Lessons From The Death of HD-DVD

[Woochifer]

Daniel Dilger who blogs on roughlydrafted.com and is a contributor on Apple Insider wrote an interesting article about the underlying forces at work that led to the demise of HD-DVD. Dilger's very pro-Apple and anti-Microsoft, but compared to the Windows-centric pundits in the rest of the tech press, he has been correct more often than wrong. He argues that HD-DVD was primarily Microsoft's weapon to steer the media formats towards its proprietary Windows formats, but the pushback from open standards advocates was more persuasive and effective this time around.


http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/02/21/lessons-from-the-death-of-hd-dvd/

Although the article gets a few facts wrong, the overall premise I think is spot on. HD-DVD was all about Microsoft trying to tie media standards into its proprietary model. The quote below is all too true to how Microsoft does business, and what they tried to do with HD-DVD.


None of these efforts hid the reality that Microsoft wanted to simply duplicate in media what it had done to the PC desktop: copy existing technology, add proprietary hooks, and then sit back and tax the industry with software fees without adding any value. After having been burned repeatedly, the rest of the industry is now ready to shoot down every effort Microsoft makes to enslave innovation and progress.

The rest of the article has some interesting background about the different codecs, and how Blu-ray's usage of open formats like MPEG-4 H.264 and Java allow for scaling down media content to a wider range of applications.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Daniel Dilger who blogs on roughlydrafted.com and is a contributor on Apple Insider wrote an interesting article about the underlying forces at work that led to the demise of HD-DVD. Dilger's very pro-Apple and anti-Microsoft, but compared to the Windows-centric pundits in the rest of the tech press, he has been correct more often than wrong. He argues that HD-DVD was primarily Microsoft's weapon to steer the media formats towards its proprietary Windows formats, but the pushback from open standards advocates was more persuasive and effective this time around.


http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/02/21/lessons-from-the-death-of-hd-dvd/

Although the article gets a few facts wrong, the overall premise I think is spot on. HD-DVD was all about Microsoft trying to tie media standards into its proprietary model. The quote below is all too true to how Microsoft does business, and what they tried to do with HD-DVD.



The rest of the article has some interesting background about the different codecs, and how Blu-ray's usage of open formats like MPEG-4 H.264 and Java allow for scaling down media content to a wider range of applications.

Wooch,
Now do you see why I blame Microsoft for all of this. Alot of folks in Hollywood knew what was going on behind the scenes. Several times in my post to nightidiot in the general section I told him that Microsoft may be big in the computer industry, but they are dog dung in Hollywood. I also stated on this forum that Warner decision was more of a rebuff of Microsoft than of Toshiba. I also said right here that Microsoft did not accompany Toshiba to the Warner negotiations, now everyone can see why.

To show you how much love Hollywood has for Microsoft, one just has to see how Hollywood delivered Apple one of the best contracts for access to television programming and some movies for Itunes. Every studio is on board to deliver some content, XBOX live only has a few majors, and the contracts are only for selected programming and some movies.

In regards to the disinformation campaign by the HD DVD PG and Microsoft, Amir, Rdjam, Ben Waggoner, Kosty, Robert George all from AVS were paid shills to do this. David Vaughn was a late comer, but nevertheless a virolent liar on Bluray replication facilities. On too many occasions I have gone over to AVS to debate and counter their misinformation, just like alot of bluray insiders had to do. Amir constant mentions of Disney going HD DVD exclusive had to be countered with no way in hell too often. AVS turned from one of the best technical sites on the web, into misinformation headquarters for HD DVD. They basically ruined the forum, as many have left to get away from the fallout. Us bluray insider stop posting there because the mods were quite lose and free with the HD DVD folks, and constantly checking the bluray folks. When we noticed this trend, we decided to boycott the site. If you go there now, the insiders thread is gone because of the constant misinformation campaign, and the countering thereof.

Toshiba was used by Microsoft. They knew they were not going to win, and was ready to throw in the towel. They were foolish for listening to microsoft. They could have saved the $600 million in losses, and could have been producing a bluray player to profit from. I hope they have learned something. Too many companies will not partner with Microsoft to sweep a floor because of their tactics, and willingness to jetison a venture when it doesn't suit them. The ONLY reason they threw their support behind HD DVD is because they were angry at the BDA for chosing BD-java, and sticking with MPEG-2 until AVC was ready. One of the minor reason that Warner sided with bluray was they knew the consumer and infrastucture was not ready for downloads, and that is where Microsoft wanted to take the industry.

Nightliar, I hope you are reading this. Microsoft ain't what it used to be, and never will be. I hope you see that Microsoft backing something does not mean automatic success. I have pointed to many examples of their failure, I hope you are paying attention to the latest one.

[kexodusc]

That was certainly a provocative article Wooch.

But man oh man, that writer's anti-Microsoft crusade is even too much for me. :)

[pixelthis]

That was certainly a provocative article Wooch.

But man oh man, that writer's anti-Microsoft crusade is even too much for me. :)


Yeah, a comet is about to smash into the Earth.
QUICK, find a way to blame Microsoft!

All from an Apple devotee no doubt.
APPLE computers make "style" statements, their stuff looks sooo cute!
But their stuff is generally considered a joke, used by some Hollywood types sure,
but its just another way for the aging hippies out there to "fight the man".

And Sir talky's tirade is so over the top, not to mention completely wrong, that it needs no answer. He pretty much discredits hisself, as usual.
The guys at TOSHIBA are big boys, mayby microsoft was a partner, but to say that
they were puppets used by gates is silly.
If Microsoft wanted to get into this they would have, and they would have probably
won.
As for "value" well, if you want a boutique computer or an ipod go to apple.
if you want a server, web brouser, operating system, codec , or pretty much anything else
go to microsoft.
One reason I think maybey talky hates micro so much is that they came out with
an elegant , inexpensive HD format , only trouble was, it played on your computer!
How do you sell players for THAT.
And that is what the talkys of the world are about, sell tech in dibs and drabs,
and make the "marks" buy a new player to keep up.
One generation of player in 1080i, the next in 1080p, the next with true HD, etc.
And he talks about Microsoft retarding progress!
If talky and his band of shysters could figure out how you'd have to buy a new player every year.
A NEW FORMAT that doesnt require an expensive new player!!!
SACRILIGE!:1:

[Woochifer]

Yeah, a comet is about to smash into the Earth.
QUICK, find a way to blame Microsoft!

All from an Apple devotee no doubt.
APPLE computers make "style" statements, their stuff looks sooo cute!
But their stuff is generally considered a joke, used by some Hollywood types sure,
but its just another way for the aging hippies out there to "fight the man".

Check again. In the audio industry and in the video download arena that you keep touting as the wave of the future, Apple IS the man. iPod sales alone are roughly TRIPLE what the ENTIRE home audio component industry sells. And they are the number one vendor of both music and video downloads, hardly what I would call a joke.

And on their computers, who's calling their stuff a joke when pundit after pundit has begun recommending Macs in light of Microsoft's continuing disaster with Vista? I don't use a Mac because it's "cute." I use one because it does what I need a computer to do with the fewer headaches, crashes, and security issues. Try one out sometime, you might actually learn something. Then again, your posting pattern would seem to indicate otherwise! :idea:


And Sir talky's tirade is so over the top, not to mention completely wrong, that it needs no answer. He pretty much discredits hisself, as usual.
The guys at TOSHIBA are big boys, mayby microsoft was a partner, but to say that
they were puppets used by gates is silly.
If Microsoft wanted to get into this they would have, and they would have probably
won.
As for "value" well, if you want a boutique computer or an ipod go to apple.
if you want a server, web brouser, operating system, codec , or pretty much anything else
go to microsoft.

And to think I was silly enough to believe that connect-the-dots was a mere child's play game -- I guess to you, it's quite an advanced concept because you don't get it. :sleep:

Microsoft is a monopolist that, for every market that they enter, tries to steer that market towards their proprietary formats and standards. In the case of HD-DVD, that would be VC-1 and HDi. To them, Blu-ray is the enemy because its underlying technology uses open standards such as MPEG-4 H.264 and Java. Toshiba was a pawn because they were on the verge of agreeing to a one-format compromise with Blu-ray similar to when Sony and Philips dropped their competing video disc format and allowed a unified DVD format to move forward back in 1995. Microsoft made it sound like they would be an involved HD-DVD partner, and use their market muscle to promote the format. But, their support only went far enough to prod Toshiba into launching HD-DVD. They wanted to muddy the market for Sony and Blu-ray, but they weren't willing to put up much of a fight once things started going south for HD-DVD.

And Microsoft's history of screwing their partners is long and well documented. Microsoft saw an opportunity to divide the market, so they quickly announced that they would support HD-DVD, which Toshiba mistakenly saw as a market opportunity for HD-DVD. But, Microsoft's support was half-a$$ed and two-faced. They never put their money where their mouth was. They could've delayed the Xbox360 launch in order to integrate the HD-DVD drive into the console design, but they didn't.

Microsoft will only go all out for their own interests, not when the initiative involves a partner. Just look at their whole PlaysForSure disaster. They got a bunch of hardware partners like Creative to sign on, and less than two years later when PlaysForSure fails to gain market traction against the iPod, Microsoft goes on their own with the Zune and screws their PlaysForSure partners. Toshiba's only the latest Microsoft partner in a long line.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I cannot believe this statement from a person trying to pass themselves off as knowing everything under the sun.


mayby microsoft was a partner, but to say that
they were puppets used by gates is silly.
If Microsoft wanted to get into this they would have, and they would have probably
won.

Maybe Microsoft was a partner???? And they would have probably won??? Has this foo been on another planet? Everyone and their grandmother knew that Microsoft jumped behind HD DVD when they were rebuffed by the BDA on VC-1 and HDi. Everyone in the industry heard about Gates getting into Springers face about getting BD+ out of the spec so bluray would play in PC's with window media player. When he was rebuffed, he huffed off and jump behind Toshiba.

Well pixeless, Microsoft was a partner, and HD DVD lost. So much for you half a$$ theories. I guess we can chalk this up to another moonshine moment.

[filecat13]

I read roughlydrafted.com several times a week to get some perspective on much of the over-the-top punditry I slog through on some of the mainstream sites. Yeah, Dilger can be over focused at times, but he almost always has a more reasoned and researched approach. He even includes verifiable resources. :yikes:

I get really tired of seeing a Web pundit say something is a "fact" then offer absolutely no support other than his say-so that said fact really exists. Certain Internet clowns make a living off inventing outrageous, unsupported "facts" that drive sensation-seeking readers to their sites. Compared to them, Dilger looks like a freakin' Rhodes Scholar. (Which I'm pretty sure he is not. :wink5: )

Anyway, at the risk of sounding agreeable, I think history shows MS has made a lifestyle out of screwing its partners--a lesson Apple learned the hard way and almost didn't recover from. In addition to finally thwarting another MS subterfuge, the nice thing about the BluRay victory is the presence of standardized formats in both the hard media and soft media.

We'll have to see if Apple does anything with BluRay or not, but either way MPEG-4 and H.264 are now both the de jure and de facto standards going forward for both hard (disc) and soft (download) media, and that has to be a good thing.

[diggity]

there is a rumour floating around here in australia that microsoft are in the mid stages of making a blu ray game console similar to that of the ps3. if this is true it makes you wonder how much effort they were putting into hd-dvd. it has only been a week and a half since toshibas announcement and already microsoft are building a blu ray console...seems suspiciously fast to me.

seems to be the old "secret underground basement" trick to me. i can see it now, three pale skinned engineers who rarely see the light of day building this console, being secretly funded by microsoft under the codename "aurora project" then one day... voila! a fully working model accompanied by the phrase " we knew bluray would win all along"

cheers: dazza

[Woochifer]

there is a rumour floating around here in australia that microsoft are in the mid stages of making a blu ray game console similar to that of the ps3. if this is true it makes you wonder how much effort they were putting into hd-dvd. it has only been a week and a half since toshibas announcement and already microsoft are building a blu ray console...seems suspiciously fast to me.

seems to be the old "secret underground basement" trick to me. i can see it now, three pale skinned engineers who rarely see the light of day building this console, being secretly funded by microsoft under the codename "aurora project" then one day... voila! a fully working model accompanied by the phrase " we knew bluray would win all along"

cheers: dazza

Sounds like a rumor campaign to me. A similar thread was started up in the High Def Digest forum with a linked story, except that the story is more than a year old! I think a lot of rumors got started up when Gates said last year that they'd be open to making a Blu-ray add-on available if HD-DVD lost the format war. I can see an add-on getting introduced, but not an integrated drive.

It would be relative easy for MS to integrate a Blu-ray drive into the console, but such a move would make little sense for a number reasons. First, it would bump up the price on the Xbox360, thus negating the console's price advantage over the PS3. Maybe it would come with an upgraded version, but not standard issue on all versions.

Also, Xbox360 games get published on DVD media. PS3 games use Blu-ray media. If the Xbox360 suddenly began using Blu-ray discs for games, that would leave existing Xbox360 owners out in the cold -- won't happen.

In actuality, I think Microsoft was about to announce a Xbox360 with an integrated HD-DVD drive at CES (and might even have a bunch of them already sitting in a warehouse somewhere), but those plans got scrapped when Warner dropped HD-DVD.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sounds like a rumor campaign to me. A similar thread was started up in the High Def Digest forum with a linked story, except that the story is more than a year old! I think a lot of rumors got started up when Gates said last year that they'd be open to making a Blu-ray add-on available if HD-DVD lost the format war. I can see an add-on getting introduced, but not an integrated drive.

It would be relative easy for MS to integrate a Blu-ray drive into the console, but such a move would make little sense for a number reasons. First, it would bump up the price on the Xbox360, thus negating the console's price advantage over the PS3. Maybe it would come with an upgraded version, but not standard issue on all versions.

Also, Xbox360 games get published on DVD media. PS3 games use Blu-ray media. If the Xbox360 suddenly began using Blu-ray discs for games, that would leave existing Xbox360 owners out in the cold -- won't happen.

In actuality, I think Microsoft was about to announce a Xbox360 with an integrated HD-DVD drive at CES (and might even have a bunch of them already sitting in a warehouse somewhere), but those plans got scrapped when Warner dropped HD-DVD.

From what I am hearing, they are having a bit of a struggle getting XBOX360 to work with a bluray drive. It seems that as powerful as the XBOX360 is, it does not do well trying to handle PCM, DTHD and Dts MA lossless and AVC serperately, or together. Its seems that AVC at high bit rates(what you would find on a Disney bluray titles) causes the processing to overload and shut down the machine. Using PCM, or any of the advance lossless codecs cause the audio to skip and jump around. The XBOX360 was optimized for games, not high resolution video sources. Its processing was designed for games, not high resolution audio and video, so getting it to function like the PS3 is proving very difficult for the designers to accomplish. Beef knows more about its gaming prowess than I do, but on the video side of things, it was not design to do what they are asking it to do apparently.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I read roughlydrafted.com several times a week to get some perspective on much of the over-the-top punditry I slog through on some of the mainstream sites. Yeah, Dilger can be over focused at times, but he almost always has a more reasoned and researched approach. He even includes verifiable resources. :yikes:

I get really tired of seeing a Web pundit say something is a "fact" then offer absolutely no support other than his say-so that said fact really exists. Certain Internet clowns make a living off inventing outrageous, unsupported "facts" that drive sensation-seeking readers to their sites. Compared to them, Dilger looks like a freakin' Rhodes Scholar. (Which I'm pretty sure he is not. :wink5: )

Anyway, at the risk of sounding agreeable, I think history shows MS has made a lifestyle out of screwing its partners--a lesson Apple learned the hard way and almost didn't recover from. In addition to finally thwarting another MS subterfuge, the nice thing about the BluRay victory is the presence of standardized formats in both the hard media and soft media.

We'll have to see if Apple does anything with BluRay or not, but either way MPEG-4 and H.264 are now both the de jure and de facto standards going forward for both hard (disc) and soft (download) media, and that has to be a good thing.

With the exception of a few small details, his article was spot on to my experience over the last 5-6 years of seeing this play out from a corporate perspective. It doesn't really matter that he hates Microsoft if what he writes is factual and well accounted for.

I am personally pleased that Microsoft continues to fail over and over in getting their proprietary software in set top boxes and video players. It looks like they have failed to get Windows CE into cable set top boxes, and it looks like Tivo will beat them out there. They were successful in getting it into HD DVD, but it has now failed. Now it looks like they have a new venture, trying to dominate the search engine market. I hope Google beats the crap out of them there, and Yahoo is able to successfully rebuff Microsoft takeover plans.

[Woochifer]

From what I am hearing, they are having a bit of a struggle getting XBOX360 to work with a bluray drive. It seems that as powerful as the XBOX360 is, it does not do well trying to handle PCM, DTHD and Dts MA lossless and AVC serperately, or together. Its seems that AVC at high bit rates(what you would find on a Disney bluray titles) causes the processing to overload and shut down the machine. Using PCM, or any of the advance lossless codecs cause the audio to skip and jump around. The XBOX360 was optimized for games, not high resolution video sources. Its processing was designed for games, not high resolution audio and video, so getting it to function like the PS3 is proving very difficult for the designers to accomplish. Beef knows more about its gaming prowess than I do, but on the video side of things, it was not design to do what they are asking it to do apparently.

Interesting, because I remember Gates' comments made it sound like a Blu-ray drive would be relatively easy to offer as an add-on. Of course, vaporware has historically been MS' specialty.

Overheating issues have been the bane of the Xbox360. A report from a couple of weeks ago by a warranty contractor indicated that the Xbox360 has a 16% failure rate, which is more than 5x greater than the Wii and the PS3. I guess that if the Blu-ray drive adds that much more of a load onto the processor, then it would make the heat issue worse.

[diggity]

i too thought it would be easy to integrate blu ray drive into xbox but that just goes to show how much i know about software...lol. i am just hoping that the next big improvement in blu ray isn't which game console does what, but for them to bring out a faster starting player. i hate waiting sooo looong just to play a dvd

cheers: dazza

[emaidel]

Here's another reason HD-DVD deserved to die: often, HD discs simply don't work! In the owner's manual for my Toshiba player, there's a statement to the effect that, "as this is a new technology, not all discs will play." Huh? Also, after having ordered the "Final Cut" on HD of "Blade Runner" through netflix, waiting several months while it was first listed as "very long wait," then "wait time unknown," to "unavailable," I found a multi-disc HD set at Target and bought it.

I waited a couple of months (I've been watching ALL the seasons of "24" in the meantime!) before openining up "Blade Runner, " and plopping it into my player. Well, last night I did just that. I was very impressed with the newly clear image, and very impressive sound for about 45 minutes, when the player simply stopped, and posted a prompt, "Cannot read or play disc." That was it. From then on, that disc, and the other HD discs in the set just sat in the player's drawer with no picture whatosever. Just to be sure, I put in an ordinary DVD, and it worked fine.

So, what's the use of a system whose player states that it won't always work, and whose software (which also had a statement in it that it might not work on all HD players) doesn't work either.

And just today, in the Sunday advertising supplements from the local paper, Sears is running a Toshiba HD player "on sale."

[bfalls]

Here's another reason HD-DVD deserved to die: often, HD discs simply don't work! In the owner's manual for my Toshiba player, there's a statement to the effect that, "as this is a new technology, not all discs will play." Huh? Also, after having ordered the "Final Cut" on HD of "Blade Runner" through netflix, waiting several months while it was first listed as "very long wait," then "wait time unknown," to "unavailable," I found a multi-disc HD set at Target and bought it.

I waited a couple of months (I've been watching ALL the seasons of "24" in the meantime!) before openining up "Blade Runner, " and plopping it into my player. Well, last night I did just that. I was very impressed with the newly clear image, and very impressive sound for about 45 minutes, when the player simply stopped, and posted a prompt, "Cannot read or play disc." That was it. From then on, that disc, and the other HD discs in the set just sat in the player's drawer with no picture whatosever. Just to be sure, I put in an ordinary DVD, and it worked fine.

So, what's the use of a system whose player states that it won't always work, and whose software (which also had a statement in it that it might not work on all HD players) doesn't work either.

And just today, in the Sunday advertising supplements from the local paper, Sears is running a Toshiba HD player "on sale."


I thought the same when I opened the HD-D3 I purchased, a second generation machine. Right on top they recommend you perform a software update. Then I open the manual and there again they recommend you upgrade. But what really surprised me is on both free movies that came with the player had the same recommendation. Wouldn't it be just as easy to put an upgrade disc in the box. Why make the consumer go through the trouble of either downloading the ISO upgrade, or request a disc from Toshiba.

This was my second player, the first was an HD-A2. It displayed the same symptoms as emaidel. Twice during playback of Tramsformers it stopped and locked up. Nothing but pulling the power plug would allow you to play a disc. It also would not play many standard DVDs.

[pixelthis]

Check again. In the audio industry and in the video download arena that you keep touting as the wave of the future, Apple IS the man. iPod sales alone are roughly TRIPLE what the ENTIRE home audio component industry sells. And they are the number one vendor of both music and video downloads, hardly what I would call a joke.

And on their computers, who's calling their stuff a joke when pundit after pundit has begun recommending Macs in light of Microsoft's continuing disaster with Vista? I don't use a Mac because it's "cute." I use one because it does what I need a computer to do with the fewer headaches, crashes, and security issues. Try one out sometime, you might actually learn something. Then again, your posting pattern would seem to indicate otherwise! :idea:



And to think I was silly enough to believe that connect-the-dots was a mere child's play game -- I guess to you, it's quite an advanced concept because you don't get it. :sleep:

Microsoft is a monopolist that, for every market that they enter, tries to steer that market towards their proprietary formats and standards. In the case of HD-DVD, that would be VC-1 and HDi. To them, Blu-ray is the enemy because its underlying technology uses open standards such as MPEG-4 H.264 and Java. Toshiba was a pawn because they were on the verge of agreeing to a one-format compromise with Blu-ray similar to when Sony and Philips dropped their competing video disc format and allowed a unified DVD format to move forward back in 1995. Microsoft made it sound like they would be an involved HD-DVD partner, and use their market muscle to promote the format. But, their support only went far enough to prod Toshiba into launching HD-DVD. They wanted to muddy the market for Sony and Blu-ray, but they weren't willing to put up much of a fight once things started going south for HD-DVD.

And Microsoft's history of screwing their partners is long and well documented. Microsoft saw an opportunity to divide the market, so they quickly announced that they would support HD-DVD, which Toshiba mistakenly saw as a market opportunity for HD-DVD. But, Microsoft's support was half-a$$ed and two-faced. They never put their money where their mouth was. They could've delayed the Xbox360 launch in order to integrate the HD-DVD drive into the console design, but they didn't.

Microsoft will only go all out for their own interests, not when the initiative involves a partner. Just look at their whole PlaysForSure disaster. They got a bunch of hardware partners like Creative to sign on, and less than two years later when PlaysForSure fails to gain market traction against the iPod, Microsoft goes on their own with the Zune and screws their PlaysForSure partners. Toshiba's only the latest Microsoft partner in a long line.


OH PLEASE!
I am not a "lover" of microsoft but the truth is we need standards in the computer world.
You take it for granted but the only reason everybody on this site can talk to each other is
protocols and standards. AND SOMEBODY NEEDS TO ENFORCE THOSE STANDARDS.
As for Apple being a joke I was reffering to their line of toy computers, most of which you can't put an extra HD or anything else in.
And true vista has had problems but thats why you dont buy an operating system until its been around for awhile.
XP has been trouble free for me, I see no reason to upgrade, and wont until the compatibility problems have been addressed.
But thse are nothing compared to APPLES SIMILAR PROBLEMS.
Artsy types like people in publishing and some media like Apple, but most in serious lines of work use PC, as do most people.
As for micro being a "monopolist" they are guilty of no more or less than other companies.
People always look out for their self inyerest.
And to blame the demise of HALF BAKED format that was doomed to failure from the start on their "half assed efforts", if they had done more would you be screaming they were "monopolistic"?
Thats what I thought.
As for trying to "steer" the industry towards a few industry codecs , whats wrong with that?
Why do we need ten different ways of doing something?
The superiority of VC-1 is well known BTW.
Microsoft saw two competing formats and went with the wrong one, simple as that.
They probably thought cost would be a factor like its been in every format war so far,
and they guessed wrong..
Look at it this way, do you really think the boys who came up with Vista ARE REALLY CAPABLE OF SUCH far reaching "conspiracies"?

People who see such conspiracies are guilty of a logical fallacy.
They see ten wrecks at an intersection and think someone must be causing those wrecks.
When its probably a poorly designed intersection.
Sure micro backed a disc format, big deal, there were two, the chances were fifty fifty they were going to back either one, they just backed the wrong one.
God help us if they HAD backed Blu Ray, all of you conspiracy wackjobs would be having a fit right about now, screaming about how micro is "taking over"!:1:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

OH PLEASE!
I am not a "lover" of microsoft but the truth is we need standards in the computer world.
You take it for granted but the only reason everybody on this site can talk to each other is
protocols and standards. AND SOMEBODY NEEDS TO ENFORCE THOSE STANDARDS.
As for Apple being a joke I was reffering to their line of toy computers, most of which you can't put an extra HD or anything else in.
And true vista has had problems but thats why you dont buy an operating system until its been around for awhile.
XP has been trouble free for me, I see no reason to upgrade, and wont until the compatibility problems have been addressed.
But thse are nothing compared to APPLES SIMILAR PROBLEMS.
Artsy types like people in publishing and some media like Apple, but most in serious lines of work use PC, as do most people.
As for micro being a "monopolist" they are guilty of no more or less than other companies.
People always look out for their self inyerest.
And to blame the demise of HALF BAKED format that was doomed to failure from the start on their "half assed efforts", if they had done more would you be screaming they were "monopolistic"?
Thats what I thought.
As for trying to "steer" the industry towards a few industry codecs , whats wrong with that?
Why do we need ten different ways of doing something?
The superiority of VC-1 is well known BTW.
Microsoft saw two competing formats and went with the wrong one, simple as that.
They probably thought cost would be a factor like its been in every format war so far,
and they guessed wrong..
Look at it this way, do you really think the boys who came up with Vista ARE REALLY CAPABLE OF SUCH far reaching "conspiracies"?

People who see such conspiracies are guilty of a logical fallacy.
They see ten wrecks at an intersection and think someone must be causing those wrecks.
When its probably a poorly designed intersection.
Sure micro backed a disc format, big deal, there were two, the chances were fifty fifty they were going to back either one, they just backed the wrong one.
God help us if they HAD backed Blu Ray, all of you conspiracy wackjobs would be having a fit right about now, screaming about how micro is "taking over"!:1:

You really are as stupid as I first believed, maybe even worse. You don't know anything and think you know everything. Pretty tragic, but self applied ignorance usually is.

[Groundbeef]

From what I am hearing, they are having a bit of a struggle getting XBOX360 to work with a bluray drive. It seems that as powerful as the XBOX360 is, it does not do well trying to handle PCM, DTHD and Dts MA lossless and AVC serperately, or together. Its seems that AVC at high bit rates(what you would find on a Disney bluray titles) causes the processing to overload and shut down the machine. Using PCM, or any of the advance lossless codecs cause the audio to skip and jump around. The XBOX360 was optimized for games, not high resolution video sources. Its processing was designed for games, not high resolution audio and video, so getting it to function like the PS3 is proving very difficult for the designers to accomplish. Beef knows more about its gaming prowess than I do, but on the video side of things, it was not design to do what they are asking it to do apparently.

Beef enters the room with a dumbfounded look on his face. Smiles for a moment, savors the compliment, then works up the nerve to comment.

I'm not really sure about the BR add-on. All that I have read indicated that they could offer a supplemental drive similar to the HD-DVD, but I haven't read information contridicting your above statement.

Perhaps it doesn't play nice with BR, but I didn't really buy it for that anyway. I've been looking for a standalone player...ya know one that doesn't play video games AND play BR movies. Kinda like a floor wax that is also a non-dairy whipped topping. :)

[Woochifer]

OH PLEASE!
I am not a "lover" of microsoft but the truth is we need standards in the computer world.
You take it for granted but the only reason everybody on this site can talk to each other is
protocols and standards. AND SOMEBODY NEEDS TO ENFORCE THOSE STANDARDS.

Uh, the industry has already defined the standards -- MPEG-4 H.264 is an example of an open standard that was agreed upon by consensus and approved by an international standards body. Microsoft's typical tactic is to take agreed-upon industry standards and then tie a proprietary fork to their Windows monopoly in order to divide the market (e.g., proprietary non-standard website tags that only read in IE, MS' non-standard version of Java, etc.). They tried that same tactic this time around by forcing a nonstandard format down the industry's throat, and it failed. HD-DVD is just one of many channels they've tried to get VC-1 adopted, and no doubt they'll keep trying, because they make no money so long as the industry continues to go towards H.264.


As for Apple being a joke I was reffering to their line of toy computers, most of which you can't put an extra HD or anything else in.

Ever heard of external hard drives or USB devices? I guess not. :rolleyes:

And if Apple's computers are "toys" like you say they are, then how come the fastest Vista notebook that PC World tested last year was the Apple MacBook Pro?

You want a "toy" computer, look no further than all these bargain basement PCs running "Vista Home Basic."


And true vista has had problems but thats why you dont buy an operating system until its been around for awhile.
XP has been trouble free for me, I see no reason to upgrade, and wont until the compatibility problems have been addressed.
But thse are nothing compared to APPLES SIMILAR PROBLEMS.

Really? You mean OS X has the same issues with viruses, malware, and spyware as Windows? (Since you're clearly ignorant on the subject of Macs, the answer to that is a definitive no)

Fact of the matter is that every successive version of OS X actually makes the same computer run faster. Upgrading from OS X Tiger to Leopard resulted in nearly across-the-board increases in my system's benchmark scores -- can't say that about a PC going from XP to Vista (or Windows2000 to XP for that matter), where the performance benchmarks on some measures can drop by more than half.

Like I said, try spending some time with a Mac, you might actually learn something ... that is if you're capable of that.


Artsy types like people in publishing and some media like Apple, but most in serious lines of work use PC, as do most people.

Gosh, you mean my wife's research with DNA sequencing (which is done using UNIX programs running on a Mac) isn't a "serious" line of work? Thanks for letting me know. I'll go ahead and tell her that she's not as smart as I thought she was, because only the serious work is done a Windows machine.


As for micro being a "monopolist" they are guilty of no more or less than other companies.

Uh, least time I checked MS was ruled to be monopolist by the courts on two continents and forced to operate under consent decrees, so by definition that makes them more guilty than Apple or any other company without a court ruling to that effect.


People always look out for their self inyerest.
And to blame the demise of HALF BAKED format that was doomed to failure from the start on their "half assed efforts", if they had done more would you be screaming they were "monopolistic"?

Try again. Without Microsoft's intervention, Toshiba would likely have reached a compromise with the Blu-ray camp, and this format war would have been averted. Once Blu-ray went with the open H.264 and Java formats, Microsoft wanted a format war in order to push their proprietary VC-1 and HDi formats, and HD-DVD was the vehicle by which to make that happen. But, their efforts were half-assed because HD-DVD was not their format. They'd rather dump resources into their money-losing ventures like the Xbox and Zune franchises.


As for trying to "steer" the industry towards a few industry codecs , whats wrong with that?
Why do we need ten different ways of doing something?

We don't need more formats. That's why the industry has embraced the open standard MPEG-4 AVC (H.264) media format. It's MS that tried to break this consensus by shoehorning yet another redundant format into the mix.


The superiority of VC-1 is well known BTW.

Says who? Microsoft? :lol:

VC-1 is a more highly compressed format. Might work for squeezing smaller file sizes for downloading, but not for maximizing picture quality, especially with a 50 GB disc size.


Microsoft saw two competing formats and went with the wrong one, simple as that.

Nope. They forced a format war when it appeared that the industry was about to reach a consensus that did not include their proprietary formats. Nearly all of the CE manufacturers, computer companies, and movie studios had already announced their support for Blu-ray and painted Toshiba into a corner. Microsoft only declared their HD-DVD support when virtually the entire industry had already aligned itself with Blu-ray. That does not signify MS choosing the "wrong" format, rather it demonstrates them trying to create a format war where one did not need to happen.


They probably thought cost would be a factor like its been in every format war so far,
and they guessed wrong..
Look at it this way, do you really think the boys who came up with Vista ARE REALLY CAPABLE OF SUCH far reaching "conspiracies"?

Of course they are. That's how they operate -- illegally use market power to bleed competitors, and tie the market to proprietary standards. Doesn't take a whole lot of brains to do that, just monopoly control over the market and the willingness to illegally use that market power to expand into new markets.

With the ridiculous profits from their OS and office application monopolies, MS can make all sorts of bone-headed moves and it won't impact them one bit. I mean, they've lost billions on their video gaming, online, and media device ventures. Just about any other company would have crashed and burned a long time ago with those kinds of losses


People who see such conspiracies are guilty of a logical fallacy.

And you on the other hand, are simply ignorant of how MS' role in the HD-DVD debacle is consistent with how they've operated in the past, and continue to operate. It's no conspiracy, since MS' illegal exercise of monopoly power has been documented and in the public record for the better part of two decades.


God help us if they HAD backed Blu Ray, all of you conspiracy wackjobs would be having a fit right about now, screaming about how micro is "taking over"!:1:

Try Google searching "embrace extend extinguish" and you'll see why that would too have been cause for concern. It's suspicious anytime MS embraces an open standard, because you know that a proprietary variant is just around the corner. The difference is that the industry has wised up to these practices. The only "wackjob" would be someone who ignores MS' history.

[pixelthis]

Your paranoia borders on the clinical. Seek help.
I am a libertarian and know that a monopoly cant exist in a free market.
The reason Microsoft is on top is that people embrace their products, simple as that.
And its a toy computer that has to have a USB drive in order to expand capacity.
Thats a joke.
You talk about microsoft and their "monopoly tendecies?
Do you know why apple doesnt rule the world?
They had it you know. A computer way ahead of its time you could pack it in a case,
take it anywhere, outperformed anything on the market, this was the mid eighties.
It had a mouse and a GUI , something unheard of back then.
And Apple charged 2400 bucks for one, after inflation that is 7200 dollars!
Talk about monopoly, they wouldn't liscense it to anybody
So people gritted their teeth, learned dos, and bought one of the several PC computers available from several manufacturers.
You can buy a computer for 300 bucks these days, with amazing capabilities,
if it had been up to Apple you'd be buying one of their toy computers for 5000 bucks,
and god help you if you infringed on their "patent rights".

Don't try to preach history to one who has lived it.
Apple had the world and gave it up due to their insane greed .
And if they get a stranglehold on the download market they will do what they tried to
do to computers.
Don't like a world dominated by Microsoft?
Wait until you see one dominated by Apple:1:

[Groundbeef]

. They'd rather dump resources into their money-losing ventures like the Xbox and Zune franchises.

I mean, they've lost billions on their video gaming, online, and media device ventures. Just about any other company would have crashed and burned a long time ago with those kinds of losses


I had to do a "minor" cut an paste. MS HAS turned a profit on the XBOX 360, something they never did with the original XBOX. I'm not sure about Zune, pretty sure its still losing money.

Lets not forget to lump Sony in with MS in losing money on their video gaming side of the business. The PS3 cost Sony BILLIONs in development costs, and they haven't turned a profit yet. I'm sure they will, as it appears that sales are picking up pace.

And I'm pretty sure Sony didn't do so well with the MiniDisc either.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I had to do a "minor" cut an paste. MS HAS turned a profit on the XBOX 360, something they never did with the original XBOX. I'm not sure about Zune, pretty sure its still losing money.

Lets not forget to lump Sony in with MS in losing money on their video gaming side of the business. The PS3 cost Sony BILLIONs in development costs, and they haven't turned a profit yet. I'm sure they will, as it appears that sales are picking up pace.

And I'm pretty sure Sony didn't do so well with the MiniDisc either.

Actually minidisc enjoyed some success in the pro world. I used it alot to give clients a temp mix to listen to and give me comments on.

Zune is a financial diaster for Microsoft. Not the success they had hoped for.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Beef enters the room with a dumbfounded look on his face. Smiles for a moment, savors the compliment, then works up the nerve to comment.

I'm not really sure about the BR add-on. All that I have read indicated that they could offer a supplemental drive similar to the HD-DVD, but I haven't read information contridicting your above statement.

Perhaps it doesn't play nice with BR, but I didn't really buy it for that anyway. I've been looking for a standalone player...ya know one that doesn't play video games AND play BR movies. Kinda like a floor wax that is also a non-dairy whipped topping. :)

Floor wax that is also non diary whipped topping?? Waaaahahahahahaha...LOLOL..too funny.

Well, Sony is coming out with two new players in the summer for under $500. And if this is just too cheap for you, Goldmund is coming out with a $16,500 bluray player that does everything including broadway shows.

[Woochifer]

Your paranoia borders on the clinical. Seek help.

And your ignorance knows no bounds, try buying a calendar sometime or at least read up on what has happened over the last 20 years. A lot has happened since the 1980s.


I am a libertarian and know that a monopoly cant exist in a free market.

Typical fallacious circular argument, given that every market in the world operates in a regulated environment, and not in some theoretical libertarian vacuum. Even the internet itself is a government-subsidized venture originally created for military applications.

If monopolies don't exist, then why do all countries have some form of anti-trust laws on the books, and why has Microsoft been legally defined as a "monopoly" by the courts in the U.S. and the E.U.?


The reason Microsoft is on top is that people embrace their products, simple as that.

Nope, the reason is that they have a monopoly in the OS market that they have used to kill competitors in other markets.


And its a toy computer that has to have a USB drive in order to expand capacity.
Thats a joke.

The joke is your now debunked belief that Macs could not be expanded. When was the last time you actually used a Mac? I thought so. :rolleyes:

Oh, and I guess that if Macs are toys, then all the other Vista laptop PCs that PC World tested are toys too, given that the MacBook Pro outperformed all of them while running Vista?

And by your logic, all laptops are toy computers anyway (even though they now constitute the majority of the market), given that none of them can add internal hard drive capacity either, right?


You talk about microsoft and their "monopoly tendecies?
Do you know why apple doesnt rule the world?
They had it you know. A computer way ahead of its time you could pack it in a case,
take it anywhere, outperformed anything on the market, this was the mid eighties.
It had a mouse and a GUI , something unheard of back then.
And Apple charged 2400 bucks for one, after inflation that is 7200 dollars!
Talk about monopoly, they wouldn't liscense it to anybody

This coming from someone who thinks that monopolies don't exist because we have a totally free market! Make up your mind! Do monopolies exist or don't they? Proprietary and patented technology alone do not constitute a monopoly, or is that what you are telling us does not exist?

Apple was not a monopolist because at no point did they ever have or exercise market power in the computer industry. At the time that the Mac came out, there was still plenty of competition in the PC market, and the Mac's market share actually remained lower than the arcane Apple ][.


So people gritted their teeth, learned dos, and bought one of the several PC computers available from several manufacturers.
You can buy a computer for 300 bucks these days, with amazing capabilities,
if it had been up to Apple you'd be buying one of their toy computers for 5000 bucks,
and god help you if you infringed on their "patent rights".

And guess what, the market worked exactly as it should -- Apple attained only a 10% market share, while the less expensive and less capable PCs took the rest. Apple directed the Mac towards the higher end of the market, and they still do. At no point has Apple ever tried marketing the Mac towards the cheap bottomfeeding end -- I guess that's why you're so bitter towards them, given your preference for cheapness.


Don't try to preach history to one who has lived it.

I'm not preaching to someone who has lived it, just to someone who's ignorant of it.


Apple had the world and gave it up due to their insane greed .
And if they get a stranglehold on the download market they will do what they tried to
do to computers.

So tell us what they "tried to do to computers" given that at no point did they ever attain a market position powerful enough to kill competition in the OS market?


Don't like a world dominated by Microsoft?
Wait until you see one dominated by Apple:1:

Let's see, maybe my computer at work (which is Windows-based) will crash less often, run faster, won't force me to install crapware that I don't need (a la IE, Windows Messenger, Windows Media Player, etc.), be less susceptible to worms and other security risks, and provide the ability to seamlessly work between Linux, Windows, and OS X applications? :cornut:

[Woochifer]

I had to do a "minor" cut an paste. MS HAS turned a profit on the XBOX 360, something they never did with the original XBOX. I'm not sure about Zune, pretty sure its still losing money.

Only beginning late last year did MS finally turn a profit. The Xbox360 still has two years of cumulative losses in the billions to make up for before you can say that MS has actually turned a profit on the Xbox360.


Lets not forget to lump Sony in with MS in losing money on their video gaming side of the business. The PS3 cost Sony BILLIONs in development costs, and they haven't turned a profit yet. I'm sure they will, as it appears that sales are picking up pace.

Never claimed that Sony wasn't losing money on the PS3. Sony has already taken a huge hit with the PS3 and Blu-ray. They've basically bet the company's future on Blu-ray, so it remains to be seen if Blu-ray can recoup all of those losses at the back end. If Blu-ray fails, then Sony as we know it right now will probably be dramatically restructured.

My points re MS were simply that without their high margin OS and office app monopolies, there's no way would they have been able to survive so many big money-losing ventures on the consumer side like the Xbox, Zune, and MSN. And without a preexisting monopoly in place, they would not be able to shove a bloated, bug-ridden OS like Vista down everybody's throat.

If Apple had failed with the iPod or iPhone or the OS X transition, they would have taken a substantial hit financially because they don't have billions of monopoly dollars rolling in every quarter. And if the original iMac hadn't been a huge hit, Apple probably would not have survived as an independent company.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I am getting the impression that the more we try and teach this idiot, the dummer he gets.

[GMichael]

I am getting the impression that the more we try and teach this idiot, the dummer he gets.

I resemble that!:incazzato:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I resemble that!:incazzato:

LOL, thanks for the comic relief...LOL

[GMichael]

LOL, thanks for the comic relief...LOL

We all do our part. You dish out information and put people in their place. I act silly and make people laugh. It's a team thing.

[ldgibson76]

LOL, thanks for the comic relief...LOL

Hey "SirT"!

You've been summoned to "GMichael's" "What means the most in your HT system? Audio or video?" thread.
Plus there's a surprise for you.....a concession! That's right, someone admitting that you were right about something. a true digression in progress! A must-read!

[Groundbeef]

Floor wax that is also non diary whipped topping?? Waaaahahahahahaha...LOLOL..too funny.

Well, Sony is coming out with two new players in the summer for under $500. And if this is just too cheap for you, Goldmund is coming out with a $16,500 bluray player that does everything including broadway shows.

Forget Broadway shows....whats it do when you watch porn?

[GMichael]

Forget Broadway shows....whats it do when you watch porn?
That depends on how you set the pop-up blocker.

[Groundbeef]

That depends on how you set the pop-up blocker.

Why pray tell would you want a "Pop-Up Blocker" on when watching Porn? Isn't that a bit of an oxymoron?

[pixelthis]

Woochifer]And your ignorance knows no bounds, try buying a calendar sometime or at least read up on what has happened over the last 20 years. A lot has happened since the 1980s.

yep, PC's have taken over the market, a market that Apple surrendered due to greed and marketing ignorance



Typical fallacious circular argument, given that every market in the world operates in a regulated environment, and not in some theoretical libertarian vacuum. Even the internet itself is a government-subsidized venture originally created for military applications.

but its those "regulations" that allow monopolies to exist

If monopolies don't exist, then why do all countries have some form of anti-trust laws on the books, and why has Microsoft been legally defined as a "monopoly" by the courts in the U.S. and the E.U.?

this was grandstanding. If they were a monopoly then why werent they broken up?



Nope, the reason is that they have a monopoly in the OS market that they have used to kill competitors in other markets.

they dont have a "monopoly", just dominant market share, mainly because their stuff actually has use in the free world


The joke is your now debunked belief that Macs could not be expanded. When was the last time you actually used a Mac? I thought so. :rolleyes:
Dont have time to play with toys

Oh, and I guess that if Macs are toys, then all the other Vista laptop PCs that PC World tested are toys too, given that the MacBook Pro outperformed all of them while running Vista?
Sp vista sucks and powerbook is great because it runs it so well? Are you arguing with yourself?

And by your logic, all laptops are toy computers anyway (even though they now constitute the majority of the market), given that none of them can add internal hard drive capacity either, right?
theres plenty you can do with a laptop, but we're not talking about laptops


This coming from someone who thinks that monopolies don't exist because we have a totally free market! Make up your mind! Do monopolies exist or don't they? Proprietary and patented technology alone do not constitute a monopoly, or is that what you are telling us does not exist?

proprietary and patented tech doesnt constitute a monopoly true, and that is microsofts main advantage, thanks for proving my point, and monopolies dont exist in a free market,
every monopoly that has ever existed exists because of govt force

Apple was not a monopolist because at no point did they ever have or exercise market power in the computer industry. At the time that the Mac came out, there was still plenty of competition in the PC market, and the Mac's market share actually remained lower than the arcane Apple ][.



And guess what, the market worked exactly as it should -- Apple attained only a 10% market share, while the less expensive and less capable PCs took the rest. Apple directed the Mac towards the higher end of the market, and they still do. At no point has Apple ever tried marketing the Mac towards the cheap bottomfeeding end -- I guess that's why you're so bitter towards them, given your preference for cheapness.

In other words they lost market and became a niche product because of their greed and inept marketing, this isn't just my opinion its well known
They wouldnt liscense their product or price it competively,
and to say I am "bitter" toward a company that makes botique toys for people for whom cstyle is more important than function is hilarious. Why should I care about a doomed company run by a bunch of ignorant yuppies?


I'm not preaching to someone who has lived it, just to someone who's ignorant of it.

no, you're telling your lies and propaganda to someone who was THERE when it happened, propaganda doesnt work so well on someone who actually wittenessed
what happened.
And Apple gave up the future is what happened, and that is their loss



So tell us what they "tried to do to computers" given that at no point did they ever attain a market position powerful enough to kill competition in the OS market?
Every product they make is sealed tight and impossible to work on.
THINK that microsoft products its source code? Where can you find apples?
Oh. thats different! YEAH RIGHT


Let's see, maybe my computer at work (which is Windows-based) will crash less often, run faster, won't force me to install crapware that I don't need (a la IE, Windows Messenger, Windows Media Player, etc.), be less susceptible to worms and other security risks, and provide the ability to seamlessly work between Linux, Windows, and OS X applications? :cornut:[/QUOTE]
Then just get yourself an APPLE! So why doesnt your company use Apple? Why don't they let you bring your Apple to work?
I thought so.
Apple is just as prone to security risks as windows, the only reason hackers dont bother
is that Apples are so rarely used that its not worth the trouble, and if you cant figure out how to uninstall media player and messenger then you are a blithering idiot.
BTW I have used XP for several years with no problems of any serious sort whatsoever:1:

[pixelthis]

Sir Terrence the Terrible]I am getting the impression that the more we try and teach this idiot, the dummer he gets.


This from a moron who can't spell "dumber"
And since I am already out of high school I doubt theres' much you can teach me, punk:1:

[Woochifer]

Woochifer]but its those "regulations" that allow monopolies to exist

BS. In the absence of those regulations, monopolies would still form, only with no legal recourse for businesses or consumers against anti-competitive behavior.


this was grandstanding. If they were a monopoly then why werent they broken up?

Because the legal remedy for monopolistic behavior is not always to break up the company. Just today, MS was levied a $1.3 billion fine by the courts in the E.U. Try reading a court decision sometime -- Microsoft IS a monopoly, despite what your so-called "free market" theorizing might say.


they dont have a "monopoly", just dominant market share, mainly because their stuff actually has use in the free world

Gosh, maybe MS should hire you as their legal counsel. I'm sure after the judges hear all of your ramblings about how monopolies don't exist, they'll just tear up all of those consent decrees and prior court decisions! :rolleyes:


Sp vista sucks and powerbook is great because it runs it so well? Are you arguing with yourself?

Nope. Not only can that MacBook Pro run Vista faster than other PCs should you choose to install that operating system, but it can also run Mac OS X, which PC Magazine (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2207543,00.asp) BTW just reviewed as "arguably the best consumer operating system available."

And BTW, Apple hasn't made "Powerbook" computers for years. Just yet another insight into how woefully outdated your facts are.


theres plenty you can do with a laptop, but we're not talking about laptops

You're talking about how nonexpandable computers are nothing more than toys. Simple logic would deduce that you're saying that laptops therefore are toys. Are you now saying that because "theres plenty you can do with a laptop" that laptops aren't toys? Applying logic again, wouldn't that therefore negate your argument that Macs are toys, given that there's plenty that I can do on a Mac?

Think hard, I know that logic is not one of your strongsuits, but I'm really pulling hard for you this time! You can do it! Really!


proprietary and patented tech doesnt constitute a monopoly true, and that is microsofts main advantage, thanks for proving my point, and monopolies dont exist in a free market,
every monopoly that has ever existed exists because of govt force

Again, make up your mind. Are you now saying that Microsoft IS a monopoly because it operates in a regulated environment? But, I thought that Microsoft was NOT a monopoly because it's impossible for them to exist in a free market! But, if you're now acknowledging that we're not in a free market, then that tosses all of your so-called "libertarian" arguments out the window now doesn't it?


In other words they lost market and became a niche product because of their greed and inept marketing, this isn't just my opinion its well known
They wouldnt liscense their product or price it competively,

So, how does that make Apple a monopoly, like you said they are? I thought that monopolies didn't exit, or they only existed due to govt regulation, or that MS is not a monopoly because they attained a dominant market position. Your pretzel logic is quite amusing to say the least! :crazy:


Why should I care about a doomed company run by a bunch of ignorant yuppies?

Doomed company? Yuh, doomed companies should all have $18 billion cash on hand, and coming off their most profitable quarter ever. You're about 11 years late to the party with that prediction, Nostradamus.


no, you're telling your lies and propaganda to someone who was THERE when it happened, propaganda doesnt work so well on someone who actually wittenessed
what happened.

Nope, just stating a simple truth to someone who's too ignorant/myopic to acknowledge.


Every product they make is sealed tight and impossible to work on.
THINK that microsoft products its source code? Where can you find apples?

Here (Darwin kernel used in OS X)
http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/

And here (Webkit source code used for the Safari browser, Dashboard apps, and their Mail app)
http://webkit.org/

Again, don't let current facts get in the way of your outdated arguments.


Then just get yourself an APPLE!

Already got one at home


So why doesnt your company use Apple? Why don't they let you bring your Apple to work?

I can bring my Mac to work, if I choose to do so. Company has been wedded to PCs ever since I joined them. With Vista, they're now rethinking their IT systems, and now that Macs can virtualize and dual-boot using Windows, our custom apps can now run on Macs.


Apple is just as prone to security risks as windows, the only reason hackers dont bother
is that Apples are so rarely used that its not worth the trouble

Once again living in a theoretical dream world. It doesn't matter WHY Macs aren't as prone to security risks, the simple fact is that they ARE less prone to those risks. Many of MS' security risks are built into the OS defaults, for example, it took MS two service packs before the spam-magnet Messenger service was finally shut off by default.


BTW I have used XP for several years with no problems of any serious sort whatsoever[/I]:1:

Well, I'm happy for you. That would put you in a very select group. Don't you just feel special? :lol:

[kexodusc]

Then just get yourself an APPLE! So why doesnt your company use Apple? Why don't they let you bring your Apple to work?

I work for an Investment Manager firm that manages billions in personal and institutional investor's money - we use Mac's because they are more stable than windows, prone to far less security breaches, and are capable of running programs that can integrate well into any platform - Windows, Unix/Linux or Mac. It's a lot more common than you think. Windows flaws are the reason Microsoft has failed to dominate the server market the same way it has the desktop market.

My Macbook is great (and it runs Linux very well).

For the most part the decision to buy a windows based platform has less to do with the merits of windows and more to do with the barriers to changing from Windows to something else. That is changing though, as Microsoft's hold on the OS market is declining. Good thing for consumers, bad thing for MS fanboys.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sir Terrence the Terrible]I am getting the impression that the more we try and teach this idiot, the dummer he gets.


This from a moron who can't spell "dumber"
And since I am already out of high school I doubt theres' much you can teach me, punk:1:

If you are already out of high school, and are as ignorant and stubbornly stupid as you are, that is no testament to education you got at hickville high.

The object of spelling dummer the way I did, is so you would actually understand the word. So what did you do, look up the spelling?

[ldgibson76]

If you are already out of high school, and are as ignorant and stubbornly stupid as you are, that is no testament to education you got at hickville high.

The object of spelling dummer the way I did, is so you would actually understand the word. So what did you do, look up the spelling?

Brutal!!!!:eek:

"Sir T", you're definitely back!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I work for an Investment Manager firm that manages billions in personal and institutional investor's money - we use Mac's because they are more stable than windows, prone to far less security breaches, and are capable of running programs that can integrate well into any platform - Windows, Unix/Linux or Mac. It's a lot more common than you think. Windows flaws are the reason Microsoft has failed to dominate the server market the same way it has the desktop market.

My Macbook is great (and it runs Linux very well).

For the most part the decision to buy a windows based platform has less to do with the merits of windows and more to do with the barriers to changing from Windows to something else. That is changing though, as Microsoft's hold on the OS market is declining. Good thing for consumers, bad thing for MS fanboys.

It seems that everyone around me has already transitioned to the Mac. I have been a PC guy all of my life, and my work environment has always been Mac. I am now considering going Mac myself. It would make alot of sense for me to do so.

[ldgibson76]

Hello "Sir T"!

Forgive me if I sound a little presumptuous, but it seem like you are completely ignoring my post directed to you. What do I have to do?! Say something bad about Blu ray technology to get a response from you. I did in a previous post admit that your assertions and predictions regarding the demise of HD DVD was correct. I digress, already! You were right! You're the Man! I concede! (smile)

Regards!

[GMichael]

Hello "Sir T"!

Forgive me if I sound a little presumptuous, but it seem like you are completely ignoring my post directed to you. What do I have to do?! Say something bad about Blu ray technology to get a response from you. I did in a previous post admit that your assertions and predictions regarding the demise of HD DVD was correct. I digress, already! You were right! You're the Man! I concede! (smile)

Regards!

Would you snap a sleeping lion with a wet towel?

[ldgibson76]

Would you snap a sleeping lion with a wet towel?

As long as he's in his cage! Does he usually hold a grudge?! And let's not get it twisted, I'm not afraid of his insulting observations gripes and complaints! I do admit that he is a very knowledgeable guy and has a unique perspective on certain things. It's just at times his delivery leaves a lot to be desired. Kind of reminds me of a Morton's Steakhouse Fillet Mignon with all the trimmings being served on a trash can top! KnowwhatImean, Vern?!

[GMichael]

As long as he's in his cage! Does he usually hold a grudge?! And let's not get it twisted, I'm not afraid of his insulting observations gripes and complaints! I do admit that he is a very knowledgeable guy and has a unique perspective on certain things. It's just at times his delivery leaves a lot to be desired. Kind of reminds me of a Morton's Steakhouse Fillet Mignon with all the trimmings being served on a trash can top! KnowwhatImean, Vern?!

Just funnin' with ya. Sir T is a great guy.

When someone has to spend 24/7 being business-like, it's fun to get down in the dirt and fling some mud. And S.T. can fling it with the best of them.

[filecat13]

'Tis better to fling than to be flung.

'Tis better to be flung than to fling.

You decide. :crazy:

[GMichael]

'Tis better to fling than to be flinged.

'Tis better to be flinged than to fling.

You decide. :crazy:

Tis better to fling than to be flung, or flung at.
Better to be a flinger than a flingy.

[filecat13]

Tis better to fling than to be flung, or flung at.
Better to be a flinger than a flingy.


I sit corrected, as does my post, though the error shall be immortalized in these quotes forever.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Hello "Sir T"!

Forgive me if I sound a little presumptuous, but it seem like you are completely ignoring my post directed to you. What do I have to do?! Say something bad about Blu ray technology to get a response from you. I did in a previous post admit that your assertions and predictions regarding the demise of HD DVD was correct. I digress, already! You were right! You're the Man! I concede! (smile)

Regards!

Hey Dave, I responded, I responded!! I gotta mix to eat ya know. You are the bomb buddy, a class act. Now do you have a band aid so I can cover the whip marks you put on me!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

As long as he's in his cage! Does he usually hold a grudge?! And let's not get it twisted, I'm not afraid of his insulting observations gripes and complaints! I do admit that he is a very knowledgeable guy and has a unique perspective on certain things. It's just at times his delivery leaves a lot to be desired. Kind of reminds me of a Morton's Steakhouse Fillet Mignon with all the trimmings being served on a trash can top! KnowwhatImean, Vern?!

Ouch!! When I get up off this ground Dave.......and get this steak off my eye..........I don't know what the hell I am going to do! LOLOL

[Rich-n-Texas]

Casual acquaintences or former lovers? :biggrin5:

[GMichael]

Someone? Pass me the A1 please.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Sorry, he already gave the steak to me.

[GMichael]

Dang it!

Oh well. At least it got enjoyed by someone.

LJ? Can you fire up that grill?

[Woochifer]

It seems that everyone around me has already transitioned to the Mac. I have been a PC guy all of my life, and my work environment has always been Mac. I am now considering going Mac myself. It would make alot of sense for me to do so.

Man, as a PC user in the entertainment industry, you must really feel like the odd man out! :8:

I first learned programming on an Apple ][, and migrated straight over to a Mac in college. For work and collaborative projects, I was often forced to use PCs, and I grew proficient enough with the various versions of Windows to know how much of a kludge that OS has always been, especially now with their constant refinements and improvements to OS X.

Been around long enough to remember when PC guys would tell me that Macs were toys because they used graphical interfaces! Yet, all the while I was getting my spreadsheet and statistical work done so much faster on my Mac, because I didn't have to learn separate DOS command structures for every program that I was using.

With OS X and the Macs now using Intel processors, the Mac has become a pretty compelling option. If you still have Windows apps that you have to use, you can run Windows at close to full performance using a virtualization program such as VM Ware Fusion or Parallels, or at full performance by dual booting directly into Windows. And all the while, you can use native OS X apps for everything else.

For amateur video and audio editing, the Macs are great. For creating baby videos, I've been using Final Cut Express, which operates almost identically to the professional Final Cut Pro app (the Express version lacks certain features like the SMPTE time code, color correction tools, and support for some professional video formats -- things that an amateur like me won't need). And Garage Band (which comes with every Mac) is a fun tool for creating loops and mixing together audio tracks.

[kexodusc]

It seems that everyone around me has already transitioned to the Mac. I have been a PC guy all of my life, and my work environment has always been Mac. I am now considering going Mac myself. It would make alot of sense for me to do so.
I worked for an Apple Store in college and got my first experience that way. When XP came out, I finally broke down and bought a PC and gave up on Mac's. When I moved to Canada to my current job, the company I was with gave me a Macbook...man, did I realize how much I missed OS X after a few years of Windows.

Because of some ridiculous WGA issues, I made the transition on my PC to Linux. Once I got past the initial learning curve, it's been clear sailing. I prefer Linux to even OS X for a variety of reasons, and run it on my Macbook. Macs and Linux have more than common ancestry and tend to have a symbiotic relationship.

If you're bored with Windows or have an older machine that's slowing down, I'd recommend installing a Linux OS (it's free) on it to revitalize your computing experience. Heck, you can even put it on that PS3 of yours.

For an easy, out of the box computer purchasing experience, you still can't beat a Mac IMO, but damn, you still pay for it.

[Woochifer]

For an easy, out of the box computer purchasing experience, you still can't beat a Mac IMO, but damn, you still pay for it.

I would add though that the Mac pricing is not that high if you compare them with similarly configured PCs. Macs appear to come out at higher price points simply because Apple doesn't do a lot of bargain-priced configurations. In fact, if you compare the iMac with the new all-in-one models from Gateway and Dell, the iMac actually comes out cheaper if you configure all three models similarly.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Alright Kex and Wooch, you sold me. Now Rich, I want my dang steak back, I am hungry!!!

[kexodusc]

I would add though that the Mac pricing is not that high if you compare them with similarly configured PCs. Macs appear to come out at higher price points simply because Apple doesn't do a lot of bargain-priced configurations. In fact, if you compare the iMac with the new all-in-one models from Gateway and Dell, the iMac actually comes out cheaper if you configure all three models similarly.
Fair enough, and I would also add Mac users tend to get more life out of their Macs than PC owners too, which supports the low cost-of-ownership argument.
But I can't help but think if Apple ever came out with a low-ball $300-$400 unit that they'd take the world by storm. I'm thinking of my poor mom and dad, who had to buy a new PC this winter to do the same thing they've been doing the last 10 years...surf the web, chat, and check e-mail, with the odd bit of word processing and music/DVD playback. What they ended up with wasn't a low-quality unit, just one composed of a bunch of dated components. The same configuration was probably sold for triple the price a year or two ago.
If there was a Mac in that range it would have been a no brainer. Mom and dad find my laptop far more intuitive and even "fun" than Vista which has added too much complexity and bother. I've always felt the power of a Mac was in the interface and software rather than the hardware, but maybe I'm in the minority camp on that one.

[GMichael]

Rich, I want my dang steak back, I am hungry!!!

No you don't, and you wouldn't be. Trust me.

[Rich-n-Texas]

No you don't, and you wouldn't be. Trust me.
Ha ha ha ha! Funny as a crutch GM. :nonod:

L.J.! Is Sir T's steak ready yet? Hurry! PLEASE!!! :yikes:

[Rich-n-Texas]

I would add though that the Mac pricing is not that high if you compare them with similarly configured PCs. Macs appear to come out at higher price points simply because Apple doesn't do a lot of bargain-priced configurations. In fact, if you compare the iMac with the new all-in-one models from Gateway and Dell, the iMac actually comes out cheaper if you configure all three models similarly.
My boss purchased a Dell recently. He was happy with it (so he said just as an attempt to prove me wrong... tell ya later), until he tried watching vidoe from his camcorder. Frame rates sucked. He's also into RC helicopter flying, and because he was spending so much money on it after constantly crashing it... :lol: ... he bought a simulator to run on the PC. Uhhhh... 9 fps. :rolleyes: Long story short, he just purchased a "low profile" nVidia 8600 graphics card that comes from some unheard of manufacturer and distributor. I told him I'd never purchase a Dell because of all the built-in proprietarines (don't know if that's a word, but you get the gist) that forces you to upgrade with their marked up components. Every time I tell him... and this is what I was eluding to... you should've built your own, I get a dirty look and a stern "shut up".

I challenge anybody to prove to me that I can get a Mac cheaper than I can when I build my own with comparable characteristics.

[kexodusc]

I challenge anybody to prove to me that I can get a Mac cheaper than I can when I build my own with comparable characteristics.
I build my own PC's too Rich, but that's not really all that relevant here. There isn't much in life you can't do cheaper via the DIY route, and Apple simply isn't in that business, and has never showed interest in competing there. Some would argue the performance gains you make on the hardware are offset by the resource hog that is Windows though.
Macs don't dominate the multimedia world because their more expensive and perform worse.

Still - I've found some PC's sold at price points with OS and software pre-loaded that would be tough to build yourself ready to go as cheap, so maybe that's changing a bit too.

[Rich-n-Texas]

I build my own PC's too Rich, but that's not really all that relevant here. There isn't much in life you can't do cheaper via the DIY route, and Apple simply isn't in that business, and has never showed interest in competing there.
I must have wandered off from the original path this thread was on. Not my intention but I am biased, and IMO with good reason.


Some would argue the performance gains you make on the hardware are offset by the resource hog that is Windows though.
Naaa... just throw more memory at it. :ihih:

I was going to go into detail in response to your post Kex, but everything I came up with made me sound like an MS fanboy, and that just ain't me. Suffice to say, I love the fact that I can play some really neat video games, spend hours upon hours on message boards, send/receive e-mail, manage my finances, buy all sorts of A/V goodies, and download some really HOT porn all from one small room in my house. And it didn't cost me an arm and a leg to enable all those possibilities.

[kexodusc]

I must have wandered off from the original path this thread was on. Not my intention but I am biased, and IMO with good reason.

I think we're waaaay off topic now Rich so fire away.



I was going to go into detail in response to your post Kex, but everything I came up with made me sound like an MS fanboy, and that just ain't me. Suffice to say, I love the fact that I can play some really neat video games, spend hours upon hours on message boards, send/receive e-mail, manage my finances, buy all sorts of A/V goodies, and download some really HOT porn all from one small room in my house. And it didn't cost me an arm and a leg to enable all those possibilities.

I can do all those things on the PC I built without Windows :D. Could do it on my Mac too if I wanted.

[Woochifer]

My boss purchased a Dell recently. He was happy with it (so he said just as an attempt to prove me wrong... tell ya later), until he tried watching vidoe from his camcorder. Frame rates sucked. He's also into RC helicopter flying, and because he was spending so much money on it after constantly crashing it... :lol: ... he bought a simulator to run on the PC. Uhhhh... 9 fps. :rolleyes: Long story short, he just purchased a "low profile" nVidia 8600 graphics card that comes from some unheard of manufacturer and distributor. I told him I'd never purchase a Dell because of all the built-in proprietarines (don't know if that's a word, but you get the gist) that forces you to upgrade with their marked up components. Every time I tell him... and this is what I was eluding to... you should've built your own, I get a dirty look and a stern "shut up".

I guess that would depend on the model in question. I work on the Dells around my office all the time, and I don't recall not being able to swap out the graphics adaptor with one not supplied by Dell. Dell supplies its own updated drivers through their website, and indeed they aren't updated all that frequently. But, I've also found that the more frequently updated drivers on the chipset manufacturers' websites will usually work fine. The Dell motherboards do limit what you can change through the BIOS settings, but since I'm not into overclocking or other performance gaming hacks, that's not an issue for what I do.


I challenge anybody to prove to me that I can get a Mac cheaper than I can when I build my own with comparable characteristics.

You can't, but that's not the point. A Mac is not an open DIY box with a decentralized architecture. It's a custom configured unit that's specifically tailored to the OS. Not having to account for an exponential number of legacy configurations is one reason why a Mac will run faster every time you upgrade to a new version of OS X.

But, compared to the PowerPC/System 7/ADB/SCSI era, Macs are now more comparable to DIY PCs than before, since they now use Intel processors and share the basic peripheral protocols (SATA, USB 2.0, 802.11b/g/n, PCI Express, etc.). One key difference though is that the Mac motherboards and OS X uses EFI firmware (a more advanced hardware interface spec originally developed by Intel), while DIY motherboards use BIOS firmware. That makes it difficult to try running OS X using DIY hardware, but that hasn't stopped hackers from trying, especially since OS X can now run natively on Intel processors.

The OSx86 project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSx86) is one of those community-driven efforts to hack OS X so that it can install onto DIY boxes that use a BIOS motherboard. Supposedly, they've gotten OS X Tiger to work pretty well with a DIY PC. But, my understanding is that the further your PC configuration gets away from Apple's Mac configurations, the buggier and less stable things get. Also, keep in mind that a retail copy of OS X (which BTW does not have annoying activation nags like WGA) lists for $129 ($199 for a "family pack" of five OS licenses), while Windows Vista can cost upwards of $399 for the "Ultimate" version.

Now comparing Macs with DIY PCs is one thing, but taking comparable retail configurations is another. As I mentioned to Kex, Dell and Gateway have both introduced their own all-in-one models to compete with the iMac. But, when you configure the Dell and Gateway models similarly to the iMac, then their prices are actually higher.

[Rich-n-Texas]

I think we're waaaay off topic now Rich so fire away.
When you go to a few of my receiver threads and contribute some of your wit & wisdom, I'll start singing the praises of DIY PC's. :prrr:

guess that would depend on the model in question. I work on the Dells around my office all the time, and I don't recall not being able to swap out the graphics adaptor with one not supplied by Dell.
Here where I work we use Dell Optiplex computers, most of which are mini-towers specifically for use in a business environment. The one my boss has is a home multimedia PC: an Insperon (sp?) in what Dell refers to as a slim-line case. Nevertheless, the Optiplex machines still have limitations when trying to do things like upgrade memory, add more than two expansion cards...etc.

As far as updating graghics drivers, absolutely one should go right to the card manufacturer's website, but since I don't own a Dell I'm not sure how how many and what type of obstacles (s/w bloat) they make you work around so you can get what you need.

[kexodusc]

When you go to a few of my receiver threads and contribute some of your wit & wisdom, I'll start singing the praises of DIY PC's. :prrr:


I go and read, but I'm so jealous I don't post. :incazzato:

[Woochifer]

Fair enough, and I would also add Mac users tend to get more life out of their Macs than PC owners too, which supports the low cost-of-ownership argument.

Very true. OS X Tiger can actually run fine on every Mac dating back to the slot-loading G3 iMac, which came out in 1999. OS X Leopard though seems to have upped the ante on hardware requirements significantly. But, it can still run on Macs dating back as far as 5 years, and that's far more inclusive of upgraders than Vista, which can't even run on most two-year old PCs.


But I can't help but think if Apple ever came out with a low-ball $300-$400 unit that they'd take the world by storm.

They would definitely sell a lot of units, but they could also see their profitability nosedive the way that Dell's price wars and emphasis on low-margin models have stripmined its business model. Apple is unique in that they develop the hardware and the operating system, and I'm not so sure how well that would work if they go to a high-volume, low margin strategy. Apple already markets the $600 Mac Mini (precisely for consumers like your parents who already have a monitor, keyboard, and mouse), and I could see them returning with a mid-level expandable model situated between the iMac (which sells for between $1,200 and $2,200) and the Mac Pro (which starts at $2,800 and only comes in a dual quad-core configuration).


If there was a Mac in that range it would have been a no brainer. Mom and dad find my laptop far more intuitive and even "fun" than Vista which has added too much complexity and bother. I've always felt the power of a Mac was in the interface and software rather than the hardware, but maybe I'm in the minority camp on that one.

I agree that all of the high value thinking on the Mac is in the user interface. But, when I think about it, OS X and their corporate emphasis on sleek industrial design together function as an enticement to have consumers step up to a higher price point when shopping for a computer. My understanding is that Apple doesn't make all that much from selling OS X upgrades, and the role of OS X is more to sell the hardware. I think first and foremost Apple is a hardware company, and their business model is built around moving higher margins through their hardware sales.

In general, for their computer hardware at least, they do not lower their price points, but rather bump up the specs. The only time that they do lower the price points is when they are on the final revision for a particular product lineup. For example, the price point on the 17" white iMac got bumped down from $1,200 to $1,000 when it was revised in September 2006. Nine months later, the aluminum iMac was introduced with a base price of $1,200, but Apple eliminated the 17" screen size and slotted a 20" screen at that price point instead.

[Rich-n-Texas]

I can't speak to the Mac marketing model, their OS or anything like that, but if Apple did introduce a $300 - $400 system and it did take the world by storm, then you'd probably find their systems in the same boat as Window's PC's as far as OS resource hogging is concerned. When I want to remove a program, I see an extremely long list of security updates, most of which are intended to prevent malicious invasion. These updates of course are code that requires resident memory. If there are a million Mac's out there, don't you think they'd fall equally prey to what Windows boxes are susceptible to? I don't think they'd be able to sell that aspect anymore.

[Woochifer]

I can't speak to the Mac marketing model, their OS or anything like that, but if Apple did introduce a $300 - $400 system and it did take the world by storm, then you'd probably find their systems in the same boat as Window's PC's as far as OS resource hogging is concerned. When I want to remove a program, I see an extremely long list of security updates, most of which are intended to prevent malicious invasion. These updates of course are code that requires resident memory.

I think you need to open yourself up to the possibility that not all OS' are designed like Windows! :)

Apple updates the core of the OS far more frequently than MS. OS X Tiger had 11 major updates over the course of just over two years. Since OS X Leopard was introduced in late-October, there have been two major updates. The OS X updates are much more extensive than MS' "patch Tuesday" updates, and maybe just a step less extensive than a Windows service pack (but pretty close because the OS X updates introduce new features, bug fixes, performance tweaks, and security updates). And in between these updates, Apple will issue security patches on an as-needed basis.

A key difference between OS X and Windows is that the OS X updates do not diminish the system performance or increase the resource load. When I updated my system from OS X 10.4.11 to 10.5.0, the benchmark scores went up. When I updated to 10.5.1, the scores went up again, and the memory and CPU loads (with no apps running) went down. Running benchmarks on my Windows system, the scores have successively gone down with every service pack installation, with higher memory allocations.

Also, the procedure for uninstalling an application in OS X is simply dragging the icon into the trash -- the files in Mac apps are gathered into self-contained bundles, with nothing like the typical Windows mess of spreading hundreds of files across program directories, shared directories, and system directories. Mac application settings are kept in separate user library directories, rather than lumped into a monolithic registry file.


If there are a million Mac's out there, don't you think they'd fall equally prey to what Windows boxes are susceptible to? I don't think they'd be able to sell that aspect anymore.

The difference between Windows and OS X is the sheer number of real world exploits. I doubt that OS X is going to go from zero all the up into the thousands. Will there be exploits out there as Mac market share increases? Probably. But, I don't think that you can totally discount the OS' role in the greater security (so far) enjoyed by Mac owners. The system core, application frameworks, user libraries, and applications themselves, are kept pretty well separated in OS X. Any function that digs into the OS requires a password. You won't frok your system just by opening an e-mail attachment.

I know that a lot of MS' default settings alone made their OS and apps susceptible to attacks. In my earlier example, it took two service packs before MS finally wised up and switched off the spam-magnet Messenger service by default. And it took years before MS changed some of the default functions in Outlook that were responsible for enabling and spreading various forms of malware. I think part of the problem is with how deeply MS embeds applications like IE into the OS itself. Works great for keeping competitors at bay and forcing consumers to use MS apps (e.g., if I disable IE, I can no longer receive system updates), but it creates security holes galore.

[L.J.]

"Fire up the grill", "Sir T's steak"........come on guys, I open up the thread and I already have requests to cook.....DANG, give me my hat. I hope you guys like your meat well done http://www.clipart.co.uk/clipart/mazeguy/outfitted/chef.gif



Pix...in advanced reply mode, you'll some icons. Highlight the text you wanna quote and click on the icon that says "wrap
tags around slected text."

[QUOTE]It should look like this when you do it right. Alot easier to read.

[Rich-n-Texas]

I think you need to open yourself up to the possibility that not all OS' are designed like Windows! :)
I understand that Wooch. Earlier Mac OS's were designed around the Motorola MC68000 series microprocessors, but I see that's not the case anymore. I guess you could say I'm in my own little world with my love/hate relationship with the behemoth that's MS.


Apple updates the core of the OS far more frequently than MS. OS X Tiger had 11 major updates over the course of just over two years. Since OS X Leopard was introduced in late-October, there have been two major updates. The OS X updates are much more extensive than MS' "patch Tuesday" updates, and maybe just a step less extensive than a Windows service pack (but pretty close because the OS X updates introduce new features, bug fixes, performance tweaks, and security updates). And in between these updates, Apple will issue security patches on an as-needed basis.

A key difference between OS X and Windows is that the OS X updates do not diminish the system performance or increase the resource load. When I updated my system from OS X 10.4.11 to 10.5.0, the benchmark scores went up. When I updated to 10.5.1, the scores went up again, and the memory and CPU loads (with no apps running) went down. Running benchmarks on my Windows system, the scores have successively gone down with every service pack installation, with higher memory allocations.

Also, the procedure for uninstalling an application in OS X is simply dragging the icon into the trash -- the files in Mac apps are gathered into self-contained bundles, with nothing like the typical Windows mess of spreading hundreds of files across program directories, shared directories, and system directories. Mac application settings are kept in separate user library directories, rather than lumped into a monolithic registry file.



The difference between Windows and OS X is the sheer number of real world exploits. I doubt that OS X is going to go from zero all the up into the thousands. Will there be exploits out there as Mac market share increases? Probably. But, I don't think that you can totally discount the OS' role in the greater security (so far) enjoyed by Mac owners. The system core, application frameworks, user libraries, and applications themselves, are kept pretty well separated in OS X. Any function that digs into the OS requires a password. You won't frok your system just by opening an e-mail attachment.

I know that a lot of MS' default settings alone made their OS and apps susceptible to attacks. In my earlier example, it took two service packs before MS finally wised up and switched off the spam-magnet Messenger service by default. And it took years before MS changed some of the default functions in Outlook that were responsible for enabling and spreading various forms of malware. I think part of the problem is with how deeply MS embeds applications like IE into the OS itself. Works great for keeping competitors at bay and forcing consumers to use MS apps (e.g., if I disable IE, I can no longer receive system updates), but it creates security holes galore.
I can't offer any opposition to this information. I'm sure there are a lot of Mac users who'll find this useful but again, I've picked my poison. :thumbsup:

[Rich-n-Texas]

"Fire up the grill", "Sir T's steak"........come on guys, I open up the thread and I already have requests to cook.....DANG, give me my hat. I hope you guys like your meat well done http://www.clipart.co.uk/clipart/mazeguy/outfitted/chef.gif



Pix...in advanced reply mode, you'll some icons. Highlight the text you wanna quote and click on the icon that says "wrap tags around slected text.
Great forward thinking there Chef!

Now... brace yourself! :13:

[pixelthis]

"Fire up the grill", "Sir T's steak"........come on guys, I open up the thread and I already have requests to cook.....DANG, give me my hat. I hope you guys like your meat well done http://www.clipart.co.uk/clipart/mazeguy/outfitted/chef.gif



[QUOTE]Pix...in advanced reply mode, you'll some icons. Highlight the text you wanna quote and click on the icon that says "wrap [quote] tags around slected text.


I'll do it my way if you dont mind.
AND "APPLE" puts out 300-400 buck computers all the time, they just charge a hellava lot more.

Microsoft conspriacy nutjobs are a lot like the jewish revolutionaries in the movie,
life of Brian

They talk about kicking out the Romans because after all , "what have they ever done for
us"?
Well, they built the roads, one replies.
Well, yeah, they did build the roads, but other than that...
Well , what about the aquaduct?
Yeah, I guess they did that too. And the schools, they built the schools.
But other than the schools, the roads, and the aquaduct , what have they done?
Nothing!

Same way with microsoft. We swim in a sea of windows based PCS', and if you have ever used one you can use another.
If you have never used a program the learning curve is lessened by the fact that all of the shortcut keys and functions will work just about like every other program.
In the early days it was chaos, standards were needed.
And its funny, either Jews, the "vast right wing conspriacy", or MICROSOFTS plot
to take over the world, these guys "can't make a decent OS", but they can keep this hugh complicated plot on track.
YOU try to build an OS that will work on every flavor of computer in the world.
If you are handy you can work on a PC, if you need a new one you can take parts off of the old one and save a bit in building the new one.
Thank IBM for a lot of this, but also give credit to micro for making an OS that will work with every incarnation.
And I am not even going into the fact that micro did nothing to stop MP3, EVEN THO IT WAS A RIPOFF FROM mpeg1.
Or Micros behind the scenes help with Divix, or a lot of other things that they never get credit for.
Do they try to acheive hegemony? SURE!
SO DOES EVERY OTHER BUSINESS.
What do you think this "format" war was about in the first place.
If you think any company in MICROSOFTS position wont take some advantage you are not living in the real world:1:

[kexodusc]

I think part of the problem is with how deeply MS embeds applications like IE into the OS itself. Works great for keeping competitors at bay and forcing consumers to use MS apps (e.g., if I disable IE, I can no longer receive system updates), but it creates security holes galore.

Think you nailed it here...too many backdoor vulnerabilities by design. Also, the whole concept of users and administrators in Windows has lagged behind Linux/Unix and Mac for years now too.

[Woochifer]

I understand that Wooch. Earlier Mac OS's were designed around the Motorola MC68000 series microprocessors, but I see that's not the case anymore. I guess you could say I'm in my own little world with my love/hate relationship with the behemoth that's MS.

The Mac has now gone through two major architectural transitions, and each one went relatively smoothly. First one transitioned the Mac from the 68XXX series to the PowerPC family. And more recently, Apple transitioned its hardware from PPC to the Intel X86 processors. Their OS and major apps are now written as universal binaries in which both processor architectures are supported, and older programs written for PPC run fine (albeit slower) on an Intel Mac using Apple's Rosetta emulator. The transition to Intel presents all sorts of interesting possibilities that are just beginning to show up.


I can't offer any opposition to this information. I'm sure there are a lot of Mac users who'll find this useful but again, I've picked my poison. :thumbsup:

No need to pick a poison, you can have it all. With a virtualization program like VMWare or Parallels, you can install just about any OS onto a Mac, and run them all simultaneously without having to reboot. Running Windows XP or Vista (or even Windows98 or 3.1, if you prefer) on a Mac using these virtualization apps is as simple as opening up an Office program, and there's minimal hit on performance.

Somebody actually installed more than 50 different operating systems on his Mac (IIRC, this included every version of Windows ever made, multiple Linux variants, different UNIX versions, BeOS, etc.), and actually ran them all simultaneously! He posted a screenshot just to prove that it's possible.

I think virtualization is the future. And heaven forbid that I give MS some unsolicited advice on how to make their products better and more useful, but I think they need to do a clean rewrite of Windows and let anyone who needs legacy support run older versions of Windows using virtualization. Windows' trump card has always been its backwards compatibility, but performance and security suffer as a result. With virtualization, MS no longer needs to bake all that legacy support into the OS.

[Woochifer]

I'll do it my way if you dont mind.
AND "APPLE" puts out 300-400 buck computers all the time, they just charge a hellava lot more.

Really? I didn't know that you've actually spec'd out and cost-compared the components on Macs to reach this conclusion! Why don't you list out those components and their retail prices so that we can all build out own $300 Mac equivalents (I'll even disregard the fact that Apple uses a more advanced EFI firmware on its motherboard rather than a typical PC BIOS)? Please do! Last thing I would want to do is call you out for LYING THROUGH YOU TEETH, right? :cornut:


Microsoft conspriacy nutjobs are a lot like the jewish revolutionaries in the movie,
life of Brian

Uh, difference is that Life of Brian is a work of fiction, whereas Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior is fact, and documented in the public record using sworn testimony from company officials.

Figures that you would use a Monty Python reference, because your rants venture into that level of absurdity, albeit without the humor or coherency!


And its funny, either Jews, the "vast right wing conspriacy", or MICROSOFTS plot
to take over the world, these guys "can't make a decent OS", but they can keep this hugh complicated plot on track.
YOU try to build an OS that will work on every flavor of computer in the world.
If you are handy you can work on a PC, if you need a new one you can take parts off of the old one and save a bit in building the new one.
Thank IBM for a lot of this, but also give credit to micro for making an OS that will work with every incarnation.
And I am not even going into the fact that micro did nothing to stop MP3, EVEN THO IT WAS A RIPOFF FROM mpeg1.
Or Micros behind the scenes help with Divix, or a lot of other things that they never get credit for.

No one's faulting MS for creating standards via the Windows OS. Rather, the U.S. and E.U. court decisions against MS have entirely hinged on how MS uses their control over these standards to expand their market dominance into other markets. It's anti-competitive and illegal, and after court decision after court decision to that effect has gone against MS, they've had to settle numerous lawsuits (a de facto admission that they were not competing fairly or within the law) and agree to consent decrees in order to avoid more damaging penalties.


Do they try to acheive hegemony? SURE!
SO DOES EVERY OTHER BUSINESS.

Difference though is that "every other business" does not abuse a desktop OS monopoly to gain an unfair and illegal competitive advantage. MS used to claim that they had an internal "Chinese wall" separating their OS and applications divisions, and that they never gave any unfair advantages to their own applications to the detriment of competing applications. Yet, when put under oath during the U.S. anti-trust action, the MS officials admitted everything that competitors had suspected all along -- that MS' OS and applications divisions developed collaboratively to gain a competitive advantage, and that they purposely withheld information about the OS from other developers in order to ensure that competing products would not work optimally. That's not conspiracy, that's reality.


What do you think this "format" war was about in the first place.
If you think any company in MICROSOFTS position wont take some advantage you are not living in the real world:1:

Yeah, and in the real world, that's why anti-trust laws exist, because monopolists like MS are willing to use their monopoly position to stifle competition and control the market.

[Woochifer]

Think you nailed it here...too many backdoor vulnerabilities by design. Also, the whole concept of users and administrators in Windows has lagged behind Linux/Unix and Mac for years now too.

Definitely the case with XP (I haven't used Vista enough to say anything one way or another). Logging in using a limited account in XP is practically useless for any extended usage. Problem is that just about every Windows program installation and system revision requires access to the registry, system folders, and shared program files. You can't modify those (or even run certain system utilities) with a limited account, so I always log in as an administrator, despite the obvious security risks involved. I've always wondered why Windows has to have the hardware settings, system settings, AND application settings kludged together into a single monolithic registry file that just slows the system down as it grows progressively larger.

My understanding is that Vista's user log in now allows for more useful access, but they've now inserted those annoying User Account Control nags, which apparently a lot of people shut off, thus negating whatever measure of security UAC is supposed to provide.

By default, the Mac won't let anyone access the root directory, unless they specifically request root access, log out, and then log back in as the root user. Program installations don't require access to system directories, and there's no centralized registry to mess with. Only if an installation requires access to the frameworks or kernel does the password dialog come up. I guess that Vista tried the same thing with UAC, but Windows installations by default require more access to the system folders and everything has to go through the registry to begin with, so those dialogs will just come up a lot more often because of how the system and applications operate.

[pixelthis]

Really? I didn't know that you've actually spec'd out and cost-compared the components on Macs to reach this conclusion! Why don't you list out those components and their retail prices so that we can all build out own $300 Mac equivalents (I'll even disregard the fact that Apple uses a more advanced EFI firmware on its motherboard rather than a typical PC BIOS)? Please do! Last thing I would want to do is call you out for LYING THROUGH YOU TEETH, right? :cornut:



Uh, difference is that Life of Brian is a work of fiction, whereas Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior is fact, and documented in the public record using sworn testimony from company officials.

Figures that you would use a Monty Python reference, because your rants venture into that level of absurdity, albeit without the humor or coherency!



No one's faulting MS for creating standards via the Windows OS. Rather, the U.S. and E.U. court decisions against MS have entirely hinged on how MS uses their control over these standards to expand their market dominance into other markets. It's anti-competitive and illegal, and after court decision after court decision to that effect has gone against MS, they've had to settle numerous lawsuits (a de facto admission that they were not competing fairly or within the law) and agree to consent decrees in order to avoid more damaging penalties.



Difference though is that "every other business" does not abuse a desktop OS monopoly to gain an unfair and illegal competitive advantage. MS used to claim that they had an internal "Chinese wall" separating their OS and applications divisions, and that they never gave any unfair advantages to their own applications to the detriment of competing applications. Yet, when put under oath during the U.S. anti-trust action, the MS officials admitted everything that competitors had suspected all along -- that MS' OS and applications divisions developed collaboratively to gain a competitive advantage, and that they purposely withheld information about the OS from other developers in order to ensure that competing products would not work optimally. That's not conspiracy, that's reality.



Yeah, and in the real world, that's why anti-trust laws exist, because monopolists like MS are willing to use their monopoly position to stifle competition and control the market.

So what good are those "laws"?
Microsoft is still here arent they?
So either they arent breaking any "laws" or such laws are useless.
Actually this just shows how clueless you are, "antitrust and other laws are used by the big boys to keep the competition out.
A.T.T run the biggest monopoly in history, so did the post office, they were PROTECTED by the govt.
As for the rest of your delusional rant I am not a fly swatter.
But I will guarentee that Microsoft will be around a long time, probably a lot longer than you, or Apple for that matter

[Woochifer]

So what good are those "laws"?
Microsoft is still here arent they?

And MS is operating under a consent decree that they are now trying to convince the federal judges to let expire. No laws = no consent decree

Many of the architectural changes and options to change the program defaults that got introduced in XP SP2 are a direct result to those decrees. And the fact that they've been submitting formats like VC-1 and OOXML to international standards committees for approval rather than simply forking proprietary extensions into Windows, is yet another indicator that these anti-trust decisions have forced them to be more above board with other companies.

Monopolies are allowed to continue operating all the time. If you think the purpose of anti-trust laws is to put monopolies out of business, then that's yet another clueless assumption among many. Then again, you seem to think that your inane ramblings somehow have something to do with "free market" libertarianism. If I were a libertarian, I'd be embarassed to be associated with the nonsense you write.


So either they arent breaking any "laws" or such laws are useless.

If they weren't breaking the law, MS wouldn't have been forced to settle those myriad lawsuits with Novell, Sun, AOL/Netscape, et al, and the E.U. wouldn't have levied a $1.3 billion fine against them just this week for violating the terms of their 2004 consent decree with the E.U. Your ignorance is just making this all too easy. :rolleyes:


Actually this just shows how clueless you are, "antitrust and other laws are used by the big boys to keep the competition out.
A.T.T run the biggest monopoly in history, so did the post office, they were PROTECTED by the govt.

Uh, wasn't AT&T broken up by a government anti-trust action more than 20 years ago? :idea: Pretty clueless to use an example that actually contradicts you!

And by definition, the USPS is exempt from anti-trust actions. If you want the USPS to be subject to anti-trust? Then get your congressman to change the federal charter.


As for the rest of your delusional rant I am not a fly swatter.

In other words, you can't prove any of my points wrong! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Of course, that's not surprising considering that you make all these claims about Macs, yet don't even know the first thing about them. Oh right, you don't have time to "play" with them, but got plenty of time to ramble on about them!

Are you now going to tell me again that Apple doesn't make its source code available? :sleep:

I challenged you to list out a $300 Mac equivalent, since you claim that Apple makes $300 computers that they overcharge for. Yet, this is all you have to offer in response?! :sleep:

Well, thank you for proving me correct -- you were indeed LYING when you made that statement. Now, will you admit this, or are you not man enough to admit you're FLAT OUT WRONG? C'mon, it's not a sign of cowardice to admit to your failings ... you can do it ... DOOOOOOOHHHHHH!!! You were so close! :lol:


But I will guarentee that Microsoft will be around a long time, probably a lot longer than you, or Apple for that matter

Nice little nonsequiter, but that's not the topic, now is it?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

And MS is operating under a consent decree that they are now trying to convince the federal judges to let expire. No laws = no consent decree

Many of the architectural changes and options to change the program defaults that got introduced in XP SP2 are a direct result to those decrees. And the fact that they've been submitting formats like VC-1 and OOXML to international standards committees for approval rather than simply forking proprietary extensions into Windows, is yet another indicator that these anti-trust decisions have forced them to be more above board with other companies.

Monopolies are allowed to continue operating all the time. If you think the purpose of anti-trust laws is to put monopolies out of business, then that's yet another clueless assumption among many. Then again, you seem to think that your inane ramblings somehow have something to do with "free market" libertarianism. If I were a libertarian, I'd be embarassed to be associated with the nonsense you write.



If they weren't breaking the law, MS wouldn't have been forced to settle those myriad lawsuits with Novell, Sun, AOL/Netscape, et al, and the E.U. wouldn't have levied a $1.3 billion fine against them just this week for violating the terms of their 2004 consent decree with the E.U. Your ignorance is just making this all too easy. :rolleyes:



Uh, wasn't AT&T broken up by a government anti-trust action more than 20 years ago? :idea: Pretty clueless to use an example that actually contradicts you!

And by definition, the USPS is exempt from anti-trust actions. If you want the USPS to be subject to anti-trust? Then get your congressman to change the federal charter.



In other words, you can't prove any of my points wrong! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Of course, that's not surprising considering that you make all these claims about Macs, yet don't even know the first thing about them. Oh right, you don't have time to "play" with them, but got plenty of time to ramble on about them!

Are you now going to tell me again that Apple doesn't make its source code available? :sleep:

I challenged you to list out a $300 Mac equivalent, since you claim that Apple makes $300 computers that they overcharge for. Yet, this is all you have to offer in response?! :sleep:

Well, thank you for proving me correct -- you were indeed LYING when you made that statement. Now, will you admit this, or are you not man enough to admit you're FLAT OUT WRONG? C'mon, it's not a sign of cowardice to admit to your failings ... you can do it ... DOOOOOOOHHHHHH!!! You were so close! :lol:



Nice little nonsequiter, but that's not the topic, now is it?

Well, burnout pixel has really messed up this time messin wit my bro. Well, when pixelbutt gets turned to saw dust messin with Wooch, at least we can sweep up the scrapings and deposit them in the refuse. Or will it refuse?

[Woochifer]

Well, burnout pixel has really messed up this time messin wit my bro. Well, when pixelbutt gets turned to saw dust messin with Wooch, at least we can sweep up the scrapings and deposit them in the refuse. Or will it refuse?

We'll wait until he figures out that whole fly swatter thing before letting someone take ownership of the remains! :cornut:

[kexodusc]

Well, burnout pixel has really messed up this time messin wit my bro. Well, when pixelbutt gets turned to saw dust messin with Wooch, at least we can sweep up the scrapings and deposit them in the refuse. Or will it refuse?
I'd say Wooch is schooling him, but that implies he's actually learning. Some people would rather cling the lie to save face than accept the truth and admit defeat.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I'd say Wooch is schooling him, but that implies he's actually learning. Some people would rather cling the lie to save face than accept the truth and admit defeat.

Are you talkin about Pixelneck? Cause this sure describes him.

[kexodusc]

Are you talkin about Pixelneck? Cause this sure describes him.
Was there anyone else getting butt kicked by Wooch in the war of words??? He seems to have run off. Probably hasn't run into anyone with Wooch's endurance before. :cornut:

[pixelthis]

Well, burnout pixel has really messed up this time messin wit my bro. Well, when pixelbutt gets turned to saw dust messin with Wooch, at least we can sweep up the scrapings and deposit them in the refuse. Or will it refuse?

Nobody asked for an opinion from the pointy headed section

[pixelthis]

[

you want a rebuttal you brainless nincompoop, well, you asked for it


Woochifer]And MS is operating under a consent decree that they are now trying to convince the federal judges to let expire. No laws = no consent decree


That "consent " decree was in leiu of real punishment


Many of the architectural changes and options to change the program defaults that got introduced in XP SP2 are a direct result to those decrees. And the fact that they've been submitting formats like VC-1 and OOXML to international standards committees for approval rather than simply forking proprietary extensions into Windows, is yet another indicator that these anti-trust decisions have forced them to be more above board with other companies.


As a matter of fact they have always been above board with other companies, you haven't offered anything to show otherwise

Monopolies are allowed to continue operating all the time. If you think the purpose of anti-trust laws is to put monopolies out of business, then that's yet another clueless assumption among many. Then again, you seem to think that your inane ramblings somehow have something to do with "free market" libertarianism. If I were a libertarian, I'd be embarassed to be associated with the nonsense you write.


Did you even read what I posted? This is exactly what I said.

Its a basic tenet of libertarianism that antitrust and other govt "laws" are there soley to protect the big boys, like when established automakers used these same laws to break up Tucker Motor company


If they weren't breaking the law, MS wouldn't have been forced to settle those myriad lawsuits with Novell, Sun, AOL/Netscape, et al, and the E.U. wouldn't have levied a $1.3 billion fine against them just this week for violating the terms of their 2004 consent decree with the E.U. Your ignorance is just making this all too easy. :rolleyes:


Now I know you are really clueless, MICROSFT MAKES 30 BILLION A YEAR off of its operating system and thats not even a major income producer( preinsatalls on new computers is) If you think a 1.3 billion fine is more than a nuiscance to a company like Microsoft then you must still be in high school

Uh, wasn't AT&T broken up by a government anti-trust action more than 20 years ago? :idea: Pretty clueless to use an example that actually contradicts you!


ATT voluntarily GAVE UP their monopoly on telepony, don't tell me they didnt, I WAS THERE , you, however were probably a stain on your mamas side of the bed.ATT saw the future of the phone (cell) and gave up their mostly land line business so they could covertly dominate the cell industry with their "baby bells"You really don't know ANYTHING DO YOU?



And by definition, the USPS is exempt from anti-trust actions. If you want the USPS to be subject to anti-trust? Then get your congressman to change the federal charter.


PROOF again of what I was saying, a monopoly can't exist without govt help.You don't need to keep arguing MY side, I can do fine by myself


In other words, you can't prove any of my points wrong! :lol: :lol: :lol:


A retarded baboon , even sir talky, could prove your "points' wrong, ass
except for the one on top of your head, that one points true north


Of course, that's not surprising considering that you make all these claims about Macs, yet don't even know the first thing about them. Oh right, you don't have time to "play" with them, but got plenty of time to ramble on about them!


You dont know "anything" about them either, or you wouldnt be using one.]I dont know anything about plumbing or other s***t associated thing either


Are you now going to tell me again that Apple doesn't make its source code available? :sleep:


Who cares if they do or not? How many people actually use their idiotic operarting system? HACKERS dont even bother trying to hack it
I challenged you to list out a $300 Mac equivalent, since you claim that Apple makes $300 computers that they overcharge for. Yet, this is all you have to offer in response?! :sleep:

Well, thank you for proving me correct -- you were indeed LYING when you made that statement. Now, will you admit this, or are you not man enough to admit you're FLAT OUT WRONG? C'mon, it's not a sign of cowardice to admit to your failings ... you can do it ... DOOOOOOOHHHHHH!!! You were so close! :lol:


When you are correct I will gladly defend you, but the only time you were "correct" was when you were quoting ME.And did you lose your virginity the other night?OHHH NO! YOU WERE SO CLOSE!!!



Nice little nonsequiter, but that's not the topic, now is it?[/QUOTE]


Myself any other grownups will decide the "topic" punk

[pixelthis]

And yes Apple does make 300 $ computers, in fact they are worth even less because
a PC can outperform one , especially in video.
You are confusing the cost of making something with its value, you really are a child.

If you made a CHEVY IMPALLA for a million dollars you still wouldnt be able to sell it for that, it would still be worth what a regular chevy is.
Doesnt matter if a Apple has gold plated britches, it STILL aint worth more than a
300$ pc
INDEED, A 300$ pc MIGHT BE WORTH more

[kexodusc]

Pixie, my boy, you aren't making any sense at all...


Now I know you are really clueless, MICROSFT MAKES 30 BILLION A YEAR off of its operating system and thats not even a major income producer( preinsatalls on new computers is) If you think a 1.3 billion fine is more than a nuiscance to a company like Microsoft then you must still be in high school

Explain to us how preinstalls is excluded from the OS sales?

Second, MS doesn't make $30 billion a year...they're doing alright around the $12-14 B mark but let's not get excited and make up big numbers here, mmmkay...and that's off all operations, not just windows.

Don't downplay the significance of those fines either...MS stock has plummeted some 27% since November....most companies don't get fined 10-15% of their profits in a given year. $1.3 Billion in fines isn't exactly maximizing ROI for shareholders is it?

They'd better smarten up...bit by bit their core businesses are slipping through their fingers. They can't grow their core operations, so they're trying to expand into other industries with the likes of Xbox, Zune etc. People are wising up to their forced-obsolescence model too.

Investors certainly seem to have lost a bit of faith...things aren't going to get any easier for the bad boys from Redmond either.

[Woochifer]

you want a rebuttal you brainless nincompoop, well, you asked for it

Too bad you're not really providing a real rebuttal. Just a bunch of irrational rants disguising the fact that you don't know squat about the subjects I brought up.


That "consent " decree was in leiu of real punishment

Hey Einstein, that's the whole point of a consent decree -- MS accepted those terms voluntarily so that they wouldn't get harsher terms imposed on them involuntarily. If they were doing nothing wrong or illegal, why would they agree to have their operations tied down by those terms?


As a matter of fact they have always been above board with other companies, you haven't offered anything to show otherwise

Swing and a miss ... strike 45 and counting! :cornut:

If they were always above board, then why would they settle lawsuits with Netscape, Novell, Sun et al rather than let them go to trial? If they got both the facts and the law on their side, then presumably those lawsuits would get tossed out at the first opportunity, right?


Its a basic tenet of libertarianism that antitrust and other govt "laws" are there soley to protect the big boys, like when established automakers used these same laws to break up Tucker Motor company

So that explains the anti-trust actions over the years that include Standard Oil, IBM, Microsoft, and other non "big boys" right?

And BTW, Tucker was not a monopoly and the government never broke up the company. It was an SEC fraud investigation, and Tucker was ultimately acquited. And if govt laws in general exist solely to protect the "big boys" then why have so many smaller companies successfully won court decisions and settlements against Microsoft? By your so-called libertarian logic, Microsoft would have simply crushed all of those suits out of hand since govt. laws would have protected MS, right? Ho hum, just another effort to turn your delusions into facts. Oh well, try and try again. One of these days, you'll get something right! :lol:


Now I know you are really clueless, MICROSFT MAKES 30 BILLION A YEAR off of its operating system and thats not even a major income producer( preinsatalls on new computers is) If you think a 1.3 billion fine is more than a nuiscance to a company like Microsoft then you must still be in high school

Aside from the BS figure you pulled out of your backside (as kex pointed out, their profits last year were more in the $14 billion range), the point you keep missing is that this fine is on top of whatever restrictions the E.U. imposed on them as part of a 2004 consent decree. Their stock performance over the past few years indicates that investors aren't very bullish on the direction that the company is going in to begin with. A fine that's close to 10% of their annual profits doesn't help their P-E ratio very much.


ATT voluntarily GAVE UP their monopoly on telepony, don't tell me they didnt, I WAS THERE

Oh really, so you were in AT&T's executive offices when they "voluntarily" gave up their phone monopoly? Just you like "you were there" when Apple was developing the GUI and MS was developing Windows? Let's not get full of ourselves, especially when you're the clueless one wearing the empty suit.


, you, however were probably a stain on your mamas side of the bed.

Try again. :sleep:


ATT saw the future of the phone (cell) and gave up their mostly land line business so they could covertly dominate the cell industry with their "baby bells"

Problem in your fantastical scenario is that you've overlooked one basic fact -- it was the government that filed the anti-trust against AT&T to begin with! You really think that AT&T would have been broken up in the absence of an anti-trust suit? Oh right, monopolies don't exist in your libertarian fantasyland.

You also forgot that the U.S. anti-trust action originated in 1974 and AT&T fought it for years. It was only when they wanted to enter the personal computer market that the parent company agreed to break up terms.


You really don't know ANYTHING DO YOU?

Nope, nothing but the facts.


PROOF again of what I was saying, a monopoly can't exist without govt help.You don't need to keep arguing MY side, I can do fine by myself

Actually, you need all the help you can get.


A retarded baboon , even sir talky, could prove your "points' wrong, ass
except for the one on top of your head, that one points true north

So, you're saying that your mental acuity can't outduel a "retarded baboon"? :lol: You haven't successfully refuted a single point that I've brought up, yet even a baboon by pure random chance can come up with the right answer at some interval.


You dont know "anything" about them either, or you wouldnt be using one.

Actually, I know plenty about Macs BECAUSE I use them. I also know plenty about Windows PCs and servers BECAUSE I use them. You on the other hand, know NOTHING about Macs, as you've clearly demonstrated. Yet, in your delusional haze, you still feel obligated to try challenging me anyway. Always sad to see someone that thinks they can engage in a battle of wits without the proper armament, or in your case, any armament at all.


I dont know anything about plumbing or other s***t associated thing either

You've clearly demonstrated that you don't know anything about a lot of things.


Who cares if they do or not?

Well, you apparently care if Apple releases this source code, since you were the one that claimed Apple didn't.


How many people actually use their idiotic operarting system?

Plenty. The only idiots are the ones like you who think they are experts on the Mac OS without actually using it.


HACKERS dont even bother trying to hack it

They've tried, but nothing has ever come of it partly due to the built-in security safeguards associated with using a UNIX-based OS. Of course, you wouldn't know this since you've never used OS X and seen how secure the default setups are, and how the application space and system core are kept well separated from one another. Unlike in Windows, you can't damage your system or install malware by simply opening an executable file or clicking on an Active X link.


When you are correct I will gladly defend you, but the only time you were "correct" was when you were quoting ME.

Spin spin spin. Just won't own up to your lies, will you?


And did you lose your virginity the other night?

Nope, many years before the other night. Judging by the pent-up testosterone emanating from your keyboard, I'm not so sure you've lost yours. At your age, you should write a movie about this -- Steve Carell's got nothing on you.


Myself any other grownups will decide the "topic" punk

Punk? :lol: Just pointing out when you switch the subject to avoid taking responsibility for your own nonsense. No need to whine when you get called out for it, right?


And yes Apple does make 300 $ computers, in fact they are worth even less because
a PC can outperform one , especially in video.

So tell me once again, how can I make a $300 Mac? I'll even give you $300 if you can prove to me that a consumer can build one for that cost. You keep claiming that these $300 Macs exist, yet I can't find one or even tally up an equivalent. The parts equivalents on newegg.com by my tally come up higher than $300, so maybe you've got a different source that you can point us to. Time to put up or shut up.


You are confusing the cost of making something with its value, you really are a child.

Actually, you're dumber than my child, since you can't even admit that your point was entirely about "cost" and I called your bluff for the lie that it is. If you want to associate "value" with your stupid cost example, then the Mac is worth even more than a Windows PC for the time that it saves, the extra security that it provides, the more stable and enjoyable user experience, etc. But, of course you wouldn't know this, given your overall ignorance of OS X.


If you made a CHEVY IMPALLA for a million dollars you still wouldnt be able to sell it for that, it would still be worth what a regular chevy is.

Stupid example given that off-the-shelf parts for building PCs are readily available, those parts are readily transplanted from one model to another (PCs and Macs share many core components in common, but you can't transfer body or drivetrain parts from an Impala onto an Accord) and assembling one does not require specialized equipment or manufacturing processes.


Doesnt matter if a Apple has gold plated britches, it STILL aint worth more than a
300$ pc
INDEED, A 300$ pc MIGHT BE WORTH more

Well, to you it might be worth more, since you're content with ignoring any other options outside of whatever MS shoves down your throat. Those of us who actually know how OS X operates, and how its advantages stack up against Windows, are in better position to actually assess the real world "value" of a Mac.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Nobody asked for an opinion from the pointy headed section

Ohh, you manged to pull your head out of yer bum and speak up huh? I say stick it back in, it is better at guarding your colon than it is trying to respond to anything that is audio or video related.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Was there anyone else getting butt kicked by Wooch in the war of words??? He seems to have run off. Probably hasn't run into anyone with Wooch's endurance before. :cornut:

War......words.....can I play?