Alaska Darin Posted February 3, 2005 Posted February 3, 2005 The innovation to make PC's easier to use came from Apple's Macintosh computer back in the early 80's. Gates tricked Steven Jobs into giving him the source code for the "Windows" concept, and developed his own OS using it. Since that was Apple's shtick and because Korea was churning out cheap IBM PC clones, Windows took off and Apple took a nosedive when people realized it was cheaper to get a clone and the software than a name brand like Apple. A TV today having an "equivalent" form 8 years ago is like saying the wheel is "equivalent" to a Mercedes. Hell if you look at that 36" Sony and compare it to its price when it first came out, it's probably $3000 cheaper now. 226726[/snapback] Really? The truck I bought 6 years ago was $15K cheaper than similiarly equipped versions were last week. The comparison I made was as valid as the PC comparison - though the PC is 1/3rd the price of its "bitchin" predecessor. This concept isn't difficult. I know all about how Microsoft came to play. They are a marketing machine. They continue to kick Netware's ass all over the planet in the directory services world despite having a product that is at least 6 YEARS inferior (eternity in the tech world).
Moose Posted February 3, 2005 Author Posted February 3, 2005 Steve Jobs exudes cool with his visionary leadership at Apple and Pixar. If you have any doubt, just watch a Macworld Expo keynote address. He's a "rock star" in both the tech and entertainment worlds. (Oh, and he's also a billionaire.) Bill Gates is the richest man in the world, but that can't buy him one measly ounce of "cool" - nor can it make him a visionary. If you want to know what's going to be on your PC tomorrow, look at a Mac today. BTW, what is the ETA of Longhorn... 2010?
Moose Posted February 3, 2005 Author Posted February 3, 2005 As an aside, I work in a mixed shop (some OSX, lotsa XP) and as a professional, I'd say XP is FAR easier to manage than OSX. 226494[/snapback] Please be more specific - what do you mean by "easier to manage"??? I'm curious because I "manage" over 230 computers running Mac OS X, and most of it I can do right from the computer on my desk. This includes imaging a hard drive via netboot, updating software, and observing or taking control or screen sharing of remote computers anywhere in the building. What exactly is it that is "unmanageable" about your OS X machines? What, specifically, can you do to manage your XP computers that you can't manage with your OS X ones?
Fezmid Posted February 3, 2005 Posted February 3, 2005 Bill Gates is the richest man in the world, but that can't buy him one measly ounce of "cool" - nor can it make him a visionary. Actually, that flip-flops between him and Larry Ellison (CEO of Oracle, and Peoplesoft now too I suppose). It all depends on whose stock is doing better at the time. Havn't checked in awhile, but it's probably Gates now. Please be more specific - what do you mean by "easier to manage"??? I'm curious because I "manage" over 230 computers running Mac OS X, and most of it I can do right from the computer on my desk. This includes imaging a hard drive via netboot, updating software, and observing or taking control or screen sharing of remote computers anywhere in the building. What exactly is it that is "unmanageable" about your OS X machines? What, specifically, can you do to manage your XP computers that you can't manage with your OS X ones? Yeah, Apple had to go steal from a REAL OS. UNIX all the way. (you just *knew* I was going to say *something,* right? ). CW
MadBuffaloDisease Posted February 3, 2005 Posted February 3, 2005 Really? The truck I bought 6 years ago was $15K cheaper than similiarly equipped versions were last week. The examples were computers and TV's. Hell include ALL electronics if you wish. Cars are a different story. When any electronic good comes out, it's at the highest it will ever be price-wise. After even just a few months the price comes down significantly, because more competition comes out and newer technology is ready to come out and supplant it. Microsoft HAS no real competition, and if you want to talk about "equivalent" and not the proper term of "more advanced," Windows XP is about 3X more expensive than Windows '98 was. But again, take a look at TV prices in your local paper over the next few weeks and see the same TV come down in price. It's an easy concept.
Moose Posted February 3, 2005 Author Posted February 3, 2005 Yeah, Apple had to go steal from a REAL OS. UNIX all the way. (you just *knew* I was going to say *something,* right? ). CW 226766[/snapback] Of course, you know that Apple hasn't stolen UNIX; it just saw the wisdom of tapping into a robust, secure and open OS with legions of devotees and programmers. I know that you are a super-brilliant guy, CW, and I look forward to the day when you get a Mac of your own with which you can tinker with its UNIX underpinnings. On that day, my friend, the Sun will shine brighter than you ever thought possible and you, too, will become a Mac aficionado! Halleluiah! Amen and Amen!
Fezmid Posted February 3, 2005 Posted February 3, 2005 Of course, you know that Apple hasn't stolen UNIX; it just saw the wisdom of taping into a robust, secure and open OS with legions of devotees and programmers. I know that you are a super-brilliant guy, CW, and I look forward to the day when you get a Mac of your own with which you can tinker with its UNIX underpinnings. On that day, my friend, the Sun will shine brighter than you ever thought possible and you, too, will become a Mac aficionado! Halleluiah! Amen and Amen! 226779[/snapback] Good answer! Seriously though, I'd probably consider a Mac if not for three issues: 1) I already bought video editing software for my PC. 2) I need a PC to connect via VPN to my company 3) They're more stable, but they cost more... However, if I have some extra money later in the year, I might spring for a Mac Mini to tinker around with. I know that I'm the target market for those things, Jobs just trying to lure people to his side. CW
Fezmid Posted February 3, 2005 Posted February 3, 2005 UNIX is open source.OSX is UNIX with a GUI. I wouldn't call it stealing.It's pretty smart if you ask me.... 226782[/snapback] I was just giving Gina a hard time. UNIX isn't open source; Free/Net/OpenBSD is (and I think OSX is FreeBSD underneath, but Gina can correct me if I'm wrong), but there are plenty of UNIX implementations that aren't - Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, SCO, etc. I knew what you meant, but thought I'd clarify for those who didn't. UNIX has a GUI too BTW -- XWindows. There's even people currently working on making an OSX skin for X which is kinda cool. It's pretty functional too from what I can tell. I still just use CDE though... Cos I havn't been motivated enough to change. CW
Moose Posted February 3, 2005 Author Posted February 3, 2005 Good answer! Seriously though, I'd probably consider a Mac if not for three issues: 1) I already bought video editing software for my PC. 2) I need a PC to connect via VPN to my company 3) They're more stable, but they cost more... However, if I have some extra money later in the year, I might spring for a Mac Mini to tinker around with. I know that I'm the target market for those things, Jobs just trying to lure people to his side. CW 226784[/snapback] 1) How much did that video editing software cost you? Some pretty good stuff comes FREE (via iLife) on every Mac. Gotta take that into account. Most users don't need more than iMovie and iDVD, but if you're into the real pro stuff, Apple is the undisputed ruler of this domain. 2) Is that something you could do via virtual PC? [not sure] If not - hey, I'm not saying the Mac should totally replace your current computer that does the mundane things you need to do. 3) They do cost more, but their "lifespan" is considerably longer than the average PC. As always, you get what you pay for. (BTW, Macs have never been more affordable than they are today.)
Alaska Darin Posted February 3, 2005 Posted February 3, 2005 The examples were computers and TV's. Hell include ALL electronics if you wish. Cars are a different story. When any electronic good comes out, it's at the highest it will ever be price-wise. 226773[/snapback] Yes, but the newer technology in televisions is more expensive than the technology it replaces. The same can't be said with PCs - which was my initial point. We can debate this for a long time and I'm not going to agree/disagree with you. Each argument here has merit.
Moose Posted February 3, 2005 Author Posted February 3, 2005 and I think OSX is FreeBSD underneath, but Gina can correct me if I'm wrong226785[/snapback] Yes, I do know that... but the rest of this is way over my head. I'm just glad it's all behind a GUI that rocks!
KurtGodel77 Posted February 3, 2005 Posted February 3, 2005 The price cuts in the PC industry are because hardware manufacturers are cutting their prices. This is a direct function of Moore's law. Moore's law, formulated before Microsoft was even incorporated, states the number of transistors that can be placed on a chip of any given surface area will double every 18 months - 2 years. In English, this means that the price of chips from companies like Intel will fall dramatically with the passage of time, while the speed goes steadily up. Again, this trend was in place before Microsoft was even founded, and the trend appears to have continued at about the same pace regardless of what Microsoft has done. What, specifically, has Microsoft contributed to the market? It has done two things: dis-unified the OS market from the software and hardware markets; promoting competition in the latter two. It has also created a standardized OS and standardized office suite; thereby putting price pressure on everyone else in the market--Intel, Dell, etc. Microsoft's presence is becoming increasingly unnecessary. Yes, the computer industry seeks standardization; especially for the OS. But for servers, the standard is increasingly becoming Linux. If consumers are lucky, the Linux standard will spread from the server market to the home PC market.
DC Tom Posted February 3, 2005 Posted February 3, 2005 The price cuts in the PC industry are because hardware manufacturers are cutting their prices. This is a direct function of Moore's law. Moore's law, formulated before Microsoft was even incorporated, states the number of transistors that can be placed on a chip of any given surface area will double every 18 months - 2 years. In English, this means that the price of chips from companies like Intel will fall dramatically with the passage of time, while the speed goes steadily up. Again, this trend was in place before Microsoft was even founded, and the trend appears to have continued at about the same pace regardless of what Microsoft has done. What, specifically, has Microsoft contributed to the market? It has done two things: dis-unified the OS market from the software and hardware markets; promoting competition in the latter two. It has also created a standardized OS and standardized office suite; thereby putting price pressure on everyone else in the market--Intel, Dell, etc. Microsoft's presence is becoming increasingly unnecessary. Yes, the computer industry seeks standardization; especially for the OS. But for servers, the standard is increasingly becoming Linux. If consumers are lucky, the Linux standard will spread from the server market to the home PC market. 226798[/snapback] Demonstrating your "expertise" on yet another topic. What, did you stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night?
KurtGodel77 Posted February 3, 2005 Posted February 3, 2005 Demonstrating your "expertise" on yet another topic. What, did you stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night? 226805[/snapback] Do you know anything at all about the PC industry, or do you just like to hear yourself talk?
DC Tom Posted February 3, 2005 Posted February 3, 2005 Do you know anything at all about the PC industry, or do you just like to hear yourself talk? 226807[/snapback] If I claim complete ignorance, will it keep me from getting dragged into YET ANOTHER meaningless Mac vs. PC slap fight? But your application of Moore's Law to macroeconomic trends in the chip industry was the most inept display of reasoning and knowledge since that bozo who explained to me how FDR enabled Stalin and his "propaganda minister". The real question here is: do YOU know anything at all about the PC industry?
KurtGodel77 Posted February 3, 2005 Posted February 3, 2005 If I claim complete ignorance, will it keep me from getting dragged into YET ANOTHER meaningless Mac vs. PC slap fight? But your application of Moore's Law to macroeconomic trends in the chip industry was the most inept display of reasoning and knowledge since that bozo who explained to me how FDR enabled Stalin and his "propaganda minister". The real question here is: do YOU know anything at all about the PC industry? 226811[/snapback] I'm not sure what "bozo" you're talking about. I remember asking the question about why FDR would maintain a pro-Soviet foreign policy from his first year in office until the day he died. I pointed out that during the years of said policy, the Soviets murdered literally tens of millions of people; far more than the Nazis. Your response to all this was to announce--but not prove--that you'd found a source indicating that Ilya Ehrenburg did not have the official title of propaganda minister. Other than that, you expressed a lot of hostility towards my arguments, but you didn't refute any of them. Moore's Law was created by Gordon Moore of Intel. Moore noticed that the number of transistors on a chip doubled every 18 months to two years; so back in the 1960s or early 1970s he mentioned this to a computer magazine. That trend has continued ever since; and is the primary driver behind falling PC prices, because it affects both the CPU and RAM. Whether this trend would have continued at the same speed had Microsoft not standardized the hardware industry is a hypothetical question. One could argue that IBM deserves much of the credit for standardizing the hardware industry. When IBM was designing its first PC, it had to choose between the Intel and the Motorola architecture. It chose Intel, but it forced Intel to license its chip design to a second source. Intel chose AMD. Even though the licensing arrangement later expired, AMD continued making Intel-compatible chips; leading to higher competition and lower prices in the CPU market.
KurtGodel77 Posted February 3, 2005 Posted February 3, 2005 Something I just remembered: yes, it is hyopthetical to ask what Intel and AMD would have done had IBM and Microsoft not standardized the hardware market. But we can look at companies that don't produce Wintel chips: companies like Motorola, Sun Microsystems, etc. Those companies have--in terms of pure megahertz--fallen behind Intel and AMD; but not terribly far behind. On the other hand, the Sun chips are 64 bit (as opposed to the more primitive 32 bit for a standard Intel chip); and the Motorola chips are RISC-based instead of the more primitive CISC-based chips common with Intel. So Moore's Law has proven relatively robust even outside the world of Wintel.
Fezmid Posted February 3, 2005 Posted February 3, 2005 the Sun chips are 64 bit (as opposed to the more primitive 32 bit for a standard Intel chip) SPARC is *far* more advanced than either Intel or AMD. Not only have they been 64-bit for years, they're also RISC, have dual-core processor technology, and scale to levels that Wintel can only dream of. The same goes for PA-RISC processors from HP. Intel and AMD are kids toys by comparison. CW
DC Tom Posted February 3, 2005 Posted February 3, 2005 I'm not sure what "bozo" you're talking about. I remember a discussion about FDR's pro-Soviet policy at a time when the Soviets were murdering tens of millions of innocent people. Moore's Law was created by Gordon Moore of Intel. Moore noticed that the number of transistors on a chip doubled every 18 months to two years; so back in the 1960s or early 1970s he mentioned this to a computer magazine. That trend has continued ever since; and is the primary driver behind falling PC prices, because it affects both the CPU and RAM. Whether this trend would have continued at the same speed had Microsoft not standardized the hardware industry is a hypothetical question. One could argue that IBM deserves much of the credit for standardizing the hardware industry. When IBM was designing its first PC, it had to choose between the Intel and the Motorola architecture. It chose Intel, but it forced Intel to license its chip design to a second source. Intel chose AMD. Even though the licensing arrangement later expired, AMD continued making Intel-compatible chips; leading to higher competition and lower prices in the CPU market. 226819[/snapback] So a software company standardized the hardware industry, but the hardware company didn't - excuse me, arguably did, by strong-arming their chip supplier...? You should stick to your "Kurt Warner for QB" crusade...not that you know much about that either...
KurtGodel77 Posted February 3, 2005 Posted February 3, 2005 So a software company standardized the hardware industry, but the hardware company didn't - excuse me, arguably did, by strong-arming their chip supplier...? You should stick to your "Kurt Warner for QB" crusade...not that you know much about that either... 226828[/snapback] Dude, you've just admitted ignorance about the computer industry; so why are you arguing about it?
Recommended Posts