewhere.

The software I'm talking about that comes with a Mac isn't free.  You're paying for it.  Therefore, when you inspect the price of a Mac, subtract the value of the software to see how much you're paying for the hardware.  

Think about it this way: take two otherwise equivalent Wintel machines.  One comes with Windows XP Home.  The other comes preinstalled with Windows 2003 Server and a 25 seat license and is $2000 more expensive.  (Assuming you want a Widnows setup) Are you paying too much for the latter?


-----------------------------------

Martin

Tue Apr 26, 2005 2:14 pm



-----------------------------------

What if I want to use Linux? Would you still recommend buying a Mac?

Yes.  Of course, I wouldn't object as strongly as I would if you were planning to use Windows.

:D

What I was aiming at was that the plan was to wipe off the software off completely and install Linux, thus eliminating the better software issue. Another (not fair) reason that I would buy a PC over a Mac is that Microsoft sends me copies of their software (Visual Studio, Office, Windows) for free, which has an obvious advantage. So let's put the software aside. There is no iLife '05 for Windows, so we can't say that $80 US is a better deal than its Windows equivalent.

So that's the plan: Linux. Why should I buy a Mac over a PC? My custom built computers sell for what I paid for them about 6 months after the fact.


-----------------------------------

wtd

Tue Apr 26, 2005 2:20 pm



-----------------------------------

Linux runs quite well on PowerPC machines, since it isn't burdened by ancient BIOS requirements.


-----------------------------------

Martin

Tue Apr 26, 2005 2:23 pm



-----------------------------------

I never said it didn't. What Mac would approximately match the power of the pc I'm building (forget about the price) on Linux?


-----------------------------------

rizzix

Tue Apr 26, 2005 2:26 pm



-----------------------------------

G5s... with Tiger.

and then there's xGrid (comes preinstalled with tiger), so if u have a network of mac computers.. thats a boost in performance right there..


-----------------------------------

Martin

Tue Apr 26, 2005 2:39 pm



-----------------------------------

What G5? And we're talking about installing Linux. I doubt that a single 1.8GHz powerPC is faster than an AMD64 3200+, but for arguement's sake let's just say that it is. Take off the monitor of mine and it's about $1000.

Okay, show time:
1.8GHz G5:  $1900
80GB HD = $80 (the G5 comes with one 80GB already. My comp has one 160GB drive in it)
1GB Dual Channel Ram = $150
nVidia 6600GT = $250

Total: $2380. Hmm...vs $1000...

Now, once again, I have no doubt the G5's a nice computer, but DEFINATELY not going to outperform my computer by that much, if at all.


-----------------------------------

rizzix

Tue Apr 26, 2005 2:45 pm



-----------------------------------

i was talking about the dual 2.5 ghz.. btw.. i thought we are not talking about price here.. besides Tiger on a number of networked Dual G5s with [url=http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/xgrid/]xgrid ON.. is the way to go for "performance"


-----------------------------------

Martin

Tue Apr 26, 2005 2:51 pm



-----------------------------------

And we come back to the point I've been making all along: Macs are luxury computers. No, not to the point of Beamers or Vipers, but they are still luxury computers.

The top of the line G5 is a beautiful piece of hardware, and I have no doubt that it's rock solid and runs like lightning. I also imagine that the majority of people who own them are quite happy with their purchase.

There isn't $4000 worth of hardware and software in it though.


-----------------------------------

wtd

Tue Apr 26, 2005 3:56 pm



-----------------------------------

Let's say this: if you equip a Wintel PC to be truly equivalent on both hardware and software, then it will be less expensive.  If you really need power above all else, you'll likely need software to take advantage of that power, and the best place for the vast majority of that power is Mac OS X.  Windows and Linux just can't match the polish of these apps, and "polish" means less time futzing with the interface.

This is really a critical point.  The biggest bottleneck is the keyboard  chair interface.  If you spend 3 seconds hunting for a button in a bad interface, that's something like 6 billion clock cycles gone.

Of course, there are places where you'll want pure number-crunching power.  Gaming, 3D rendering/modelling, and that's pretty much it.  You talk about getting rid of Windows, so it doesn't sound like gaming is a big concern.  Therefore I can only assume you're calculating Pi to the millionth decimal place or something.  :)


-----------------------------------

Martin

Tue Apr 26, 2005 4:05 pm



-----------------------------------

The plan is to set up a Windows (for games) and linux (for everything else, mostly coding) dual boot.

I agree with you entirely, which is why apps like vi and LaTeX work so well with me. The time it takes to move your hand from the keyboard to the mouse is wasted time.


-----------------------------------

wtd

Tue Apr 26, 2005 4:15 pm



-----------------------------------

I think you'd really appreciate the Mac's approach to this, actually.  One aspect of the single button mouse tha doesn't get much attention is that instead of multiple buttons on the mouse, you use modifier keys on the keyboard.  The modifier keys sit on either side of the keyboard, so you use one hand on the keyboard and one hand on the mouse.  Really quite efficient.


-----------------------------------

Paul

Tue Apr 26, 2005 4:17 pm



-----------------------------------

Maybe its because I've gotten used to PC's (its the only kind of machine that I've ever owned) but I rather like the multiple buttons,  you can lean back and only use your mouse for things :)


-----------------------------------

wtd

Tue Apr 26, 2005 4:21 pm



-----------------------------------

Maybe its because I've gotten used to PC's (its the only kind of machine that I've ever owned) but I rather like the multiple buttons,  you can lean back and only use your mouse for things :)

Well, yeah... you can plug your multi-button USB mouse into a Mac and it'll work seamlessly.


-----------------------------------

jrok311

Sat Apr 30, 2005 11:27 pm


directx

-----------------------------------

Who are you kidding, nobody likes directx.


-----------------------------------

md

Sun May 01, 2005 3:12 pm



-----------------------------------

Who are you kidding, nobody likes directx.DirectX actually has a much cleaner interface for writing programs then OpenGL... personally I prefer DirectX to OpenGL, so your quite wrong...


-----------------------------------

wtd

Sun May 01, 2005 3:24 pm



-----------------------------------

Who are you kidding, nobody likes directx.DirectX actually has a much cleaner interface for writing programs then OpenGL... personally I prefer DirectX to OpenGL, so your quite wrong...

Well, it's a bit of an unfair comparison.  OpenGL itself is designed to be rather low-level, leaving room for others to come in and develop higher-level APIs with greater abstraction on top of it.  DirectX is much more of a "finished" product, but tha comes at a cost for at least some people.

I suspect the previous post meant ActiveX, which is quite rightfully reviled.


-----------------------------------

arnoct

Sun May 01, 2005 4:17 pm



-----------------------------------

People are saying that a mac is more expensive because of the software...

So where can I buy a mac without any software with it?


-----------------------------------

wtd

Sun May 01, 2005 4:46 pm



-----------------------------------

People are saying that a mac is more expensive because of the software...

So where can I buy a mac without any software with it?

You can't.  You can buy the software separately, though.


-----------------------------------

rizzix

Sun May 01, 2005 6:54 pm



-----------------------------------

Who are you kidding, nobody likes directx.DirectX actually has a much cleaner interface for writing programs then OpenGL... personally I prefer DirectX to OpenGL, so your quite wrong... Does it really? I find OpenGL the cleaner solution.


-----------------------------------

Martin

Mon May 02, 2005 1:06 pm



-----------------------------------

For powerful hardware accelerated 3d graphics, it doesn't get any cleaner than DirectX 9 on C#.


-----------------------------------

arnoct

Mon May 02, 2005 6:30 pm



-----------------------------------

People are saying that a mac is more expensive because of the software...

So where can I buy a mac without any software with it?

You can't.  You can buy the software separately, though.

"The only reason this car is more expensive is because it has side impact airbags. That's why it costs more. You can't buy the car without the airbags, but it's only more expensive because of them."

It's still more expensive. Just because it has software with it doesn't make it seem any cheaper.


-----------------------------------

Maverick

Sun May 08, 2005 9:02 pm



-----------------------------------

As much as people associated with computers may dislike microsoft, that really wont change anything. Linux is far too complicated to install and use for a regular computer user who knows S*** all about how to use them, although MAC's are gaining in popularity. Microsoft is easy to use for a regular user wheras other OS aren't.


-----------------------------------

wtd

Sun May 08, 2005 9:36 pm



-----------------------------------

Microsoft is easy to use for a regular user wheras other OS aren't.

Windows is easy to use?  

Having to install tons of extra software just so you can somewhat safely access the internet?  Getting a web browser, e-mail program, (limited) instant messenger, and text editor, and having to go out and download or buy everything else, and take chances on getting spyware-laced crap?  Having to be administrator to run many simple apps?  Having no decent support for web standards without installing a 3rd party web browser?

That doesn't sound very user-friendly to me.  

Heck, even the install isn't very friendly.  Having to reboot several times and prove to Microsoft that you're allowed to install the OS?  How's that easy?


-----------------------------------

Martin

Sun May 08, 2005 11:02 pm



-----------------------------------

The only thing that Windows has going for it is that it's the industry standard. Microsoft holds all of the standards: the standard web-browser, the standard document types, the standard 3d graphics libraries.

Whether they can hold that up, time will tell.

It's kind of strange: it seems that Windows is the only thing that Microsoft can't get right. They've done an amazing job with Office, the XBox, and created an unparalleled development environment (finally) and resources. Windows is still stuck in the 'meh' stage.


-----------------------------------

wtd

Mon May 09, 2005 2:20 am



-----------------------------------

And the problem with those is that they're de facto standards.  This is a double-edged sword.  On one hand, it means Microsoft holds all of the cards.  But holding all of the cards is a liability too.  It means nobody is on your side.

Apple, the various Linux distros... they've realized the value of having someone on their side.  Consider Apple with Safari.  They took the KHTML rendering engine and built on it to create the WebKit API and most noticeably the Safari web browser.   They contributed back their improvements to the codebase, and in turn they get to use further improvements made to the general codebase.

No one is helping Microsoft improve the MSHTML rendering engine.  No one is helping MS make a better Office document format, or improve compatibility between Office versions.  No one's helping make their filesystem better.


-----------------------------------

Martin

Mon May 09, 2005 8:50 am



-----------------------------------

The thing is that Microsoft really doesn't need the help. If they make a funny file format, people will slave for hours and hours trying to reverse engineer it for compatability. If Apple did the same thing, people would tell them to piss off and make it easier to use.

Now, I'm not saying that it's the right thing for them to do, but only that they can (and do) do it and get away with it. If Microsoft knows anything, it's how to retain their market share.


-----------------------------------

wtd

Mon May 09, 2005 9:21 am



-----------------------------------

Ah, but their own dominance is working against them these days.  They try to make a funny new file format, and a huge number of people say, "ok, now make it work with Word 97, because I'm not upgrading."

And if they can't make it work with Word 97, or worse, their new fancy-pants version of Word doesn't quite open Word 97 documents correctly, there's one more reason to consider an alternative.


-----------------------------------

Martin

Mon May 09, 2005 1:17 pm



-----------------------------------

I hardly think that Microsoft cares about people using 8 year old versions of Word. As for current versions opening previous ones, Office has no problems (as far as I know).

Here's what the competitors of Microsoft's biggest problem is: everyone uses Windows. You have the corporation, already on Windows. They've got say 1000 computers, and they need to upgrade 100 of them. They need them to be compatable with their current software, so they choose Microsoft again. Sure, there are alternatives, but when you buy Microsoft, you have a guarentee that it will work with other Microsoft products. With that, you also have access to tech support from Microsoft.

That's what one of Apple's problems is: their computers are too expensive and specialized for widespread corporate use. For your graphic artists working with Photoshop all day, sure, buy them G5's, but for the 99% of other employees, Apple doesn't offer anything that Microsoft doesn't.

Microsoft finally has the security thing down for the most part, and I imagine that Longhorn (codename SP3) will address the spyware and virus issues. And then, once again, Microsoft holds all of the cards.


-----------------------------------

Maverick

Mon May 09, 2005 2:09 pm



-----------------------------------

No one is helping Microsoft improve the MSHTML rendering engine.  No one is helping MS make a better Office document format, or improve compatibility between Office versions.  No one's helping make their filesystem better.

Microsoft is one of the biggest and richest companies in the wworld. It hardly seems that they need help.


-----------------------------------

rizzix

Mon May 09, 2005 5:05 pm



-----------------------------------

apples is more open-standards compliant... they help the opensource community, and in return the opensource community helps them.. actually apple was hopeing for all unix geeks to tinker around with macs (yea and it kinda worked here.. a lot of them bought macs)!

It also aimed for the common windows market.. and it did a fair job.. i mean actually they did an excellent job, but windows users are too stupid to change.. they believe they are in utopia (m$ brainwasing, or entrapment?).. so yea.. *shurgs* whatever..

Quality wise, apple products are beyond comarison. Even the m$ products for macintosh are far superior to that of windows. why? cuz the mac-business-unit of microsoft said it themselves: "they love the mac os, it is quality, developing for it is ... fun" (of course not exactly those words,, but around those lines, anywyz).

So please don't bs about apple computers being expensive,, think of it as a package: the computer & the software as one. This package is called the "macintosh", and it is very much worth the price. You dont get quality stuff for cheap.


-----------------------------------

Martin

Mon May 09, 2005 6:36 pm



-----------------------------------

No, Apple's business model simply sucks, and it's not because of people being afraid of change. In the business world, people aren't afraid of change; in fact the opposite is true: competition is fierce, and if one can get a competitive advantage they'll take it.

Windows has worked for corporations in the past and continues to work. They see no reason to switch to anything else. Apple offers an alternative, but it's too expensive to get decent hardware from them. Dell realizes this, and that's why they are the largest computer manufacturer in the world. Apple doesn't (or at least hasn't done anything about this), and that's why they have a commanding 2.5% of the global computer market.

Look at it like this: I'm a company, and I need to buy 1000 computers. They need a lot of processing power, 1GB of ram each, monitors and 120GB of storage each. Apple solutions start at $2630, plus I have to buy a monitor from another retailer (or spend $1000 on a 20" one).

Dell solutions for similar power start at $1500 with a 17" LCD monitor, plus Dell scales the price down significantly with the order size.

Now, with that in mind, we are spending either $1 500* 1000 = $1 500 000. For the macs, assuming an additional $350 for a monitor from a third party, we're spending $2 980 * 1000 = $2 980 000 ... almost twice the price.

What benefit does one get (specifics) for spending the extra $1.5 million?


-----------------------------------

rizzix

Mon May 09, 2005 6:53 pm



-----------------------------------

you can actually buy it in bulk from apple (i'm quite sure,,, but you'd still have to double check) its it is much cheaper than buying individual computers..


-----------------------------------

Martin

Mon May 09, 2005 6:55 pm



-----------------------------------

You can do the same with Dell. I didn't include either.


-----------------------------------

rizzix

Mon May 09, 2005 8:32 pm



-----------------------------------

yea soo.. buy bulk gee...


-----------------------------------

Maverick

Mon May 09, 2005 8:36 pm



-----------------------------------

He didnt include bulk prices for either, so The Dell would stil be far cheaper


-----------------------------------

rizzix

Mon May 09, 2005 10:43 pm



-----------------------------------

maybe but not all that significantly cheaper...


-----------------------------------

Martin

Tue May 10, 2005 12:15 am



-----------------------------------

Yes it will be, and without any actual figures, the best thing that we can do is ignore that variable. I know for a fact that Dell is rediculously cheap when you make big orders from them, but I have no idea about Apple.

And there's really no arguement that Apple's business model sucks. They make better and easier to use software (supposedly) than Microsoft, but their stock is shakey and they have a tiny slice of the global market share.


-----------------------------------

wtd

Tue May 10, 2005 12:21 am



-----------------------------------

they have a tiny slice of the global market share.

Ah, but Apple is a hardware company primarily, so comparing them to Microsoft as a business is fairly inaccurate.  As it is, compared to other single hardware companies, Apple has a good-sized share.  I mean, there are a gazillion different companies making personal computers and servers.

As for their stock... Apple's has been rising pretty steadily (with some market corrections), while Microsoft's stock is flat-lined.


-----------------------------------

Naveg

Tue May 10, 2005 6:39 am



-----------------------------------

they have a tiny slice of the global market share.

Ah, but Apple is a hardware company primarily, so comparing them to Microsoft as a business is fairly inaccurate.  As it is, compared to other single hardware companies, Apple has a good-sized share.  I mean, there are a gazillion different companies making personal computers and servers.

As for their stock... Apple's has been rising pretty steadily (with some market corrections), while Microsoft's stock is flat-lined.

thats not true, the only parts apple makes themselves are the mainboards and ROM chips. Everything else is third party.


-----------------------------------

wtd

Tue May 10, 2005 10:23 am



-----------------------------------

they have a tiny slice of the global market share.

Ah, but Apple is a hardware company primarily, so comparing them to Microsoft as a business is fairly inaccurate.  As it is, compared to other single hardware companies, Apple has a good-sized share.  I mean, there are a gazillion different companies making personal computers and servers.

As for their stock... Apple's has been rising pretty steadily (with some market corrections), while Microsoft's stock is flat-lined.

thats not true, the only parts apple makes themselves are the mainboards and ROM chips. Everything else is third party.

The same is true of most PC "manufacturers".  I sincerely doubt Apple actually makes the motherboards as well.  They design them, probably with input from IBM and Freescale, as well as AMD where it concerns the Airport Base Station, but building such things in massive quantities is where other companies specialize.  :)


-----------------------------------

Maverick

Tue May 10, 2005 2:06 pm



-----------------------------------

As for their stock... Apple's has been rising pretty steadily (with some market corrections), while Microsoft's stock is flat-lined.

Last I checked, both stocks have been falling, so you are wrong about that.


-----------------------------------

wtd

Tue May 10, 2005 2:12 pm



-----------------------------------

Falling very recently relative to explosive growth.  This is basically just the market correcting itself, but their stock price has still greatly increased in value over the last few years.  Keep in mind also that they had a two-for-one split around February.

