[QUOTE=t4d]In response to MacQuest's first post above (as compared to the long winded waffle below it, lol)
Mmmm... waffles. http://www.kelloggs.com/brand/eggo/home/
What do you call them over there? Something exotic like... waffles?
I like Apple because they are an innovative company, and despise microsoft because they are an un-innovative company that tries to portray itself as one.Quote:
Originally Posted by t4d
"They're" major innovations [with the exception of Office] were in large part invented by other, smaller companies that they bullied out of the market by be-friending them, bankrolling them, and then cutting them off financially once enough of that companies innovation had been learned and/or applied by microsoft so that they could then take that innovation and run with it themselves, leaving the smaller innovative company to die a sure death through bankruptcy.
They did it to Apple. They did it to IBM. They did it to countless other unknowns.
Paybacks a bitch.
You would be wrong in that presumption. When it comes to processors, I'm a fan of the most innovative company. Today's AMD is 2004's Intel. They're gonna have to learn the hard way the same way that Intel had to a couple of years back.Quote:
Originally Posted by t4d
They got a big helping hand from IBM back in January of '04 when IBM gave them use of their brand new $2 billion fabrication facilities in East Fishkill, New York. That gave them the opportunity to yield more product, but they seem to have fallen behind in innovation and engineering.
I have no doubt that AMD will bounce back, and I hope Intel stays on track as well. I've already stated that we need AMD to keep the fire lit under Intel's... botty... and vice versa, so that we, the end user, get the best products.
Okay, just to clarify, the REAL fight that is going on here beyond the obvious Apple vs. microsoft and Macintosh vs. windows, is STEVE JOBS vs. bill gates.Quote:
Originally Posted by t4d
As much of an Apple "fanboy" that you and others may think I am, Apple irritated the crap out of me for years until SJ's return as interim CEO in '97. So while Linux began it's rise in the early 90's, Apple wouldn't start making it's necessary moves until '98, with the introduction of the original iMac, but more importantly in '01 with the introduction of Mac OS X.
For the past 5 years since Mac OS X's introduction, Apple has since branched out and gotten a strong foothold in another market [digital music services AND devices] which is only the first of several other markets that you'll be seeing Apple go into with software AND hardware solutions.
Do you get the big picture yet? While Napster, Yahoo, Virgin, etc. each have focused on, tried and failed miserably to take down the SOFTWARE HALF of the iTunes + iPod equation, and the original mp3 player manufacturer Rio [now out of business], Creative, Sony, etc. each have focused on, tried and failed miserably to take down the HARDWARE HALF of the iPod + iTunes equation, they haven't figured out that they are only addressing HALF the issue.
Macs are better computers because the OS compliments the hardware, just like iPods are better digital music players because iTunes software compliments that hardware.
Quality Control = Reliability = Productivity = Loyalty.
Apple gets it. All the people switching from PC's to Mac get it. Do you get it?
Addressing HALF the solution gives you HALF a$$ed results. Hence the problems with windows computers:
Lack of Quality Control [generic OS + random hardware] = Unreliabilty = Loss of Productivity = User looks for better option = SWITCHER.
Never was I more irritated with Apple than during that year, when former CEO of National Semiconductor Gil Amelio was now Apple's CEO and all of a sudden Apple's Macintosh line started to head down the windows pc's lack of quality control route, because he allowed a handful of companies other than Apple [Motorola, Umax, Power Computing, etc.] to start making Mac clones.
As I said before, a superior level of quality control and seamless integration between an OS and it's hardware is the most important part of the "Mac Experience".
I know that. Veteran Mac users know that. Steve Jobs knows that. That's why those company's clone licenses were voided as soon as Steve Jobs came back onboard.
There is a HUGE difference between a DOMINANT company like Intel, who rightfully holds it's title [although they could have almost lost it if they wouldn't have gotten off there botty] because it LEGALLY earned it's way to that DOMINANT position, and an ILLEGAL CRIMINAL MONOPOLY like microsoft [3 convictions by 3 countries in 5 years proves it... more on the way] who forces it's products on end users and even cripples it's own products if an end user tries to use a competetive alternative.Quote:
Originally Posted by t4d
Did you ever try to uninstall IE on a win '95/'98 system in favor of Netscape Navigator? Lot's of people did. Lot's of people ended up having to re-install windows because of it. Hence, the 2001 antitrust conviction here in the US, followed by 2004's EU conviction and last years conviction by South Korea.
How are those illegal business practice lawsuits against Intel, Nvidia, and ATI coming along anyway? Oh wait, there aren't anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by t4d
You really may want to learn the meaning of "monopoly": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
In microsoft's case, you may want to also learn the meaning of "antitrust": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by t4d
If it weren't for Steve Job's vision to put computers in the hands of the common public, IBM would have kept them only available for the guys in white lab coats.
Have you forgotten why it is that Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak founded Apple Computer on April 1st, 1976 [April Fools/All Fools Day]? It was a symbolic gesture directly to IBM who did not have any interest in providing computers to anyone other than their corporate customers; a] because they did not see the purpose of computers in a home environmentm and b] home users wouldn't have the kind of money that corporations had to justify a slimmer profit margin that would be the result of providing computers to those home users.
IBM was forced into the home computer market because of Apple. Get your facts straight either by researching, or if you want a fairly accurate [according to Steve Wozniak himself] filmed account of the occurences which we are discussing here, as well as the relationships between Steve Jobs and bill gates, Apple and microsoft, Apple and Xerox, microsoft and IBM, etc., then rent or buy "The Pirates of Silicon Valley".
I'll address the rest of your post tomorrow, as I once again find myself awake past 5am with only a few hours left to sleep before i have to go to work.
:)