PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

Well after a while the PC will be at the same spec for cheaper prices. Always been this way.

I am an ex apple G4 user. Actually I didn't found the apple quicker and more reliable than a good PC with XP.

I prefer PC because they give you the choice to create a system to your own preferences.

I now have a rackmount case a nice looking one. Try this with apple?

Apple gives no choices to customers. See what they did with logic, they ceased suppport for the PC. There documentation is very poor and the user interface is not more intuitive than XP. Monopolistic behaviour.

Intel AMd Asus and others will bring uot there 64 bit architecture and PCI x. I mean its not that apple invented these items. They just are good stealers nothing more. But in the end all that matters, is are you happy with your equipment. Make your choice.

ciao

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jem on 2003-06-24 18:49 ]</font>

Jem, I have absolutely no problem with people's choice of systems - but why this constant disrespect of Apple's achievements ?
It was them to establish a machine with a GUI against all industry resistance.
They changed a 250k bucks university project to an affordable workstation - and risked the survival of the company on it, btw.
The fundamentals of object-oriented GUI programming which resulting in stuff like Photoshop were developed by Apple.
You owe them even SFP (in some way) - the idea is (almost certainly) inspired by an old Mac program (LabView) to control industry equipment - have a look on the National Instruments pages.
They invented FireWire and established USB and were the first with a functional wireless LAN - and obviously they are the only company to be able to 'invent' nice computer housings.
M$Soft on the other hand as 'the world's biggest software supplier' haven't developed a single program on their own (afaik). They've bought everything right from the start with their first Basic compiler.
How'd you call them ?
There are certain difficulties with Apple's latest OS version due to the OSX transition, but from the service point of view they've outperformed any competition over years.

I'm totally convinced that those AMD/Intel 64 bit systems will be the same fake as their 32 bit systems - and M$'s so-called 32-bit OS
They simply don't have the inspiration because customer's will buy any crap in their GHZ hysteria. Right now they have a problem to explain why 1.3 GHZ can be faster than 2.2 GHZ
Apple's software developement quality has decreased somewhat (imho) over the years, but on the M$ side it has never even existed - hmm I'll better stop the rant.
It's easy to say 'we could have done it too' but never even dare to innovate something.
And if 'after some time...' means about half a year then the price of your PC has dropped another 50% anyway.

cheers, tom

I remember my family home owning a BBC basic from about 85 (?) with green letters and that beautiful 'basic' programming language

01 do something
02 please ?
03 go on, just something cool, I really want you to
04 oh, just go to line 1

Then we inherited a Mac (one of those all in one box things with a floppy drive and black on white screen) from where my dad was working. Complete revelation. This was just a totally different machine ! Even my mum could understand it for christ sake !

There's no doubting that mac have been doing a lot of the innovation for a good many years. But it is difficult with such a small market share, and yeah, I sort of like the choice you get with PCs, even though it entails frustration and wrangling every so often (or quite often depending on your luck). Its a bit like wanting to go to a car showroom and get something really good, or take a boring car and make it really good, and know its your own.

Its sort of the hobbyist thing versus the functional thing I suppose. The hobbyist is always eventually going to have a better car on their driveway, but the functionalist never has to get grease in his hair and a slap from his wife for messing around in the garage until midnight !



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: mr swim on 2003-06-25 20:21 ]</font>

On 2003-06-25 12:55, astroman wrote:
It was them to establish a machine with a GUI against all industry resistance.

I agree with your overall statement, & I use a PC for the record.

However, I must interject and state that Xerox actually created the first commercially available GUI (that I know of) and it is my understanding that a lot of int. property was licensed by Apple from Xerox for more consumer level equipment (as Xerox wasn't interested in supplying tech to the little people... this is of course pre-personal computing).

Anyone else have confirming or contrasting info?

Sam

Mr. Swim, according to an interview Vince Clark still uses that BBC thingy for midi sequencing
Apple's market share doesn't look that bad at all:
they rule a high-end segment and sell lots of profitable notebooks - and have no competition.
Anyone looked at the figures of the other big brands ? They've lost significantly more due to the 'no names' and have a lot of competition. HP only survives as the biggest printer supplier, IBM has it's mid-class and big servers, let alone Japan's mixup companies etc.
Well, Apple has decided to change to a Unix-ish OS, this might finally open the doors of corporate computing.
Imho they failed in that segment mostly because decision makers would almost certainly have to risk their own jobs if they made a pro Apple decision.
Macs can (could) be so awefully simple that you'd make at least half of the support stuff unemployed and who wants that happen to his collegue, friend or even himself ?

Sam, you're exactly right with the Xerox story. That's why I called it 'make a 250k university project an affordable workstation...'
The Xerox Star was a successful scientific study - it proved that it could be done - and ended in some drawer. The results were widely published and commonly known.
Indeed Apple asked Xerox for a license for the mouse/window/menu layout.
But to make the programming possible at all they had to create ObjectPascal first because the regular developement systems were completely unable to handle that interupt structure. Apple succeeded with their LISA, a $20k Mac predecessor (around 1982) which already had an integrated office package included which was registered to the... attention Pulsarians: hardware serial number of the 'mobo'
The next step on the way to Macintosh (or better the next obstacle) was to squeeze that couple of megabytes Pascal GUI lib into about 64 kByte Rom. They did it as hand optimized assembly language by some of the best programmers available, but probably even those woukd have failed without the enthusiasm of the (totally secret) project.
To create something like that takes far more than just doing 'a job' and in someway I like to compare the developement staff at CW with those dudes (well, as far as I can guess from what's in the press).
Btw when the Mac established as a success the regular IBM comment was 'power users don't need a pointing device...' and the use of the term 'mouse' was to avoid under all circumstances

cheers, Tom

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2003-06-25 21:20 ]</font>