Cable wrote:

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Nick: #1: comparing market value vs. market shares makes poor financial sense.

oh boy... glad you are not my money man. - It all matters, its all relative; you have to look at everything, and more than any chart, you need to see the big picture. not just about this, but about anything.

You're talking about one PC manufacturer (which has to compete against 4 major manufacturers and also has to deal with an open architecture)... That was what I was getting at. Dell has greater market share than Apple in server and commercial PC sales and also has US Gov't. services contracts that allow them to work cross-platform. This isn't something Apple has. Also, if Intel cannot meet production, Apple's bubble will burst... Dell can shift to AMD for parts.

Apple is sitting high, no question, but they're having a good year this year... They don't have competition in their respective market, but that's not always an asset, bear that in mind.

Quote:

Apple splits all the time, they are up something like 10,000% total its INSANE.

The most recent stock split was in February... 2005. All the time? Not hardly. 10,000%, not evenclose unless you're talking about the original 1000 or so shares from Apple's IPO, in like 1978 or so.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:
Also, look at the number of outstanding shares, Dell has over 2 billion shares. Apple's doesn't have a breakdown of market share as well (Apple is still under 15% of the total buying market, consumer and commercial).

More revenue, yes. Higher profit margins, NO. Apple is the big winner in profit margins. That's why they are on the way up and Dell is on the way down.
Did you even read what I said?

Look at the number of shares outstanding for both companies.

Now, Look at the SHARE OF THE MARKET that Dell has. Please first, tell me where in the hell I said a word about margins, and then answer me who has greater share of the market?

Quote:

The only way they could ever really pull forward in a huge way is if Apple helped them by licensing osX to them. That would be about the only "innovative" thing they'd have in their future.

But trust me, Apple doesnt want Dell to ruin their image, EVEN IF IT MAKES them money in the short term, because they are no ones bitch.

Were you asleep or not paying attention when they tried to open their source architecture for development?

Apple's only a manufacturing short-fall away from deflation. Dell is more flexible.

Quote:


Why do you keep blathering on about pointless shares?

Dell's profits are on the slide. All it knows how to do is build Windows boxes, and the only differential it's had is price. But now the price war is hotting up.

Dell has provision and service contracts with Governments and major corporations. This is the reason that they have been able to grow from relative obscurity to a major market holder in less than 10 years. If all they knew how to do was build windows boxes (which, is patently uninformed, not that I'm expecting a lot from a Mac flag-waver), they'd be Alienware. No, they have Commercial contracts that are on par with HP/Compaq/Digital and IBM, this is not something that Apple can rival.

Quote:


Meanwhile, Apple can differentiate itself and add value with its unique software. It's holding firm on its margins and diversifying into new media.

You say unique, most end-users say hard to work with.

Again, margins are great until there is a shortfall in supply. Did it escape you why Apple went to Intel for processors?

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:
#2: Believing that your OS is invulnerable is a fool's game. Obscurity is not defacto security.

Quote:



Unix expert: Mac OS X much more secure than Windows; recent Mac OS X security stories are media hype

Wednesday, May 03, 2006 - 09:25 AM EDT

http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/4136/937/

Grade 4 teacher: learning to read and comprehend what you just read is important.

I've highlighted the important parts. If OSX reaches XPs market share, you're going to see a LOT of holes poked into it.

Quote:


Can you give my mom and grandma a call please, and inform them as to how to 'hack' the registry.

I've done it with former Mac owners, I'm sure your folks will be no trouble at all.

Quote:


Wrong again. Except about where the problem is.

Why do you comment on things that you dont know to be fact?

ORLY?

I seem to have a computer engineering degree on my wall, and have done service support work for 3 major PC corporations, as well, I have Apple Certified Tech certs. I'm not an imbecile Nick. I know that there is NO SUCH THING as a perfect PC or Apple computer. You're not twigging that little nugget.

The problem comes when you introduce the human factor... OSX has security vulnerabilities, just like XP. I'll give you that most people shouldn't run OSX as root, and in the same vein, neither should most XP users use the PC as an administrator. The problem, yet again, is 2 feet infront of the monitor. It seems that it takes a PERSON to make the security vulnerability in OSX and XP happen. That's a fact, chum. If people weren't in charge of setting up their own computers, things would be a lot simpler. OSX does what it does well, but the fact that less than 1 out of 5 users use OSX gives it a helluva advantage in the security front. It's only a matter of time before it gets popped open, by hook or by crook.

Quote:

Just because Windows sucks doesnt mean that OSX sucks. get over it. and stop trying to tell people wich OS to use!! or not use.

Dude, I didn't tell anyone anywhere what to use. Don't put words into my mouth... It's beneath both you and me.

I don't tout one OS over another. If you think I am, let me please address that misunderstanding. I'd rather have everyone using *nix, because then, you'd have to LEARN a few things before you start goofing off infront of the puter, and you'd also know enough to first avoid the pitfalls of the system, and second, fix the problem when it ocurred. I understand, however, that a lot of the digital revolution wouldn't have happened without Microsoft DOS, Windows, AND Mac OS. All have flaws, and the biggest flaw is between the chair and keyboard, always has been, always will be (see: Social engineering hacks and Kevin Mitnick)

You're going to have to learn to not infer something, and just take what's on the screen as what is being said.


Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:
You're talking about one PC manufacturer (which has to compete against 4 major manufacturers and also has to deal with an open architecture)... That was what I was getting at. Dell has greater market share than Apple in server and commercial PC sales and also has US Gov't. services contracts that allow them to work cross-platform. This isn't something Apple has. Also, if Intel cannot meet production, Apple's bubble will burst... Dell can shift to AMD for parts.

The tides are turning, and intel has never had 'real' production issues.

Apple can shift to AMD now too... most people running the hacked osx86 are actually running it on AMDs. Trust me Apple has employees working very close with AMD, and AMD has an Apple lab, just like Intel has had an Apple lab for the last ~5 years.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:
Apple is sitting high, no question, but they're having a good year this year... They don't have competition in their respective market, but that's not always an asset, bear that in mind.

wich market are you speaking of? the ipod market? they have more competition now than ever, its juse no one wants anything but an iPod because well; everything else just doesnt compare. - If you are talking about the PC market; nevermind, you couldnt possibly have meant that, because they have like 4%; Apple does a lot of stuff, and everything they do, from hardware, and software, to audio and video distrobution they do well.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:
The most recent stock split was in February... 2005. All the time? Not hardly. 10,000%, not evenclose unless you're talking about the original 1000 or so shares from Apple's IPO, in like 1978 or so.

'All the time' is a relative term, when it comes to stock splits your lucky if 'All the time' means once per year. - yah, when I said up 10,000% I meant from the very early days - That would be one hell of a return investment if you were able to get in back then - DAMN!

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:
Also, look at the number of outstanding shares, Dell has over 2 billion shares. Apple's doesn't have a breakdown of market share as well (Apple is still under 15% of the total buying market, consumer and commercial).

'outstanding shares' = people not buying or people having sold.

Share volume is the 'more important' number.

Here IS the breakdown:



May 4, 2006 10:53 ET Market Open
Common Stock Market : NASDAQ-NM
Last Sale: $ 72.24 Net Change: 1.10 1.55%
Share Volume: 11,334,558 Previous Close: $ 71.14
Today's High: $ 72.89 Today's Low: $ 71.05
Best Bid: $ 72.23 Best Ask: $ 72.24
52 Week High: $ 86.40 52 Week Low: $ 33.11
P/E Ratio: 35.59 Shares Outstanding: 848,612,000
Earnings Per Share (EPS): $ 2.03 Market Value: $ 61,303,730,880
NASDAQ Official Open Price: $ 71.05 Date of Open Price: May 4, 2006
NASDAQ Official Close Price: $ 71.14 Date of Close Price: May 3, 2006



May 4, 2006 10:53 ET Market Open
Common Stock Market : NASDAQ-NM
Last Sale: $ 25.72 Net Change: 0.40 1.58%
Share Volume: 6,292,934 Previous Close: $ 25.32
Today's High: $ 25.84 Today's Low: $ 25.36
Best Bid: $ 25.71 Best Ask: $ 25.72
52 Week High: $ 41.99 52 Week Low: $ 25.10
P/E Ratio: 17.62 Shares Outstanding: 2,353,522,000
Earnings Per Share (EPS): $ 1.46 Market Value: $ 60,532,585,840
NASDAQ Official Open Price: $ 25.38 Date of Open Price: May 4, 2006
NASDAQ Official Close Price: $ 25.32 Date of Close Price: May 3, 2006

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:
Did you even read what I said?

Look at the number of shares outstanding for both companies.

Now, Look at the SHARE OF THE MARKET that Dell has. Please first, tell me where in the hell I said a word about margins, and then answer me who has greater share of the market?

Good margins is one of the things that made Apple worth more than Dell.

Dell has a bigger slice of the PC market, isnt that sad considering Apple has more money in the Bank, and is Worth a billion dollars more in market value?

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:
Were you asleep or not paying attention when they tried to open their source architecture for development?

tried? you mean succeeded under contract. And when the contracts ran out they refused to renew them to regain total control.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:
Apple's only a manufacturing short-fall away from deflation. Dell is more flexible.

News flash, Dell is the one thats already been deflated. Apple is more flexible imo.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:
Again, margins are great until there is a shortfall in supply. Did it escape you why Apple went to Intel for processors?

Again, intel doesnt have supply issues, if anything they have over supply issues, they have so many fabs its ri-dick-u-lus.

It looks like it escapes you as to why they switched; I'll list the reasons. Availability is NOT one of them.

1. More efficient power consumption therefore simpler cooling solutions will work.
2. Switching to x86 opens up their CPU options to AMD, transmeta, VIA, etc.
3. Cost of the chips are much less than the IBM G5 and Motorolla G4 chips.
4. Faster!; IBM and Motorolla can not give them anything close to the speed intel can.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:
Grade 4 teacher: learning to read and comprehend what you just read is important.

okay, now your just being an ass.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:
I've highlighted the important parts. If OSX reaches XPs market share, you're going to see a LOT of holes poked into it.

So you got the winning lotto numbers for me too? since you can tell the future and all.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:
I've done it with former Mac owners, I'm sure your folks will be no trouble at all.

Thats gross! - I was just playing the devils advocate anyway, they dont need to know how to hack their registry, they are already on Macs. - no reboots, no reinstalls, no spyware, no viruses, no problems, no @!#$.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I seem to have a computer engineering degree on my wall, and have done service support work for 3 major PC corporations, as well, I have Apple Certified Tech certs. I'm not an imbecile Nick. I know that there is NO SUCH THING as a perfect PC or Apple computer. You're not twigging that little nugget.

Good for you; for as smart as you say you are you sure are close minded. and hypocrytical.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:The problem comes when you introduce the human factor... OSX has security vulnerabilities, just like XP. I'll give you that most people shouldn't run OSX as root, and in the same vein, neither should most XP users use the PC as an administrator. The problem, yet again, is 2 feet infront of the monitor. It seems that it takes a PERSON to make the security vulnerability in OSX and XP happen. That's a fact, chum. If people weren't in charge of setting up their own computers, things would be a lot simpler. OSX does what it does well, but the fact that less than 1 out of 5 users use OSX gives it a helluva advantage in the security front. It's only a matter of time before it gets popped open, by hook or by crook.

Just because most comptuer users are stupid doesnt mean that they should be treated like they are, and for that reason alone the software and OS NEEDS to be bulletproof, and designed to be easy to use for ANYONE. Thats why All Apple software works the way it does, so 'most' people can use it and not screw things up.

If people run their machine as root, of if they click on somehting they shouldnt hopefully they will learn their lesson, but no matter what, on todays internet you are inherantly safer on OSX.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Dude, I didn't tell anyone anywhere what to use. Don't put words into my mouth... It's beneath both you and me.

So what are you saying? I thought everyone should use *nix iyo?

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I don't tout one OS over another. If you think I am, let me please address that misunderstanding. I'd rather have everyone using *nix, because then, you'd have to LEARN a few things before you start goofing off infront of the puter, and you'd also know enough to first avoid the pitfalls of the system, and second, fix the problem when it ocurred. I understand, however, that a lot of the digital revolution wouldn't have happened without Microsoft DOS, Windows, AND Mac OS. All have flaws, and the biggest flaw is between the chair and keyboard, always has been, always will be (see: Social engineering hacks and Kevin Mitnick)

No one wants to have to type anything to use a comptuer, or research anything, or memorize anything, or spend time setting somehting up etc.. what most people want is for the computer to read their mind and do exactly what they want. While thats not going to happen anytime soon, OSX gives you the closest you can get to that expierence.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:You're going to have to learn to not infer something, and just take what's on the screen as what is being said.

Word.

Cable wrote:Why do you comment on things that you dont know to be fact?

Just because Windows sucks doesnt mean that OSX sucks. get over it. and stop trying to tell people wich OS to use!! or not use.

LOL - Are YOU telling GAM not to tell people which OS to use?! Then exactly what have you been doing?

Now 1 of my links was from NBC. How about the others? OSX needs security updates - same as Windows. Apparently Norton Anti-virus makes it vulnerable to complete control - lol. Still that means the software makes it less secure. The very possibility of software doing that means its not secure at the core. If Norton can do that by accident, why can't a virus writer do that intentionally(not to mention more efficently)?

the page you linked wrote:Zymaris says that, while it is true that a Mac can get infected with a virus, it is not easy and it is not likely to cause much damage.

Well the plane is the safest form of travel. Unlike you(with OSX) however, no one is saying that airplanes are crash-proof.

While planes are still the safest form of travel statistically, and OSX is (currently) statistically safer than Windows in terms of danger of infection, neither are perfect, they are both far from it.

OSX is fairly secure - unless the user is stupid
Windows is fairly secure - unless the user is stupid

A user who knows the difference between a keyboard and a kettle will not get infected - despite the OS they use. The choice comes down to preference. I prefer Windows, some prefer OSX. You really need to

Quote:

get over it. and stop trying to tell people wich OS to use!! or not use.

I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?

Bastardking3000 wrote:

Cable wrote:Why do you comment on things that you dont know to be fact?

Just because Windows sucks doesnt mean that OSX sucks. get over it. and stop trying to tell people wich OS to use!! or not use.

LOL - Are YOU telling GAM not to tell people which OS to use?! Then exactly what have you been doing?

Now 1 of my links was from NBC. How about the others? OSX needs security updates - same as Windows. Apparently Norton Anti-virus makes it vulnerable to complete control - lol. Still that means the software makes it less secure. The very possibility of software doing that means its not secure at the core. If Norton can do that by accident, why can't a virus writer do that intentionally(not to mention more efficently)?

the page you linked wrote:Zymaris says that, while it is true that a Mac can get infected with a virus, it is not easy and it is not likely to cause much damage.

Well the plane is the safest form of travel. Unlike you(with OSX) however, no one is saying that airplanes are crash-proof.

While planes are still the safest form of travel statistically, and OSX is (currently) statistically safer than Windows in terms of danger of infection, neither are perfect, they are both far from it.

OSX is fairly secure - unless the user is stupid
Windows is fairly secure - unless the user is stupid

A user who knows the difference between a keyboard and a kettle will not get infected - despite the OS they use. The choice comes down to preference. I prefer Windows, some prefer OSX. You really need to

Quote:

get over it. and stop trying to tell people wich OS to use!! or not use.

http://www.insanely-great.com/news.php?id=5023

12 minutes to infection
by ron carlson, Insanely Great Mac
July 1st 2005



ZDNet Australia reports that there is a 50 percent chance an unprotected Windows PC running XP will be compromised within 12 minutes of going online. Or, at least, that's the way security vendor Sophos spins one of their own recent studies.

Authors of malware such as spam, viruses, phishing scams and spyware increased both the volume and sophistication of their assaults, releasing almost 8,000 new viruses in the first half of 2005 ... The new-virus figure is up 59 percent on the same period last year.

Previously, it was reckoned that a fresh out-of-the-box PC would become infected in some way within 30 minutes of being connected to a network. Thus it would appear that the creators of malware are handily winning the war by reducing the time required to infect/takeover a new PC by 50 percent in less than a year—that's what I call progress!

Also, this news fits well with earlier reports stating that PCs take more sick days than the people who use them.


______

Reduce OS X security threats - ignore security software

http://comment.zdnet.co.uk/other/0,39020682,39267248,00.htm

McAfee wants you to buy into its picture of Macintosh security. We prefer an alternate reality



We were intrigued to receive a press release from McAfee today, warning us of vulnerabilities in Apple's Mac OS X operating system. Not only were these vulnerabilities growing at an alarming rate, said the release, but "as more companies deploy Mac systems running on the Intel platform in mixed environments, the risk of infection will most likely increase." Fortunately for all of us, a second release had the answer: "McAfee today announced antivirus support for Intel-based Apple computers. "


Phew. At last, the world is safe from the thousands of Intel-specific Mac viruses, worms, trojans and other malware that make today's OS X experience one long struggle against evil. Or it would be, were there any. Which there aren't. Not one.


It may be true, as McAfee says, that from 2003 to 2005 the number of discovered Mac vulnerabilities increased by 228 percent while Windows only saw a 73 percent increase. But that's like saying that in the last decade, deaths caused by choking on ice cream were up by 200 percent while deaths from smoking only went up by ten. Like the ice cream, shining light on McAfee's claims makes them melt away – when we asked the company how big the risks actually were, it admitted that there was "no significant risk" at the moment. But there might be in the future. People on Macs are complacent. Better safe than sorry.


Safety in this context means having a sober assessment of the risks and how to safely and effectively counter them. For as long as OS X has been in the wild, discovered weaknesses and example code have been used by interested parties to predict actual attacks. Nothing remotely serious has materialised. In fact, if you look down the CERT list of alerts for 2005, the only one that mentions an Apple product by name is one caused by a bug in Symantec's AntiVirus software for the Mac. Safe, effective risk management here involves taking the longest bargepole you can find and using it to not touch the snake oil.


McAfee should be ashamed of itself, for raising fears of risks that do not exist, for coupling risks to Intel chips by association – which borders on the libelous – and for encouraging the very complacency it claims to cure. This push to sell inappropriate solutions will damage security and hinder the fight against malware. It will introduce more complexity at the system's most vulnerable point, and discourage people from thinking about stuff like firewall configuration and proper privilege-based security. If you understand security, you will not buy this software.


OS X, like any complex computer system, is not invulnerable to attack. Educating users about modes of attack, keeping up to date with patches, watching for independent analysis of problems – all these are good ways to keep your guard up. Listening to someone crying wolf is not.

________

I never said it wouldnt run applications, and yes you can make an app do nearly anything; including bad things.. sometimes you may want to do what would otherwise be considered a bad thing, like a low level format etc.. People will always be able to do what they want on their computer, its THEIR hardware. if they choose to click on something that does soemthing bad, thats their deal, and that doesnt mean that there are or will be viruses / malware / spyware / adware that becomes a problem for OSX.

I am just pointing out facts, I never told anyone what they should do....

"You're going to have to learn to not infer something, and just take what's on the screen as what is being said."


The fact is that XP with ALL the security updates, and ALL the good antispyware / antivirus protection you STILL get infected with spyware / malware / adware by just normal surfing habits (dont be fooled, yahoo is currently being sued for malware, if yahoo is doing it you can bet alot of others are) and you are typically hours if not minutes away from a new virus hitting the wild that will take most residential antivirus software 48-72 hours to implement protection against.

out of the box, for 99% of people no one wants to mess with all that extra softrware, or waste their time. - why would they?

OSX is infinitly 'better' than Windows.

"Apple; Because life is too short"

oh, and That norton exploit was TOTALLY a symantec problem. It affected ALL platforms, including Windows. AND its been patched for over 15 months.

Cable wrote:
The tides are turning, and intel has never had 'real' production issues.

Apple can shift to AMD now too... most people running the hacked osx86 are actually running it on AMDs. Trust me Apple has employees working very close with AMD, and AMD has an Apple lab, just like Intel has had an Apple lab for the last ~5 years.

Point taken, but the original point remains. You don't find out about a shortfall in production, and skip over to a new provider in a quarter.

Quote:


wich market are you speaking of? the ipod market? they have more competition now than ever, its juse no one wants anything but an iPod because well; everything else just doesnt compare. - If you are talking about the PC market; nevermind, you couldnt possibly have meant that, because they have like 4%; Apple does a lot of stuff, and everything they do, from hardware, and software, to audio and video distrobution they do well.

I'm talking commercial sales. That's where the money has always been.

Quote:


'All the time' is a relative term, when it comes to stock splits your lucky if 'All the time' means once per year. - yah, when I said up 10,000% I meant from the very early days - That would be one hell of a return investment if you were able to get in back then - DAMN!

I'd have given a lot to get the IPO of Microsoft and bailed out before the anti-trust actions by the DOJ... They're still up about 40,000% if adjust for annual inflation... Hind sight is still 20/20

Quote:


'outstanding shares' = people not buying or people having sold.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=outstanding%20shares

Quote:


Outstanding Shares

Stock currently held by investors, including restricted shares owned by the company's officers and insiders as well as those held by the public. Shares that have been repurchased by the company are not considered outstanding stock. They are also known as "issued shares" or "issued and outstanding".

Each listing has only a got a certain number of shares, and once they're all bought, that's it. I suspect you're thinking of "available shares" which are unpurchased shares that no-one has bought after the offering.

Quote:


Share volume is the 'more important' number.

Share Volume is number of shares traded in a given period. It's usually 50 days, but the time period is flexible depending on the volatility of the stock, and what an analyst or salesman is trying to show. If you want to get technical about it, Enron had tremendous share volume in its last quarter.... It also tanked at about -370% quarter over quarter earnings.

Quote:


Good margins is one of the things that made Apple worth more than Dell.

Dell has a bigger slice of the PC market, isnt that sad considering Apple has more money in the Bank, and is Worth a billion dollars more in market value?

Dell has several independantly traded subsidiaries (think GM, G.E. Westinghouse) that have to deal with service contracts. Apple puts all their supply and service contracts under one big umbrella last I checked. Also, Apple has brick and mortar storefronts while Dell is mainly online/phone order purchasing. Again, Dell has greater market competition with the same HW, while Apple has a smaller provision contract.

Also, if you look at it, Apple's advertising budget has been sky high for a while (since the early 90's, remember Mission:Impossible? the 1984 commercial? ).... Law of averages says it's going to pay off at some point... and at some point there is also the law of diminishing returns.

Quote:


tried? you mean succeeded under contract. And when the contracts ran out they refused to renew them to regain total control.

Succeeded? Are we talking about the same contracts that ended up costing the companies that tried to manufacture the Open sourced Apples about $345 million dollars? IIRC it was right around the time that Apple created the PowerPC... The other companies were limited to making lower market PC's like the Quadra and even the IIc. The other companies sued, and won because they were supposed to get ongoing allowances to build and independantly market Apple Clones.

BTW, after the lawsuits were settled, Apple ended up losing a whack of cash, and the plaintiffs lost nothing on the venture. None of the settlements were disclosed but everything had a very wet blanket thrown on it very quickly.

I wouldn't call that a success.

Quote:

News flash, Dell is the one thats already been deflated. Apple is more flexible imo.

Which Taiwanese manufacturer can spin up within a fiscal quarter to provide Apple with their spec boards, exactly? Intel might be able to, but they need lead time. Apple doesn't have as diverse a manufacturing base for their personal or enterprise computers as most other PC manufacturers. The whole reason companies like Dell, HP/CPQ, and Gateway can ride out these kinds of problems is because they have multiple providers, and a standardised product (with differences, no question).

Apple has their own standard, but, it's not the more widely available standard, and therefore, requires retooling, which requires lead time... are you catching my drift here? If Apple's supply is interrupted at any point, they're not likely to be able to recover very quickly.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:
Again, intel doesnt have supply issues, if anything they have over supply issues, they have so many fabs its ri-dick-u-lus.

It looks like it escapes you as to why they switched; I'll list the reasons. Availability is NOT one of them.

1. More efficient power consumption therefore simpler cooling solutions will work.
2. Switching to x86 opens up their CPU options to AMD, transmeta, VIA, etc.
3. Cost of the chips are much less than the IBM G5 and Motorolla G4 chips.
4. Faster!; IBM and Motorolla can not give them anything close to the speed intel can.

IBM decided to cease production of the PowerPC 970 chip because it's a low-volume market. That's what prompted the switch initially.

Quote:

okay, now your just being an ass.

Yes, but did it get the point across?

Quote:

So you got the winning lotto numbers for me too? since you can tell the future and all.

Oh mahn, you gotta breeeak out ya credit card and gimme a call, I'm na Miss Clee-yo, but I don work for free mahn.

And don't go wid dat girl you got your eye on, she gon' jus' use you for ya money.

Quote:


Thats gross! - I was just playing the devils advocate anyway, they dont need to know how to hack their registry, they are already on Macs. - no reboots, no reinstalls, no spyware, no viruses, no problems, no @!#$.

And for all that, I could have hooked them up with a good PC for less cash outlay.

Quote:


Good for you; for as smart as you say you are you sure are close minded. and hypocrytical.

I hear a pot calling a kettle black, Nick.

If I'm hypocritical, I'd like to see where it is. I re-read my stuff to make sure I didn't say anything that would disagree with what I know, and, if I'm wrong, I ADMIT IT.

Quote:


Just because most comptuer users are stupid doesnt mean that they should be treated like they are, and for that reason alone the software and OS NEEDS to be bulletproof, and designed to be easy to use for ANYONE. Thats why All Apple software works the way it does, so 'most' people can use it and not screw things up.

I never SAID that anyone should be treated that way. No one is born knowing how to run (well, Chuck Norris and Jesus aside), we've all been at the point of being a computer neophyte... and some of us have been burned, and learned from it.

BTW, Speaking of hypocritical...

Quote:


If people run their machine as root, of if they click on somehting they shouldnt hopefully they will learn their lesson, but no matter what, on todays internet you are inherantly safer on OSX.

Okay, let's see if we can square this out.

You bust on me for saying that people do dumb things, they're the biggest security vulnerability, and that they can help themselves out if they learn a little more than what they currently know.... Then you say more or less the SAME THING, and you're somehow not a hypocrite? I don't care what you're saying about OSX being less vulnerable, people will do dumb things, and until there is a perfect user, there will never be a perfect computer. At that point, a computer will be pretty redundant anyhow.

Geez, Nick, before you post something like that, re-read what you're responding to, and re-think what you're trying to say. I'm not being contrary here, I'm trying to make a point.

[quote
So what are you saying? I thought everyone should use *nix iyo?
Yes.

I realise that all the OSs now are just permutations and evolutions of Berkley UNIX, but, I do NOT like that you don't need to learn about the OS itself (ie Windows Reg hacking, or compiling a custom *nix kernel) in order to use it. Yes, I like the command line. When a company starts hiding the nuts and bolts of an operating system, I get nervous, would you like it if the engine compartment of your car was welded shut?

Quote:


No one wants to have to type anything to use a comptuer, or research anything, or memorize anything, or spend time setting somehting up etc.. what most people want is for the computer to read their mind and do exactly what they want. While thats not going to happen anytime soon, OSX gives you the closest you can get to that expierence.

I guess I'm no-one, along with most IS/IM/IT professionals. OSX is a fine user OS I gather, but I wouldn't run mission critical processes on anything without a command line as it's primary input.

Quote:

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:You're going to have to learn to not infer something, and just take what's on the screen as what is being said.

Word.

Lesson learned?




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

i look at windows like Coke-a-cola, everyone wants the name brand stuff, mac has its problems and so does PC, i currently have both, i have a Mac iBook G4 and a Dell XPS NOTEBOOK, I am very happy with both, the one thing with the two is that there is some compatability issues, that is all for me, i stand netrual in this



fully built 2200-TO4E T3/T4-HP tuners-373hp @18psi

I have had both, and haven't yet played with the new intel based ones... I think I'm going to have to get one to see what the fuss is about... it's just going to be a PITA because I need to make space for it...




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I have had both, and haven't yet played with the new intel based ones... I think I'm going to have to get one to see what the fuss is about... it's just going to be a PITA because I need to make space for it...

You should get the mini, and a usb KVM switch, you can set the mini ontop of your tower, verticle on your desk, or they even have mounts that will hold it behind any lcd.

I would REALLY go for the highend mini, dvd burner, bigger hard drive, and the core duo cpu.

The $599 for the base model is still very tempting tho, either way you should upgrade the ram, that 512 is a little limiting.

I've gotta find a KVM switch that'll work with an old SUN station, 3 PC's and then the MAC.

On top of that I have 3 monitors...

I have a KVM BTW, but I don't bother with the M part... just K & M

Don't the newer macs use ATA/SATA? And do they not use DDR ram?



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

SATA and DDR2/667

Ah good.

I'll see if I can squeeze a new one, or IWCTW a refurbed one.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

The only thing holding us back is the fact the gaming library is limited.

ohhhhhhhh, wait....


"TransGaming Inc. is making its 'Cider' portability engine for Apple's Intel-based Macs available to Windows game developers. The software promises to let Windows games run on Intel Macs without Windows or Apple's Boot Camp. 'Cider works by directly loading a Windows program into memory on an Intel-Mac and linking it to an optimized version of the Win32 APIs,' the company claims. Cider is a software for game developers, not end-users. Cider-enhanced games are scheduled to appear as soon as October. If Cider works well, will there be any more Mac-specific game development? And if not, will it matter?"


http://www.transgaming.com/index.php?module=ContentExpress&file=index&func=display&ceid=24


You get an Intel Mac yet GAM?

Not yet, funds don't permit it.

If I go to one of the places I'm applying to, I may get one to play around with if I decide to not keep the Supra...



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

hah! 12 minutes. I'm a Mac newbie and I don't know all the technical stuff but I know this... When a virus got on my dads computer, it spread to every PC in the house through the network. Now before you say we don't know how to properly keep them updated, we have an anti virus program which we update on all the computers as soon as an upgrade is available. We also set it to scan for virues and spam and stuff every night which takes 15 minutes or so. Still we had to have the Geek Squad come out herer and re install windows on all of them. Yet this whole time, my macbook which was also connected to the network and is unprotected was perfectly fine. I even had the Geek Squad check it. Programmers can keep making patches and updates for windows and anti-virus programs, but everytime they release one there is nothing to stop hackers from screwing with it. Windows is at an unfair disadvantage though as 90% of the world uses it so its obviously the target of most hackers. If Apple keeps growing, and more people switch, they will end up haveing the same problems.

I will admit that when I switched to Mac it took a while to get used to the OS because at first everything is different. There are still somet things that suck about it. I wish that file transfer was as easy as Windows' is, and there aren't as many games. But a year down the road, wiht leopard released and transgaming, both of those problems will hopefully be solved. But still, 90% ex-PC Mac users will probably tell you that once they got used to it, they loved OSX and never looked back to windows. Usually when they do still run windows its because they to run a windows only program for work or something.

Apple's OSX is based off of BSD Unix, as opposed to Windows' win32 API.

By the way:
Microsoft is dropping all support and development for ALL WINDOWS OPERATING SYSTEMS EXCEPT WINDOWS 2000 SP4, and WINDOWS XP SP 2.

If you do not have either of these operating systems, it's time to emerge from the ashes of World War I kids. Windows 9x/ME/NT nodes are soon to become the world's largest bot-army, so, you're going to have to either upgrade or risk losing use of your puter.. If your comp. can't handle win 2000/XP, then make plans to either migrate your HW to the required specs, or migrate to *nix. Microsoft will no longer carry the patches for 9x/ME/NT.

I guess taking a page out of Apple's book is okay once in a while (you know the old joke: how do you upgrade a mac? You throw it in the garbage and buy a new one? )


Deuce:
Virus scanners are great... but it sounds like you got a worm, and if the scanner is more than 3-4 months old (program I mean, not pattern files), it's terminally out of date. The pattern updates are great as well, but they're not enough to protect your computers. Windows has vulnerabilities, definitely, but they're pretty easily shut down, and if you use windows' built in firewall, you're protected well enough for normal interweb use (assuming there is a Virus scanner aboard).




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Quote:

till we had to have the Geek Squad come out herer and re install windows on all of them.

I'm sorry, but if you have to call the Geek Squad, you should be using a Mac.

Don't get me wrong, I'm actually wanting a Mac now (even though I'm a hardcore PC guy) because I want to see what it can do. Maybe I will like it more, and honestly, who wins in that situation?

But seriously, calling the Geek Squad? That's a lot of money for a problem you can solve by downloading a couple programs and maybe an hour or two of your time.

(Yes, I used to have to sell Geek Squad services. It's like inviting nerds into your house to rape your wallet.)

Geek Squad must suck too. I've been doing PC service for 15 years or so and have never met a virus I couldn't beat. Re-installing Windows is an admission of defeat. If you know how the OS woprks, and you have a couple free tools, you can kill just about any virus, at least reder them powerless. It wasn't there before, it came in, it's up to you to throw it out.

PAX

Hahahaha wrote:Geek Squad must suck too. I've been doing PC service for 15 years or so and have never met a virus I couldn't beat. Re-installing Windows is an admission of defeat. If you know how the OS woprks, and you have a couple free tools, you can kill just about any virus, at least reder them powerless. It wasn't there before, it came in, it's up to you to throw it out.

PAX

Geek Squad does suck, but reinstalling windows is just the quick easy fix in most cases.

I'll bet most of his machines had a restore disk or partition, so unless they updated other drivers, configured other crap, or if they were not name brand machines he basically paid them to put in a disk and restart the comptuer.

There was an article the other day that said Geek Squad puts your comptuer in more danger then if you didnt call them. - http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/49412/best_buys_geek_squad_conquest_of_branding.html


dont even get me start on their pricing they RAPE you!

^Point taken, guys. I did say that I don't know all the technical stuff. But you missed the point. The Mac didn't get a problem in the first place.

Well, without getting into all the technical stuff, your PC should not have been affected either.

There are reasons, but without getting into all the technical stuff, suffice to say that INTEL based PCs have about 80% market share, then comes AMD, Mac, Caruso, PowerPC, Alfa, and all the rest. To say that Mac doesn't quite have 15% market share would be like calling someone who is 6ft tall and 80lbs kinda skinny

It's not even close, and there are reasons.

PAX

I want Mac, Caruso and Alfa processors, where can I get them?

yah I was surprised to hear that OSX was up to 15% usage, install base is still only about 3%..

So why shouldnt his PC been affected? should have been running linux? or maybe a decent antivir? what the secret in your sauce?

Hahahaha wrote:Well, without getting into all the technical stuff, your PC should not have been affected either.

There are reasons, but without getting into all the technical stuff, suffice to say that INTEL based PCs have about 80% market share, then comes AMD, Mac, Caruso, PowerPC, Alfa, and all the rest. To say that Mac doesn't quite have 15% market share would be like calling someone who is 6ft tall and 80lbs kinda skinny

It's not even close, and there are reasons.

PAX

Did you miss the fact that his Mac has an Intel cpu in it? oh and 9,999/10,000 viruses / worms / trogans dont care what cpu you have as long as your running windows or using MS office.

OK, to be clear, you can no longer buy Alfas but they are still in use. The Transmetta game is coming up short, so I'm not sure about Caruso.

The 80% market share in PC for Intel was before any Intel based Mac shipped, that number may be altered accordingly. My point is that Macs do not have 15% market share, it's not possible. If Intel has 80% and AMD has about 7% and the rest is divided between the rest of the players, there's no room in my math for Apple to have 15%. See? No, there is no "Mac" processor, but I didn't want to put IBM in there a few times and mention Motorola while I'm at it. Take a pill. And yes, IBM does still make CPUs, they just don't get used in PCs anymore.. Heck, they didn't really before either. After being in this business as long as I have I could run a list all day, but it wouldn't be constructive would it?

I have run a PC for years without taking any extraordinary actions to protect it, using free tools and directly connected to the internet without any routing or firewalling hardware and have never had a virus, ever. Keep you OS up to date, use a desent anti-virus package and be a bit scrupulous in where you visit with a web browser and you'll have no trouble. Get an e-mail from someone you've never heard of, don't open the attachment, for God's sake, how long does it take to get that message out there?

You should not buy a PC based on perceived vulnerabilities (all infections can be cleaned) that may never affect you anyway. You should buy the best machine for the task you have. For Mac, I'd say about 1/2 of their users are actually exploiting what a Mac is good for. The rest buy them because of brand loyalty and percieved coolness. Heck, some spend thousands just to be different. That's plain stupid.

9 times out of 10, the best machine for the job is a PC runnings Windows. Sorry to say, but it's true. I am certainly no windows lover but because of office interoperability, communications and information exchange, along with installed software base, there really isn't a better choice, most of the time. Keep in mind that the vast majority of machines are used in a business environment. While the home PC segment is large, it is nothing compaired to business, peanuts really. Our business could never sell another home PC and not even lay off one person, it's that small in comparison.

PAX

Hahahaha wrote:OK, to be clear, you can no longer buy Alfas but they are still in use. The Transmetta game is coming up short, so I'm not sure about Caruso.

Its Alpha... Transmeta MAKES the *Crusoe

Hahahaha wrote:The 80% market share in PC for Intel was before any Intel based Mac shipped, that number may be altered accordingly. My point is that Macs do not have 15% market share, it's not possible. If Intel has 80% and AMD has about 7% and the rest is divided between the rest of the players, there's no room in my math for Apple to have 15%. See? No, there is no "Mac" processor, but I didn't want to put IBM in there a few times and mention Motorola while I'm at it. Take a pill. And yes, IBM does still make CPUs, they just don't get used in PCs anymore.. Heck, they didn't really before either. After being in this business as long as I have I could run a list all day, but it wouldn't be constructive would it?

Are you talking about processor market share? OS install base? or user base? and again APPLE IS NOW USING INTEL CPUS! <---- READ IT, ABSORB IT

intel has 80% cpu market share
Mac OSX has a ~2.5% install base
Mac OSX has a 15% user base

Hahahaha wrote:I have run a PC for years without taking any extraordinary actions to protect it, using free tools and directly connected to the internet without any routing or firewalling hardware and have never had a virus, ever. Keep you OS up to date, use a desent anti-virus package and be a bit scrupulous in where you visit with a web browser and you'll have no trouble. Get an e-mail from someone you've never heard of, don't open the attachment, for God's sake, how long does it take to get that message out there?

All your precautions are only needed BECAUSE YOU ARE RUNNING WINDOWS...

Hahahaha wrote:You should not buy a PC based on perceived vulnerabilities (all infections can be cleaned) that may never affect you anyway. You should buy the best machine for the task you have. For Mac, I'd say about 1/2 of their users are actually exploiting what a Mac is good for. The rest buy them because of brand loyalty and percieved coolness. Heck, some spend thousands just to be different. That's plain stupid.

People should buy and use Macs because they are better.

Hahahaha wrote:9 times out of 10, the best machine for the job is a PC runnings Windows. Sorry to say, but it's true. I am certainly no windows lover but because of office interoperability, communications and information exchange, along with installed software base, there really isn't a better choice, most of the time. Keep in mind that the vast majority of machines are used in a business environment. While the home PC segment is large, it is nothing compaired to business, peanuts really. Our business could never sell another home PC and not even lay off one person, it's that small in comparison.

PAX

What do you base that on? your expierences? what OSes have you used besides windows? Why do you think Windows is better exactly?