R.I.P., Macintosh?

[hibidy]

I dunno, the thread is pretty civil. I few harmless barbs but it's not hurting anyone

But it IS dragging on, and on, and on...

What this proves: threads withOUT funny GIFs aren't nearly as entertaining or inspirational.

At least no one's mentioned the vuvuzela yet!

(Yeah, pretty much what they say...)

[tomg]

What this proves: threads withOUT funny GIFs aren't nearly as entertaining or inspirational.

True, true.. but they usually don't get locked, they last a lot longer and it's rare that someone gets banned.

[tomg]

Thanks for the gif... Now the thread is doomed for sure.

[hibidy]

Thanks for the gif... Now the thread is doomed for sure.

Oh, you're welcome

[tomg]

Thanks for the gif... Now the thread is doomed for sure.

Oh, you're welcome

It pretty much ran it's course anyway.

Oh shit... It's almost top10 time. I gotta get to work.

No... That's tomorrow.. Anticipation is a bitch.

[dhalfen]

True, true.. but they usually don't get locked, they last a lot longer and it's rare that someone gets banned.

Hey, we've taken that "Cassettes/MP3s" thread to well over 100 pages without any serious losses of life or ego-intactness -- then again, maybe "they" are just taking their time rounding up and beheading the suspects...

(Did I just hear someone knocking on my door? I'll finish this post before I check... )

Never fear, we'll be arguing -- er, discussing this subject LONG after the last horn has blown in South Africa.

[jupiter8]

Let's see...the transcontinental railway system in N.America was built on default. Money went in, some slaves built the railway (not by-definition slaves, but the wages and conditions were very poor), some people skimmed off the top (the "robber barons") and got staggeringly rich, and then the companies that built the railroads defaulted on their loans, leaving the banks and/or the government with the losses. Net result, however, was that the tracks were THERE.

This is also the pattern of the latest global economic meltdown: some players were able to game the system, profit massively, and leave the losses in other people's hands (or, out of their pockets).

What are you suggesting here ? That the future of the internet will be built by slaves ? That the current crisis will leave the internet in a permanent status quo ? To me it suggest no such thing but that the American system needs a big overhaul. You could start by not giving federal(AKA the peoples) money to share holders who hired useless leaders knowing darn well it doesn't matter.

Coupla things:

Apple was having trouble for all sorts of reasons prior to Steve's return. Apple was selling hardware in direct competition with the clones and they were eating Apple's lunch. The suggestion that Apple could therefore not sell OSX is a non sequitur. Apple no longer derives its main revenue from selling Macs. If they decide to allow sales of OSX it may or may not hurt their revenue. Who knows - it might increase sales of iPads/Final Cut etc.

Wouldn't exactly call it a Non Sequitur. Because first of all it wasn't a conclusion based on logic. No one knows whether they will or not. I doubt it because of history. Or in the words of Dr Phil " the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior." So i wouldn't call it a logical fallacy because it wasn't a logical conclusion.In fact it wasn't a conclusion at all. It was a guess.

[kilon]

Well I am a dumbass expecting a thorough clear explanation of an argument from you

you're a dumbass for trying to pretend you were getting an argument from me. actually i was trying to help you understand that the thing you were saying culdnt happen has already happened.

Bottom line is that I still dont understnad how you say that a pc replaced mainframes and microcomputers. And yes I did looked it up in wikipedia.

For me they never did replaced pc, because pcs entered homes , mainframes did not because of their size. Pcs actually competed with home computers. And yes they did replaced them.

But pcs offered more power and flexibility, ipad actually offers less power and much less flexibility. And there lies your problem.

Plus the fact that mainframs and microcomputer have been highly unpopular , while a mac is a extremely popular product.

You are wrong saying that diffirent things can replace each other, cause the need of the user remain the same. Diffirent needs force a user to buy an ipad an diffirent needs force him to buy a mac/pc.

The Day that an ipad will be as powerful as an mac and with the macos installed then yes I will agree that it will replace it. But righ now its only 1/6 of the power of the weakest mac.

[camsr]

^^^ Don't post while under the influence of STUPID

[kilon]

Oh I almost forgot , the almost dead mac, just updated its mac mini line, check it out.

Maybe its undead.... lol

[topaz]

well DUH mr g , any relation to kenny ?


http://www.apple.com/macmini/?sr=hotnews.rss

[ZenPunkHippy]

Bottom line is that I still dont understnad how you say that a pc replaced mainframes and microcomputers. And yes I did looked it up in wikipedia.

For me they never did replaced pc, because pcs entered homes , mainframes did not because of their size. Pcs actually competed with home computers. And yes they did replaced them.

Before PC's, a user would be sitting at a "dumb terminal" that had no processing power. The terminal could only accept input, send it to the mainframe, wait for the results, and then display them. The terminal did not do any processing of data itself.

Then the PC revolution occurred, thanks in part to things like spread sheet software. Suddenly the user could do all sorts of cool stuff locally, without requiring a massive mainframe system and associated people to maintain it.

So for the last 30 years or so we've been using PC's (Mac's, Amiga's etc.) to do some really cool stuff. Now, the CPU power looks like it is going to drift back towards the "cloud" which is kind of like mainframes in disguise. But instead of the "mainframe" being one huge computer / CPU it's lots and lots of little computers all hooked together via a network in the Google or Amazon data centres. For this to occur, we need a pretty decent bump in network speed so that movies and games can run in real time over the network, but it's well on it's way now.

Anyway, the end result of this shift back towards the data centre is effectively the same as before the PC revolution - the user ends up with a DUMB terminal that can only display information from the cloud, and this is what frightens some people ...

The iPad and devices in a similar class will rely more and more on "the cloud" (mainframe) to display data, and that in effect gives direct control to the corporations over what we can and cannot view e.g. Apple says "no, you can't have pr0n on your iPad" for example ... or you are not going to see that movie because it contains questionable content. Perhaps one day, it won't be the corporations controlling what we are allowed to see and do with devices we purchased and own, but an even more sinister organisation ... but I'll leave that discussion for HPC

Does that make more sense now?

Peace,
Andy.

[egbert]

Coupla things:

Apple was having trouble for all sorts of reasons prior to Steve's return. Apple was selling hardware in direct competition with the clones and they were eating Apple's lunch. The suggestion that Apple could therefore not sell OSX is a non sequitur. Apple no longer derives its main revenue from selling Macs. If they decide to allow sales of OSX it may or may not hurt their revenue. Who knows - it might increase sales of iPads/Final Cut etc.

Wouldn't exactly call it a Non Sequitur. Because first of all it wasn't a conclusion based on logic. No one knows whether they will or not. I doubt it because of history. Or in the words of Dr Phil " the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior." So i wouldn't call it a logical fallacy because it wasn't a logical conclusion.In fact it wasn't a conclusion at all. It was a guess.

The contention that Apple will not sell OSX without a dongle is supported by an inductive argument. "Something like this failed miserably in the past THEREFORE it will never happen again." I am criticising this argument - I'm saying the situation is a poor analogy. Inductive argument is still logical argument and we all use it all the time. Think about medical trials for drugs. "Hey dudes, I gave Viox to all these suckers and here we are - 6 weeks later - and hardly any of them have carcked it yet. Therefore, we really ought to put it in the water supply." The inference drawn from the clinical trial is based on inductive reasoning. Logic 101 btw.

[whyterabbyt]

Bottom line is that I still dont understnad how you say that a pc replaced mainframes and microcomputers. And yes I did looked it up in wikipedia.

its not a 'how'. it happened. deal with it.

For me they never did replaced pc, because pcs entered homes
, mainframes did not because of their size.

so you think the only place pcs are used is homes? you've never seen a pc used in, say, a business? i dont believe that.

Pcs actually competed with home computers. And yes they did replaced them.

did businesses use home computers? oh wait, they must have used 'business computers'. which didnt use to be one system per person; they were micros or mainframes.
a home computer was just a personal computer anyway. the first ones in homes were aimed at businesses first and consumers second.

But pcs offered more power and flexibility, ipad actually offers less power and much less flexibility. And there lies your problem.

i dont have a problem. your argument is circular; to wit "to replace something it must be the same. if its not the same it cant replace it."

Plus the fact that mainframs and microcomputer have been highly unpopular , while a mac is a extremely popular product.

what relevance does popularity have? videotape was 'popular'. it got replaced.

once upon a time 100% of the computers in the world were mainframes or micros. so yeah, they were pretty popular.

You are wrong saying that diffirent things can replace each other, cause the need of the user remain the same.

how exactly can I be wrong if it has already happened. and it has. ive given you an example. now it up to you to prove that it hasnt happened, ever, anywhere. its not enough for you to say 'i dont acknowledge that it happened, and it didnt happen in the home so it didnt happen'

in businesses, and education, and research, and public utilities, and all sorts of places where they once (as recently as the 80s) relied heavily on mainframes or minicomputers serving dozens or hundreds of users remotely for their computing needs, they now rely on one-system-per-desk computers. pcs in other words. the pcs replaced the mainframes. i know this, i watched it happen, first-hand, in universities and research sites.

Any moment now you're going to deny that the portable MP3 player is on its way to replacing the full home stereo installation, yeah? Or that aeroplanes replaced ships for transatlantic travel. They're not exactly the same thing, are they? Maybe you think we still wrap food in greaseproof paper and not stick them on polystyrene wrapped in clingfilm. Maybe you think we have larders instead of freezers, and salt our food for long-term storage instead of canning it.

Hell, you're right. Nothing on this world ever replaced anything else it was even slightly different from. And I'll be riding my penny-farthing to work tomorrow instead of taking the horse-drawn tram.

Diffirent needs force a user to buy an ipad an diffirent needs force him to buy a mac/pc.

For that argument to fly, you'd first have to prove that those needs never overlap, and then you have to prove that a person would never change their estimation of their needs.

[whyterabbyt]

Oh I almost forgot , the almost dead mac, just updated its mac mini line, check it out.

and somehow about £200 got added onto the price. that takes it from being an expensive small-format PC to an insanely expensive small PC. I can build an i7 for that money, or get 3 netbooks.

That has certainly put me off the idea of buying one casually to play with Numerology or whatever, thats for sure.

i used to recommend the Mac Mini over the iMacs for low-power users. I think they just took steps to stop people doing that.