posted on February 23, 2006 08:45:05 PM new
Just for you fen,
Will Apple Adopt Windows?
02.15.06
This would be the most phenomenal turnabout in the history of desktop computing. There's just one fly in the ointment.
By John C. Dvorak
The idea that Apple would ditch its own OS for Microsoft Windows came to me from Yakov Epstein, a professor of psychology at Rutgers University, who wrote to me convinced that the process had already begun. I was amused, but after mulling over various coincidences, I'm convinced he may be right. This would be the most phenomenal turnabout in the history of desktop computing.
Epstein made four observations. The first was that the Apple Switch ad campaign was over, and nobody switched. The second was that the iPod lost its FireWire connector because the PC world was the new target audience. Also, although the iPod was designed to get people to move to the Mac, this didn't happen. And, of course, that Apple had switched to the Intel microprocessor.
Though these points aren't a slam-dunk for Epstein's thesis, other observations support it. The theory explains several odd occurrences, including Apple's freak-out and lawsuits over Macintosh gossip sites that ran stories about a musicians' breakout box that has yet to be shipped. Like, who cares?
But if Apple's saber-rattling was done to scare the community into backing off so it wouldn't discover the Windows stratagem, then the incident makes more sense. As does Bill Gates's onscreen appearance during Apple's turnaround when Jobs was taking a pot of money from Microsoft. The Windows stratagem may have been a done deal by then. This may also explain the odd comment at the Macworld Expo by a Microsoft spokesperson that Microsoft Office will continue to be developed for the Mac for "five years." What happens after that?
This switch to Windows may have originally been planned for this year and may partly explain why Adobe and other high-end apps were not ported to the Apple x86 platform when it was announced in January. At Macworld, most observers said that these new Macs could indeed run Windows now.—Continue reading...
posted on February 23, 2006 09:01:00 PM new
::The first was that the Apple Switch ad campaign was over, and nobody switched.::
Yet they had record sales during that period.
::The second was that the iPod lost its FireWire connector because the PC world was the new target audience.::
The iPod for Mac has the Firewire connector. They downgraded it for the the iPods for PC.
::And, of course, that Apple had switched to the Intel microprocessor.::
Faster processor to go with a more efficient operating system.
::This may also explain the odd comment at the Macworld Expo by a Microsoft spokesperson that Microsoft Office will continue to be developed for the Mac for "five years." What happens after that?::
They renew their license.
There would be absolutely no reason for Apple to adopt windows. It would be taking five steps backwards. They have consistant sales growth. Their stock continues to rise. They have phenomenal customer loyalty. The iPod has brought more users over to their computers. If Apple needs to do anythhing, it's work on education. It's shocking how many people still believe that there is a lack of software for the system. or believe that it would be a difficult learning curve. If nothing else, they should work on educating people on the lack of vulnerability to viruses.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
posted on February 23, 2006 11:02:07 PM new
You're right as rain, fenix.
Dvorak's an idiot, always has been, always will be. He's been making lame and just plain wrong predictions about Apple, not to mention MicroSloth, for years. Now the Arch-buttmonkey is predicting a switch to Windows, based on a letter he got from a Psych professor. Psych professors are right on the money when it comes to the technology business of course. If you want to know what NASDAQ company to put your money on, you can't go wrong asking a psych professor!! The only reason his work gets published at all is the piss-off factor. He's so outrageous that he attracts attention and readership. Lots of people just can't wait to read the latest loony ravings from John C., the Professional Troll.
____________________________________________
posted on February 24, 2006 01:27:19 AM new
Hey geeks and geekettes (you know who you are) - this "article" was discussed to death on slashdot last week:
posted on February 24, 2006 03:15:43 PM new
I use Windows, Macs, and yes, Linux. My main PC runs Windows, and I'm OK with that, but it also dual-boots linux when I want.
My Macs are getting old, and I don't much use them anymore-- just too slow. But I have and like OS X as well.
I'd feel better if I could just switch to Linux 100%. No worries about Digital Rights Management, no worries about scraping up the money for the next Office Upgrade. No need for virus scanners. No need to pay for the next windows upgrade (and any hardware that needs to be upgraded to run it), etc.
But I still use Dazzle, I still use SAPro. Games still want Windows.
OSX is pretty, but of the three, it's the least productive. Not enough open source stuff to be useful, and too expensive for the software you need.
Linux in my opinion is the best option, but only if you can make it do everything you need it to do. Once it's set up, you're in great shape for as long as you want. No expensive upgrades needed.
Windows is OK, but by the time you get spyware tools, virus scanners, etc, it's EXPENSIVE. Granted you don't HAVE to buy Office, since there are free versions available. It's just that there are so many bugs and so many viruses out there that I will NEVER trust Windows 100%
Will Apple run Windows? Probably unofficially and in an unsupported way.
Dr. Arcane, revelator of mystical secrets http://www.drarcane.com
Got questions about the secrets of the universe?
posted on February 24, 2006 08:26:05 PM new
WeBayer says:
Why bother switching when MACs are being targeted for virus's now also
If you're referring to that lame exploit that required users to open an unsolicited email attachment, (EDIT: it was an unsolicited instant message attachment how dumb could anyone be..) and then didn't do much once they had, that's the very FIRST exploit of any kind that's been aimed at the Macintosh program in many years, and it doesn't hold a candle to the kind of nasty crap you folks have to patch for on an almost weekly basis. Additionally, BSD Unix, the basis of OS X, is inherently more secure from the get-go than Windows will ever be.
By the way, they're Macs, not MACS, no need to hold down the caps lock key any longer than you need to. A MAC is the Media Access Control address of a device, it's not a computer.
I am hearing though that Vista (Newest Windows) is very security laden, so much so that you have to undo some of it to operate it properly.
Refresh my memory, when was that the new Windoze OS is coming out? Wasn't it 2004??...that was back when they had it named after a cow, right? Hereford, or Angus, or Jersey or something....let us know how secure it is if and when it ever actually arrives.
Colin says:
've played with Macs with some of the older software platforms...
So your opinion is based upon old software rather than the latest Apple offerings? That'd be like me judging windoze on the basis of 3.1...
The big fly in the ointment is Adobe’s slowness to build anything for OS X and the amount of software out there for windows.
You're mistaken. I use Adobe Creative Suite 2 for OS X, the lates version which includes Acrobat Pro, Photoshop , Indesign, GoLive and Illustrator. What Adobe program is it that Adobe hasn't developed for OS X, exactly? If you've misunderstood the news that Adobe hasn't optimized it's apps yet for the new Apple-Intel chips, well, my goodness, the computers have only been shipping for less than a month, and the Power PC versions of Adobe's apps run just fine on them, although not as quick as they will when Adobe optimizes them for the Intel chips.
There are obscure, limited market apps developed for Windows only just as there are for Macintosh only. For mainstream, large market applications, there isn't anything that can be done on a Windows machine that can't be done on a Mac. The old saw about there not being any apps for Macintosh's hasn't held water in years. Do some reading.
____________________________________________
[ edited by profe51 on Feb 25, 2006 04:54 AM ]
[ edited by profe51 on Feb 25, 2006 04:55 AM ]
posted on February 25, 2006 06:28:35 AM new
Games shouldn't affect your decision on an OS. If I want to play games, I'll buy a playstation.
Linux is hands down the best OS. Download a free copy of Knoppix to see how amazing an OS can be. It runs straight from a bootable CD - never installs on your hard drive. Nothing could be more secure. If you want to go back to Windows for some dumb reason, take the CD out and restart your computer.
posted on February 25, 2006 07:25:53 AM new
"Games shouldn't affect your decision on an OS. If I want to play games, I'll buy a playstation."
While there's some truth to that, the games on a PC are usually far better than console counterparts. And the games are usually cheaper, too.
"Linux is hands down the best OS."
Agreed.
"Download a free copy of Knoppix to see how amazing an OS can be. It runs straight from a bootable CD - never installs on your hard drive. Nothing could be more secure. If you want to go back to Windows for some dumb reason, take the CD out and restart your computer."
Yep. Knoppix is cool (if you leave your system on all the time, it's best, since it takes a long time to boot). Your OS runs from the CD- how could ANYTHING be more secure?
Dr. Arcane, revelator of mystical secrets http://www.drarcane.com
Got questions about the secrets of the universe?
posted on February 25, 2006 10:34:23 AM new
Some of us enjoy computing and are not so lazy about it we need to be hand held and use apple products.
I will be using the new windows OS because for the real world that is what is accepted. We all can't hide on some handme down ranch.
I think you are going to find your MACs more and more attacked in the future because that is the hackers new challenge. Enjoy.
Nerfball, gamers are who are the ones who drive pc's to make them better and better. You think you really need all that ram and processor speed to run spreadsheets and a simple database?
posted on February 25, 2006 08:00:05 PM new Some of us enjoy computing and are not so lazy about it we need to be hand held and use apple products
In other words, you'd rather fiddle with your computer than do any actual work with it....
That's the second time you've mentioned my hand-me-down ranch. Careful, your jealousy's showing.
____________________________________________
posted on February 25, 2006 10:12:52 PM newJust pointing out what a liar you must be claiming to actually "work" on a ranch.
But that seems to be your style.
In addition to having a full time job away from my hand me down ranch, I run a business that manages a 200 head herd of sheep and one of the oldest extant bloodlines of a rare horse breed in North America. I do this without employees other than twice a year, during shearing season and when moving the heard to seasonal pasture. I'll match my definition of work with yours any day.
Why have you used a thread about about John C. Dvorak to attack me personally, calling me both a liar and accusing me of "hiding on a hand me down ranch"? You must take opinions about computer systems pretty personally. Or else you're just jealous, like I said.
____________________________________________
posted on February 25, 2006 10:26:23 PM new
Sure profe whatever you say you sure are some psychologist.
You went out of your way to respond to my post so who is jealous of whom.
Besides you had previously said you weren't interested in my posts, so that does make you a liar.
Ron
[ edited by WashingtoneBayer on Feb 25, 2006 10:30 PM ]
posted on February 25, 2006 10:32:56 PM new
You attacked and criticized me personally, in an utterly off-topic way. I'm supposed to sit back and take insults without responding? Guess again.
____________________________________________
posted on February 26, 2006 01:15:14 AM newI run a business that manages a 200 head herd of sheep ... during shearing season
Don't you meaning shearing morning? Any competent shearer can do 350+ a day. Unless they aren't using motor-driven shear and are doing it by the old fashioned way. (I'm in New Zealand and most farms around here carry 3500+ head of sheep.)
posted on February 26, 2006 06:19:12 AM new
It's a bit different agitprop. I know how the big production herds here and especially in NZ and Australia do things, but our business isn't like that. Our wool and animals are so valuable that I'd never be able to suffer the shearing death losses that your farmers routinely absorb. Our herd is a wool herd, not a meat herd. All of our wool goes to handweavers or spinners, most of it is pre-ordered by individuals who specify the wool from particular animals, so shearing happens over a period of about 2 weeks, as most of the buyers arrange days to come and get their wool right off the animal. In addition, our sheep have a topcoat of hair and an undercoat of wool that most weavers like separated for different uses, so the abusive shearing practices of large herdsmen would never work.
____________________________________________
posted on February 26, 2006 07:16:12 AM new
In large scale operations, where wool price is low and volume is the only way to make a profit, timing is critical. For that reason, big farms can't afford to wait too late in the spring to shear, because waiting too long affects wool harvest amount as well as the quality of the wool. Better to shear too early than too late. In Australia, the latest figure I read was a total loss of 1 million head per year within 30 days of shearing. Most of these losses are attributed to fly-strike, which is maggot infestation of cuts incurred during rapid shearing, stress from the procedure itself, (hybridized modern sheep breeds have the unfortunate habit of sometimes just dropping dead from fear and stress, I've seen it happen at livestock sales), and exposure, especially in younger animals.
posted on February 26, 2006 10:09:22 AM new
they lose 1 million head of sheep a year??
Not to mention the torture of the animals,but if they have to replace them,it hardly seems profitable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Beauty is only a light switch away
[ edited by classicrock000 on Feb 26, 2006 10:09 AM ]
posted on February 26, 2006 12:08:36 PM new
After careful scrutiny of his posts over the course of several months i've come to the conclusion that he's not raising regular sheep, as in the type that Mutton comes from but is instead raising Alpaca's and other similar type wool producing animals. Of course I could be wrong and way off base.
Alpaca farms/ranches are all over the place in Arizona.
ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø
[ edited by piinthesky on Feb 26, 2006 12:10 PM ]
posted on February 26, 2006 01:19:57 PM newIn large scale operations, where wool price is low...
Wool prices in general are depressed unless its Merino or niche breeds used in high-quality suits and clothing. Our (NZ) biggest market for wool is China. Most sheep are bred for the meat value. Juicy, mouth-watering lamb chops have to come from somewhere!
Most of these losses are attributed to fly-strike
Only in Australia. Most deaths in the shearing sheep are (unfortunately) when a careless or inexperienced shearer cuts a major vein and the sheep bleeds out before you can staunch the flow. The shearer is docked the cost of any dead sheep from his pay so they tend to take care not to kill them. Or an older sheep (usually a two-tooth) dies of stress/exposure after shearing. BTW lambing percentages in NZ tends to be around 105 to 125% depending on the weather. A sudden blizzard can cut percentages to 90 - 95%.
We should move this discussion to the Vendio wool forum, so we can continue debating the questionable pronouncements of John C. Dvorak
