Let me think about it

Post #46,423 by orion 7/22/02 7:10:51 PM Reply	Let me think about it #1 USB, which Apple didn't have at first, but adopted later. #2 IDE, which Apple didn't have at first, but adopted later, and lead to cheaper PowerMacs that used IDE instead of SCSI. #3 Foldable keyboard from IBM for their Thinkpad, butterfly style. #4 Nextstep, ported to WINTEL before the PowerMac (In OSX). #5 Linux, written on the PC before the Mac. #6 Win 9X Start Menu, designed before the OSX Dock. #7 Two Button mouse, which Apple didn't have at first, but later included support for it in their OS. #8 Sidekick, created by Borland for DOS. Could open multiple Windows under DOS for various things before Windows was popular. Super TSR program. #9 Scroll Wheel, already mentioned here. Makes life easier for controlling the speed of the scroll in windows. #10 Cuecat, barcode scanner, plugs into PS/2 keyboard port. Scan in Bar Codes, visit web sites created from the code. #11 DVD, the PC had support of this before the Mac did. Had ability to view DVD movies on the PC. #12 Outlook, super email program, combines email client with a journal, task list, contact list, calendar, and notes into one program. Could synch up with an Exchange Server. Was created long before iCalendar and iSynch and Dotmac services. #13 Built in TCP/IP before MacOS had it. Windows 95 had Winsock TCP/IP built in, a ftp and telnet client, and dial-up PPP and SLIP support built in. With the old MacOS at the same time, you had to use a third party software to do all that. Windows 95 was Internet ready before MacOS was. *I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #46,474 by tuberculosis 7/23/02 3:04:08 AM Reply	Nope Except for the scroll wheel thing. Most of these are not fundamental innovations that change your relationship with your computer on some level. USB vs ADB vs FireWire or IDE vs SCSI - the average user could care less. They all do the same thing. Not fundamentally innovation. Scroll wheel on mouse - yes - fundamental new UI element. Mind you - I'm not claiming Apple created any of this stuff - I'm saying they were the first to popularize it to the masses by adding it to the base configuration and raising the bar of base capability. Like sound. Standard in the Mac since 1984. When did PC sound become ubiquitous? Seems pretty recent. Networking - Apple had quickie LANs since the 80s. TCP/IP was standard on the Mac long before Windows 95 - I think MacTCP was bundled around 92. I know it was available as an add-on in 1989 as the entire Denver Martin Marietta Titan Missile factory was Mac based and using it. The start menu is a copy of the mac menu bar. Puhleeze. DVD? Can you say quicktime? First video on computers and I saw it first demo'd at the release of System 7 in 1990 or 91. It blew me away. Pre-windows 3. The rest of your citations are apps and suffice it to say - Mac equivalents of those apps existed before Windows came out. One example: FrontDesk was a shared calendar app in common use in 1989. Plus - they don't really raise the bar for what constitutes a base configuration of a computer. The two button mouse with the pop-open menus is not a PC innovation. The Smalltalk-80 apis have calls on the mouse class for testing the red mouse button, yellow mouse button, and blue mouse button. This predates the Mac even. Bar code scanners don't affect the average computer user at large - but adb scanners were around in 1989 - again pre-windows. The average hunter gatherer works 20 hours a week. The average farmer works 40 hours a week. The average programmer works 60 hours a week. What the hell are we thinking?
Post #46,477 by Steve Lowe 7/23/02 3:14:57 AM Reply	Re: Nope Can vouch for Martin. I was at the Littleton nav systems office..all Macs..around 89-90. I was developing Business logic for a publisher with 4D long before there was a windows, and certainly before Access was a twinkle in Billy's eye. Had an AppleTalk LAN, too. ----- Steve
Post #46,487 by tuberculosis 7/23/02 9:13:07 AM Reply	How many paper airplanes did your team build? I worked in production ops for industrial engineering. Mostly gathered production stats - hours, defects, etc. I am out of the country for the duration of the Bush administration. Please leave a message and I'll get back to you when democracy returns.
Post #46,495 by orion 7/23/02 10:51:23 AM Reply	PC Sound Perhaps you forgot the PCjr and its built in sound chip that predates the Mac? TI SN76496A IIRC. [link\|http://www.pcjr.org/\|[link\|http://www.pcjr.org/\|http://www.pcjr.org/]] 1983 *I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #46,514 by pwhysall 7/23/02 12:45:39 PM Reply	Forget it The point Todd is making is that the PC quite simply is not where innovation happens in the user interaction arena. Even though I personally believe that Apple have lost their way somewhat with the UI of OSX, it's still more usable and pleasant than Windows 2000 or XP. I always thoroughly enjoy working with my mother's iMac when I go to visit (once I get over that HORRENDOUS mouse. I take my Intellimouse Explorer with me :-)) because quite simply the Apple engineers have been thorough in their design of the user interface in a way that really doesn't exist anywhere else. [I hope and pray that the lessons the GNOME project learned in their usability study are applied and applied hard. Even now, you can see in GNOME2 that things are just simpler, whereas KDE seems to be heading in the opposite direction - just take a look at the KDE3 control centre for an example of Too Much Interface.] The Windows 95 start menu and task bar were stolen from Acorn's RISCOS operating system, by the way. Shame they didn't steal the other good stuff, like being able to work with windows that are not on the top of the window pile, having a fast and simple filer with nothing to break, leak or spill, having fast proper antialiased outline fonts with subpixel hinting and scaffolding, having a simple command line available with the press of a key (hit f12, enter commands, hit enter twice to return to desktop)... Pointing at the PCJr doesn't really help either, because it was a wretched pile of shit that needed to die, and fast. Thankfully, it did. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #46,522 by orion 7/23/02 1:27:15 PM Reply	More stuff they should have stole The Amiga Workbench, had the ability to drag the full screen down by it's title and view the screen under it. This could be done multiple times. I haven't seen this done on any other GUI since, at least not to the best of my knowledge. While the PC may not be the leaders of innovations with the UI, how does that matter to the average user? The best it could be for is bragging rights. Which of course don't pay back the corporate loans or create more marketshare. *I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #46,529 by altmann 7/23/02 1:51:42 PM Reply	The Enlightenment WM Had/Has It -- Chris Altmann
Post #46,581 by tuberculosis 7/23/02 5:25:25 PM Reply	I always hated that feature Never like multiple workspaces in WM's. Worked on HPUX with the COSE Motif 6 workspace interface and just never could get in the hang of switching from one to the other. I found it disorienting. I am out of the country for the duration of the Bush administration. Please leave a message and I'll get back to you when democracy returns.
Post #46,585 by orion 7/23/02 5:29:26 PM Reply	I loved it it was great being able to switch from one to the other so easily. Like having two desks for two different sets of projects. *I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #46,586 by admin 7/23/02 5:33:21 PM Reply	Yes/no Autoswitching by detecting the mouse on the edge of the screen must die. That IS disorienting. However, I have 8 workspaces right now... switchable only by hotkey. It's an extremely fast, efficient way to organize groups of windows, in my opinion. Programming emacs on 1, Web browsers on 3, VMware on 5, etc. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #46,551 by tuberculosis 7/23/02 4:25:16 PM Reply	Hey somebody gets it! Precisely. Some things change the way users think about computers and they way they use them. Most of those sea changes have to introduced and promoted by some brave company willing to draw a new line in the sand. Apple, I notice, is the company most often moving the line. Not always - just usually. I am out of the country for the duration of the Bush administration. Please leave a message and I'll get back to you when democracy returns.
Post #46,528 by orion 7/23/02 1:39:50 PM Reply	What about the light pen interface? IBM had it way back with their Monocrome or CGA display adapter. It had a Lightpen interface in it. Hardly anyone used it, but it was a cool feature. The Lightpen was a better UI than the keyboard cursors. You just pointed to the screen where you wanted to select. *I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #46,550 by tuberculosis 7/23/02 4:22:45 PM Reply	Did your computer come with one? Does the mac? Not ubiq. We're talking about innovations that fundamentally change the way users work with computers. Tossing out a laundry list of things that never caught on anywhere isn't making much of a case. I am out of the country for the duration of the Bush administration. Please leave a message and I'll get back to you when democracy returns.
Post #46,555 by orion 7/23/02 4:32:10 PM Reply	So what? On the PC the mouse is optional. Some packages were sold with the software and the light pen for business applications. yes it did change the UI to the computer. But because Apple didn't think of it first, let's just toss that one out shall we? *I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #46,569 by tuberculosis 7/23/02 5:01:22 PM Reply	You're off topic Hmmm. I thing you ought to go look up ubiquitous. It means its now everywhere and it changed the way people use computers forever. Light pens are not ubiquitous. You're off topic. Name innovations that appeared first on the PC that now appear on all macs and pcs and unix machines - IOW, something now so fundamental that you'd never consider getting a computer without one. Like CD ROM capable drives (these days most people are going to insist on DVD-ROM at least). Not like light pens. I am out of the country for the duration of the Bush administration. Please leave a message and I'll get back to you when democracy returns.
Post #46,583 by orion 7/23/02 5:27:22 PM Reply	You're off your rocker how can I compete when you keep on changing the rules to fit your own insane debate? *I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #46,588 by tuberculosis 7/23/02 5:42:00 PM Reply	?!?!? The thesis hasn't changed. It was and is: Apple does the bulk of the innovating in the computer industry wrt what constitutes a base machine configuration. They've forced into the mainstream mice, GUIs, networking, peer to peer networking (about to get good again with Rendezvous), wireless ethernet, classy cases, hotswappable high bandwidth media (firewire), flat panel displays, multimedia, sound, and a bunch of other stuff thats small but that everybody has since copied. Which is fine. This is all stuff that changed the face of computing - the very definition of what a computer is to a user. Light pens didn't change jack and are not commonly found on the average computer. Do you not understand? You're beginning to resemble bryce on this. Stay on topic. I am out of the country for the duration of the Bush administration. Please leave a message and I'll get back to you when democracy returns.
Post #46,599 by orion 7/23/02 6:13:29 PM Reply	Stay on topic indeed? Your own words: I give sony bonus points for the vaio ultralight designs - other than that - name one innovation the pc industry provided that directly and favorably impacts the end user experirence that Apple didn't release first. Yet many times you batting things down because the PC didn't invent them first, but some Non-Apple company did. So on that you changed things around to suit your own needs. I gave the IBM Thinkpad Butteryfly keyboard, but you poo-pooed it, and then changed the argument so that instead of the end user experience it was now about the UI. The Lightpen was bundled on some hardware and software packages, and it did impact end user experience, yet because it isn't included on 100% of the systems out there, you poo-pooed it. Again you are changing the terms to suit your own needs. As a result, I refuse to discuss the issue any further with you. *I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #46,602 by pwhysall 7/23/02 6:21:35 PM Reply	Taking your ball and going home? When did a lightpen change the user experience? Hell, when was the last time you even saw one of these things? But there's a mouse attached to your computer, and you wouldn't consider using it without one. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #46,625 by orion 7/23/02 9:28:31 PM Reply	Not my ball, not my home, not my game. The Lightpen was really used mostly in Point Of Sale, Medical, Industrial and Mobile computing systems. I admit it is not used in 100% of the systems out there, but it is used. In fact, companies such as this one [link\|http://www.inkwellsystems.com/\|[link\|http://www.inkwellsystems.com/\|http://www.inkwellsystems.com/]] seem to be in the business of selling Lightpens and seem to stay in business. If nobody uses Lightpens, then how does this company stay in business since 1983? Click on that company's technical button and read: *Light pens are perfect for applications where desk space is limited, in harsh workplace environments, and any situation where fast accurate input is desired.* Does that, or does that not change the user experience when in some conditions it may be better to use a Lightpen instead of a mouse? Such as in an assembly plant with little or no deskspace to roll around a mouse, or perhaps a point of sale system on a sales counter? *I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #46,659 by tuberculosis 7/24/02 2:58:34 AM Reply	OK, I'll make this simple for you If it came out on the PC first and Macs have it now and its now included standard where before it used to be an optional add-on, then its a PC innovation that raised the bar. OTOH, if Apple added it to the base product line and then all the PC makers started including it as a standard feature then its an Apple innovation that changed computing for the PC world. Under which scenario does your light pen fit? Oh right, its neither since light pens are not included standard on either PCs or Macs. I am out of the country for the duration of the Bush administration. Please leave a message and I'll get back to you when democracy returns.
Post #46,534 by wharris2 7/23/02 3:10:14 PM Reply	Au contraire USB vs ADB vs FireWire or IDE vs SCSI - the average user could care less. Oh no. They care. They care a LOT. You can argue IDE vs. SCSI until you're blue in the face - but the average user will pick an IDE system every time, when told it costs $100 less. DVD? Can you say quicktime? Excuse me? To compare Quicktime with DVD is laughable at best, and the height of duplicity at worst. Especially Quicktime circa 1990. The two button mouse with the pop-open menus is not a PC innovation. But while it damn well might not be anything innovative on a PC, it isn't even featured on Apples. Sheesh, man, while it may be "supported", they still don't deliver a 2-button mouse, as far as I could tell from their web site. PC 2-button mice have been standard since pretty near the first time any were available. Like sound. Standard in the Mac since 1984. When did PC sound become ubiquitous? Seems pretty recent. And when did the Mac get color? Seems to me it took a long, long time for the Mac to get color. Even the pathetic CGA color featured by PC's in 1984, let alone the improved PC Jr. or Tandy color, were superior. (Let alone Amiga's or others). The computer for the rest of us was outperformed and outgunned at almost every step by the computers for the geeks of us, because those geeks did things with those computers that actually did useful and fun things for the rest of us. Hell, my Radio Shack Color Computer was more useful and expandable than the first Macintoshes. I was fully prepared to like the Mac (shoot, I loved that little 6809 in the Color Computer and was horrified by the 8086 in the IBM PC, I expected to love the 68000 in the Mac). WRONG. Famous last RPG quotes: "I'll just shoot this fireball down the dungeon passageway..."
Post #46,545 by orion 7/23/02 4:13:29 PM Reply	Don't tease the Mac Fans they don't like it when you spoil their party. First they claim that the Mac had it first, then they will say that some other platform before the PC had it first but it doesn't matter that the PC had it before the Mac. Quicktime, buggy as it is, always beats DVD players in their book. They completely ignore the Cuecat, free device that Radio Shack gave out, improved the UI by allowing users to scan in bar codes to go to web sites. Sure beat typing in [link\|http://www.radioshack.com/\|http://www.radioshack.com/] to the browser and then searching for the item they wanted instead of scanning it from a Radio Shack catalog and jumping right to the site on the website to buy it from. But no, it wasn't on the Mac first, so it doesn't count. Or they will try aad say that it wasn't a true UI improvement, or that it didn't matter. As far as I knew, it was only PC technology, it used a PS/2 keyboard port. But they did invent a Linux interface driver for it. Oh yeah, let's ignore the PCjr, because it was just a piece of crap. It didn't sell well at first, like the Original Macintosh. One of my friends actually got a cheap PCJr from a surplus sale and they threw in a free 300 baud modem with it, he was able to hook it up to his TV set and play Tradewars and get on BBSes way back when. To him, it wasn't a piece of crap, it worked as advertised. All he did was get a copy of Procomm, and zing, off he went. Software was easier to install/use on the PCjr than the regular PC, as some games came on cartridges. You cannot beat just plugging in a cart and powering the system on for an easy install. Plus the Sidecar expansion on the PCJr had a primative plug and play technology, this was before the Mac, and at a time when all the Mac had for expansion was serial ports (Before SCSI, and ADB) and that floppy port. The Amiga pinoneered high color displays and desktops. It had 4096 colors, when the Mac still worked in shades of grey (on its built in monitor) and the best that IBM had was 16 color EGA. The Amiga also had a built in speech chip and an API to access it. Amiga BASIC had the first interface to it via the "SPEAK" command, and other languages had built in support for it. But it doesn't matter, because it was not a Macintosh? Let's not get started on those HP systems and the touch screen that they had, oh no. It predated the Macintosh and the UI made things easier to use by pointing at it with your finger. No points there, even if it did use 3.5" drives before most other PC Clones. *I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #46,557 by pwhysall 7/23/02 4:38:16 PM Reply	You miss the point In 1984, PC and home computer users were typing commands to do stuff. GEM hadn't happened yet, and Windows was still a twinkle in Bill's eye. Mac users were dragging files to the trash. PCs do this, they do that. Mainly the discussion about PC hardware and software is a discussion of What Microsoft Did Next. The ability to play King's Quest in 320x200x16 colours is an evolution, not a revolution. The ability to graphically manage your stuff, on the other hand, was a sea change that altered the face of computing for ever.[1] So what if it was in black and white? [1] Ye Olde Chestenutt about Xerox and the Star system is duly noted. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #46,564 by orion 7/23/02 4:49:47 PM Reply	Big deal Do you care that AT&T had the phone system and long distance before any other company? Does that fact prevent you from using WorldCom, Sprint, or any other Long Distance Carrier? Diner's Club invented the credit card, but does that prevent you from using Mastercard, Visa, Discover, or American Express? McDonald's practially invented Fast Food, but would that prevent you from going to Burger King, Taco Bell, Jack In The Box, KFC, Hardee's, etc? Ford practially invented the car (I know I know, some German guy did it first) or rather the automobile assembly line but will that stop you from buying a Chevy, Toyota, Saturn, GMC, etc? What prevents you from using the service or product from the company that originaly thought it up, or that had it before anyone else? Pepsi and Coke, which is better? Or does the average person care which one came first? Or are they more concerned which one costs less? Most of the time people go with the less expensive product or service, that $600USD PC rather than that $1200USD Mac. Why? Don't ask me, I am not your average user. *I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #46,562 by tuberculosis 7/23/02 4:48:04 PM Reply	Think Not RE: IDE vs SCSI, etc. The average user sitting down at a computer can't tell if there's IDE, SCSI, FireWire (which actually I think is significant because of the hot swappability) or a squirrel with tin cans and string. Its not an evident technology to the casual user and most Mac users couldn't tell when it switched. So where's the innovation there? Purchase price changes don't fundamentally change the way people interact with computers the way something like wireless ethernet does. (Which I miss horribly at my new company as I was used to wandering from room to room while working - that's a fundamental change in my relationship with my computer). \| And when did the Mac get color? Two years before the PC got Windows. Why? \|The computer for the rest of us was outperformed and outgunned Not even going to answer this as performance is an undefinable quantity. At least they took the RISK to WASTE processor cycles on USELESS tasks like DRAWING understandable interfaces. IOW, they defined performance in a fairly different way than you do. That took balls. Incidentally, the current MacOS X has at the core of its UI a hybrid C/OO Runtime that is over 10 years old and is at least 10 years ahead of its nearest competition TODAY. There's a reason free apps are getting cranked out. They're FUCKING EASY to write. If you're not a developer or your brain's been damaged by C++ or other languages of its ilk then walk on by - your calcified brain will never get it. So how do you measure performance? MIPS? FLOPS? Time to swap out the motherboard? Pounds of hardware per $ spent? Who fuckin cares? I am out of the country for the duration of the Bush administration. Please leave a message and I'll get back to you when democracy returns.
Post #46,568 by orion 7/23/02 4:58:46 PM Reply	Price, even if you like it or not, always is a big factor. Apple may not always get it either. That $600USD PC is going to be bought over the $1200USD Mac even if the Mac is a better buy, runs faster, easier to use, and can do backflips. Price is a big factor, which is why Apple has tried to make cheaper Macs. If not, then Apple would have only made $2000USD systems and wouldn't have bothered to try and keep the prices down. To own a Mac, you usually have to pay a higher price than that PC sold at Wal-Mart that is pre-loaded with Linux. Not everyone likes to do that. Not everyone is rich, and in case you haven't noticed, the economy isn't the best it ever has been, has a four year low. My best idea of a system is an ATX based clone, just replace the motherboard and CPU every once in a while, and then upgrade the video, audio, hard drive, and optical drive when you can afford to do so. No need to buy a new $850USD or $1200USD system everytime you need to upgrade. If you cannot do it yourself, find someone who will. Most PC Dealers and Mom and Pop shops are happy to install hardware for you for an extra fee, like $35USD. *I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #46,571 by tuberculosis 7/23/02 5:06:55 PM Reply	So low price is a PC "innovation" copied by everybody else? Not much of an innovation, is it? I mean, companies have been competing on price long before the discovery of electricity. What is your POINT here? I am out of the country for the duration of the Bush administration. Please leave a message and I'll get back to you when democracy returns.
Post #46,587 by orion 7/23/02 5:36:03 PM Reply	The point is innovating to keep the price down, better bang for the buck. Or maybe you rather liked it when a computer system cost between $3500USD and $5000USD? The PC Cloners innovated to find ways to keep the cost down, this made the system easier for the average user to be able to afford to use one. By Microsoft allowing OEMs to buy DOS and Windows, and not just limit to the IBM brand PC systems, but any X86 based system, it opened up a whole market for hundreds if not thousands of companies. Sure competition is nothing new, but the PC companies focused on ways to make things cheaper, more affordable. Apple eventually had to follow suit. Eventually Apple used PC technology to keep prices down, like IDE hard drives and USB ports. *I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #46,589 by tuberculosis 7/23/02 5:45:24 PM Reply	Maybe but I don't see it as an innovation. Besides, at the moment, the PC makers are innovating with MS to push the price UP. Its interesting that more than 50% of the base PC's cost is now software. Some innovation. I am out of the country for the duration of the Bush administration. Please leave a message and I'll get back to you when democracy returns.
Post #46,600 by orion 7/23/02 6:16:39 PM Reply	You apparently don't seem to see a lot of things because you are so blinded by the Mac. You cannot see the whole picture, apparently. PC makers pushing with Microsoft to push the price up? Do you have any proof of this? More than 50% of the base PC's cost is software? Does that include that Linux system sold at Wal-Mart or the systems that are sold without an OS? *I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #46,601 by pwhysall 7/23/02 6:19:28 PM Reply	What systems are those then? Go to Dell, Compaq/HP, IBM, Gateway, whatever. Pick your system integrator. I don't care. Now get them to sell you a regular box without an operating system. Now walk over to the software shelf, pick up a copy of XP Home, and tell me how much it is. Now consider that Windows 3.11 cost 30 bucks ten years ago. Now do the math on how much of a percentage of the total system cost a copy of XP Home is compared to what the same percentage was for Windows 3.11 all those years ago. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #46,969 by wharris2 7/26/02 2:55:10 AM Reply	I always thought you were intelligent. Windows 3.11 cost (bare-bones) a lot more than $30. Upgrade to 3.11, maybe. (And of course they never did manage to say exactly what they did from 3.10 to 3.11, other than incidentally breaking OS/2 support.) And what does this have to do with expensive $2000 low-featured relatively low-powered unexpandable Macs vs. $1000 many-featured greatly expandable PC's? The lawyers would mostly rather be what they are than get out of the way even if the cost was Hammerfall. - Jerry Pournelle
Post #46,973 by tuberculosis 7/26/02 3:39:55 AM Reply	Expandable in which dimension? They now use most of the same device busses so I'm curious how Macs are not expandable? I mean: IDE, USB, Firewire, 802.11b, 56k modem, CD/DVD-ROM, both digital video and whatever the older (rgb?) thing is. What doesn't expand? Heck, the desktops flip open with a latch making component installation take a second - no screwdrivers required. I don't get your point. Plus, I kinda think MacOS X is worth the price differential. Because while you may get yourself a PC for X dollars, it comes with a built-in money tap (halting regularly to demand upgrade money) that flows to MS. In the end you pay more unless you run non-ms software (which you still generally end up paying for once except for a few rare exceptions). Then there's the value thing. Software I need to run doesn't run on linux. So the relative value of the PC is zero. Not a good value prop. I don't think your assertion holds. And what does this have to do with innovations that change the definition of what a computer is? I am out of the country for the duration of the Bush administration. Please leave a message and I'll get back to you when democracy returns.
Post #47,049 by orion 7/26/02 12:08:39 PM Reply	Fear of a Red Hat The Mac has taken on PC technology to become more expandable. USB, PCI, AGP, IDE, etc. But then the PC is using Mac technology for Firewire now. Linux can run DOS and Windows software, just like a Mac can. There are emulators for Linux that can run DOS or Windows or both. In fact, a free project called WINE, is growing very popular [link\|http://www.winehq.org/\|[link\|http://www.winehq.org/\|http://www.winehq.org/]] there also is DOSEMU for running DOS, but you need a copy of DOS to run inside of it. Others are listed in the Linux forum if you are bothering to read it. If you run Linux for the Mac, there is always MacOnLinux to boot MacOS 9.X or lower in a virtual Machine. So what is this BS about Linux not being able to run the software you need? What software are you talking about? Why are Mac Fans so adamantly against Linux? Fear of a Red Hat? *I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #47,048 by orion 7/26/02 12:03:18 PM Reply	Not only that but way back when, one needed a copy of DOS and Windows to get Windows functional. You couldn't just run Windows by itself with version 3.X, it needed a version of DOS to run on top of. So it was MS-DOS 5.0 and Windows 3.1, and each cost more than $30 a pop way back when. I recall in 1993, paying $99 for Windows 3.1, and about $99 for MS-DOS 5.0 when I worked for a Fortune 500 company in St. Louis and I wrote up purchase orders. Of course that was the discount we got from the vendor, I think it cost more than that unless you got an upgrade price. Of course, look at Pricewatch: [link\|http://www.pricewatch.com/1/182/4181-2.htm\|[link\|http://www.pricewatch.com/1/182/4181-2.htm\|http://www.pricewat...2/4181-2.htm]] If you buy it with hardware, you can get Windows XP Pro with a mouse for $130, way back when Windows 3.1 plus MS-DOS 5.0 cost more than that. How is $130 half of the $600 el-cheapo systems out there? Is this some sort of New Math? It also is certainly less than $198 that I used to be able to buy Windows 3.1 and MS-DOS 5.0 for. Plus Windows XP Pro has a lot of things built into it that Windows 3.1 never had, like a TCP/IP stack, a web browser, Firewall, etc. So just how much of this bullsht are we expected to swallow anyway? We know that Microsoft is evil, but don't exagerate things to beyond what they really are. Don't get caught up in the MacJihad, it does not suit you. I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #47,074 by tuberculosis 7/26/02 3:49:08 PM Reply	You still need Office Which is an insane amount of money these days. Plus, MS puts you on a treadmill to keep the revenues running. Linux? I've never bought a PC (think the hardware is lame and won't pay the MS tax) so I can't speak to its general usefulness - but the Linux distros for various macs (which I have installed) were so fiddly and lame as to leave me wondering what the noise was about. My opion of the apps on linux - they kinda suck. The dev environment - ditto. Even nextstep isn't ready for prime time. OS X is a nice supported commercial unix with good dev tools and a good suite of apps. Plus I like the hardware. Its not a fiddly thing that drives me nuts getting it running. It just works out of the box. So I like it. What a surprise, we're in the Mac forums and I'm saying I prefer OS X to any other OS out there. Try not to act too surprised, OK? I do happen to have a linux box at the moment as a workgroup server. Its running resin to run the devtools.org wiki, its our cvs over ssh server, but we never use an interface more elaborate than bash on it. For what it does, its fine. But I don't think I'd use it for much more than that and I'm probably going to replace it with a solaris box. I am out of the country for the duration of the Bush administration. Please leave a message and I'll get back to you when democracy returns.
Post #47,091 by orion 7/26/02 6:38:14 PM Reply	But Office isn't part of the OS and it is optional. One does not need to buy Office to get a working PC. Maybe Dell and Gateway etc bundle Office with their PC, but I bet they offer models without Office, or ones that use MS-Works instead. That is like me saying that in order to use a Mac, you also have to buy Appleworks and Filemaker Pro and subscribe to the .Mac service. BTW what is up with those $129USD MacOSX 10.2 upgrades? Doesn't Apple have an "upgrade" price to older OSX owners? *I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #47,179 by tuberculosis 7/27/02 11:15:30 AM 7/27/02 11:18:10 AM Reply	Sure it is Just like Explorer is. Actually, MS doesn't maintain a clear distinction between OS code and app code. No sense of architecture in their stuff. I've never seen a PC without Office and the rest of the MS app stuff installed by default. RE Upgrade: OS development costs money. You have to pay for its somehow. I am out of the country for the duration of the Bush administration. Please leave a message and I'll get back to you when democracy returns. Edited by tuberculosis July 27, 2002, 11:18:10 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #47,190 by orion 7/27/02 2:11:21 PM Reply	I said it before and I'll say it again for the hard of hearing. Office is an optional package for Windows, some systems use MSWorks instead for the bundled software package. *I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #47,483 by wharris2 7/30/02 1:40:35 PM Reply	Re: I said it before some systems use MSWorks instead for the bundled software package. (raises hand) I haven't used much of it except the calendar, but I suppose its word processor and/or spreadsheet and/or whatever are adequate (even though I do still remember PC Write, PC Outline, probably with too much nostalgia.) The lawyers would mostly rather be what they are than get out of the way even if the cost was Hammerfall. - Jerry Pournelle
Post #46,515 by pwhysall 7/23/02 12:50:03 PM Reply	Spurts coffee over keyboard #12 Outlook, super email program, combines email client with a journal, task list, contact list, calendar, and notes into one program. Could synch up with an Exchange Server. Was created long before iCalendar and iSynch and Dotmac services. You're kidding, right? This is the email program that destroys your mail file if it hits 2GB, can't do sane LDAP, can't thread messages, can't show me the full headers of a message without contortions and destroys them if you forward a message, is slow as snot if you have more than a few hundred messages, isn't in any way shape or form Free or free, and just generally causes me more support issues than the rest of Office combined? Jeeeeezus. Now, if you'd said "Ximian Evolution", you'd be onto something. But you didn't, so you're not. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog] I hate Outlook, by the way.
Post #46,524 by orion 7/23/02 1:32:07 PM Reply	It was free, when it was Outlook 98 IIRC it used to be a free download from MS, back when they offered the Outlook 98 and IE 4.0 bundle for Windows 95/98 and NT. The lawfirm I used to work for took full advantage of that and switched to Outlook from the Windows 95 "Inbox" and Exchange clients they used to have and use. They downloaded the install files and put them on a network location. Sure it had its limitations and flaws, but they used it anyway. *I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #46,531 by pwhysall 7/23/02 2:32:59 PM Reply	Nope Outlook is the Exchange client, and a member application of the Office suite. You need one of two things to legally run Outlook: * An Office Standard licence * An Exchange CAL The version of Exchange that the CAL is for determines what version of Outlook you can run (in the absence of an Office licence): * Exchange 5.5 : Outlook 97, 98 and 2000 * Exchange 2000 : Outlook 2002 Hope this clears things up. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #46,544 by orion 7/23/02 3:57:30 PM Reply	Huh? I ran Outlook 98 at home, for free, didn't use Exchange, used an Internet POP3 and SMTP server. There was an Outlook98.exe program that I downloaded from Microsoft, and it installed Outlook 98 and IE 4.0, as far as I knew if Microsoft allowed me to download and install it, I had a right to use it? It was, at that time, as free as IE was, as far as I knew. *I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #46,574 by pwhysall 7/23/02 5:13:35 PM Reply	Key Words "as far as you knew." Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #46,576 by tuberculosis 7/23/02 5:23:22 PM Reply	OT Your BLOG What are you using for your blog software? I am out of the country for the duration of the Bush administration. Please leave a message and I'll get back to you when democracy returns.
Post #46,580 by pwhysall 7/23/02 5:25:21 PM Reply	Re: OT Your BLOG I'm using [link\|http://www.movabletype.org/\|Moveable Type]. It's really quite nifty. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #46,592 by tuberculosis 7/23/02 5:51:59 PM Reply	Perl - ICK! I'm just not a perl guy. I respect it but never could get my head around it and never found a reason to work at it. Plus I'm already running postgres for my db. Thanks tho. I was hoping it was a java servlet thing. I'm already running the wiki you can find at devtools.org on a resin server and its quite good. I'd like to find a blog that runs on these as I already know how to cope and don't have to add more stuff. Your blog looks really good tho. I am out of the country for the duration of the Bush administration. Please leave a message and I'll get back to you when democracy returns.
Post #46,594 by pwhysall 7/23/02 5:55:06 PM Reply	Re: Perl - ICK! I never touch the code - I just followed the instructions on how to install it :-) Apparently you can hook it up with MySQL if you want, but I think that for my little blog the Berkeley DB storage it uses is quite adequate. It could be written in Visual BASIC.NET BizTalk edition for all I care. Oh. Except it runs on my Debian GNU/Linux HP9000 server, which has a PARISC processor... Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #46,595 by tuberculosis 7/23/02 5:58:11 PM Reply	Yeah but if I know me I'll get it all installed and some feature will annoy me and then.... I'll want to hack it somehow. I am out of the country for the duration of the Bush administration. Please leave a message and I'll get back to you when democracy returns.
Post #46,597 by pwhysall 7/23/02 6:04:09 PM Reply	I think I've found Todd's Weblog Heaven [link\|http://www.rollerweblogger.org/index.html\|Click Here] Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #46,660 by tuberculosis 7/24/02 3:02:06 AM Reply	Thanks! I'll give it a try. I am out of the country for the duration of the Bush administration. Please leave a message and I'll get back to you when democracy returns.
Post #46,657 by altmann 7/24/02 2:30:56 AM Reply	Evolution What in Ximian Evolution is there that wasn't copied directly from Outlook? The only two things that come to mind are Outlook's poor implementation and maybe vFolders. -- Chris Altmann

Welcome to IWETHEY!