On Jun 25, 1:43 am, none <a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Jesus <rustybucket...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > The reasons Windows dominates is because of IBM's brand name in the
> > > 70's,
>
> > No, that's how Microsoft got started. Windows dominates because DOS
> > became dominant and it added a GUI to DOS where you could run
> > graphical Word, Excel, etc. IBM wanted to kill Windows.
>
> Yes, because DOS dominated, people started to use Windows since they had
> no choice,
They had a choice. Macintosh was sitting there ready.
They chose Windows.
> it was a natural, bad extension to DOS, when Windows started
> to catch up, they ****ted over Mac Word and Mac Excel and Mac PowerPoint.
> But you need to understand, 90% of DOS/Windows boxes couldn't keep up
> with a Mac in the 1984-1994 time frame.
Yet they still chose the PC clones. The same thing could happen with
the iPhone. I'm not saying it will, but it could.
> Apple did screw up in not getting prices down fast enough, the non-Jobs
> management spent too much time on making ubber high quality equipment,
> when people just wanted a "cheap mac clone", then they got Windows95.
>
> > > nobody has even heard of Opera so it's a non-starter.
>
> > Umm... not really. Word about a good free product gets around fast.
> > Just look at Google.
>
> yes, but Opera is hardly used by anyone, that's my point.
I don't think that's true for people who browse on their phones.
> > > It's too
> > > early to say who will eventually win the OS wars, Bill Gates is
leaving
> > > MS, IBM gave up, so it's appearing that Apple may end up with the
final
> > > prize.
>
> > You're retarded. The only thing you're right about is IBM giving up
> > on OS/2. How does Bill Gates mean anything to the OS wars? The war's
> > over. Microsoft is dominant. They'd need to **** up pretty badly
> > right now to lose that position.
>
> Nah, it's only about half time in the OS / PC wars, OSX takes away more
> and more from Windows each month, and now that Vista has largely failed,
> it's only going to excelerate.
People always ***** about Microsoft's new OS. Vista has not failed.
As more and more people buy new computers and get Vista preloaded,
Vista's market share will increase.
OS X has no prospect for supplanting Windows in large numbers in the
near future.
> > > > Whereas safari will run on only
> > > > expensive, proprietary hardware from one manufacturer,
>
> > > What? Macs haven't been proprietary for about a decade, and haven't
been
> > > expensive for at least 8 years. They are price exactly the same as
any
> > > Top Tier PC vendor. Macs start at $599, catch a clue.
>
> > The Mac Mini is ****. It hasn't been updated in a long while. Don't
> > even think about quoting the price for that.
>
> It's still a fast little box, it's quiet has hell and a good starter
> machine for people that just surf the web, do photos, music and check
> email.
Similarly priced machines from Wintel clone makers are faster.
> > > And Safari last time I looked runs on 99% of the world PC's,
>
> > No. It only runs on XP and Vista. Combined with OS X, I'm guessing
> > that's only about 60% of the OS market. (Guessing. I don't feel like
> > confirming at the moment.) Lots of Windows users still run 9x and NT
> > 4/2000. Linux has a lot of users, too... are you seriously trying to
> > tell me all those non-sup****ted users make up 1% of the market?
> > Dip****?
>
> That's still 99% of the machines in useful web operation.
No... Are you seriously saying Windows 9x, Windows NT 4, Windows
2000, OS X 10.0 - 10.2, OS 9, and Linux make up 1% of the market?
None of those platforms are sup****ted.
> Please learn a
> bit more about the market before you spin out of control. Linux has
> around .7% of the PC market, so that's where you get 99%.
So Windows 2000 makes up less than 0.3% of the market? Riiiiight.
> > > I think you
> > > have bad info, and continue to make mistakes in your reasoning.
>
> > Right back atcha, ****face.
>
> Why so nasty, I'm just trying to educated you, but you are fighting the
> teacher.
The "teacher" is delusional.
> > > > opera mini has
> > > > different versions that in total can run on 1.5 billion current
phones
> > > > right now from small barebones phones to razrs to windows mobile,
> > > > palm, linux, symbian on many different hardware manufacturers.
>
> > > Great, but how many of those 1.5 billion actually run Opera mini?
> > > 80,000? 125,000? 60,000?
>
> > Scale those numbers down and you've got a good case about Safari
> > usage.
>
> Safari is 4.82%, Opera mini is .16%, do the math.
You're comparing desktop statistics to a mobile browser. That's not
exactly fair. Now compare Safari to other desktop browsers.
Oh, and it's nice to hear that even MORE flaws have been found in
Safari... and after two patches have already been released within
eight days of each other, too.
> > > > It is also faster than native browsers, and in fact will be faster
> > > > than iphone safari on at&t's network.
>
> > > Maybe on AT&T's pre 3.5G network, but on a regular 802.11g network
the
> > > iPhone and Safari will put Opera mini to shame.
>
> > 802.11g isn't everywhere, despite what your delusional state makes you
> > believe.
>
> Sure it is, unless you live in a rural area, I have 6 open networks
> right here, where I spend some 80% of my time. Sure on the road it won't
> work, but I'm against driving and cell phone talking so that's fine with
> me.
Open residential networks don't count. That's called stealing.
> > > > Opera mini has also improved DRAMATICALLY since it came out a year
> > > > ago. In fact, it might soon handle even flash content, something
> > > > safari will not. It is NOT standing still and has advanced
versions
> > > > for more capable hardware.
>
> > > Flash will kill your battery, no thanks.
>
> > Running the 802.11 radio in addition to the cell radio will kill your
> > battery, too. Too bad you need it to go on the Internet with any kind
> > of speed. Oh, and your battery's non-replaceable? Sucks for you.
> > The rest of us will use our one radio and Opera Mini with a spare
> > battery in hand.
>
> We'll see, 8 hours of talk time and 6 hours of internet time, etc... not
> bad, not bad at all...
>
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html
Not great, either.
> The battery is replaceable, it's just like the iPod, numbnuts... for $20
> you have a new battery. Big deal.
Umm... I don't think you understood me. I can replace the battery
with a fully charged battery on the road in every other phone. If I
drain my iPhone battery on the road, I'm screwed.
> > > Apple actually thinks things
> > > through, they just don't add "flashy" affects for no reason.
>
> > Right. They add "flashy" _effects_ for no reason. Like the new dock
> > reflection and the translucent menu bar in Leopard.
>
> Not on the Phone they don't, it seems they've even lessened the Core
> Animation to save on battery life from the early Demos. Interesting.
Are you kidding? Everything is animated on that thing.
> > > Flash is
> > > dead anyway, H.264 is what everything will be done in going forward.
>
> > LOL! H.264 is a video codec. Flash is a vector-based interactive
> > format. How do you think H.264 could _ever_ replace Flash? And how
> > could you say it's dead when it's on practically every major web site
> > in existence?
>
> Learn about what YouTube is doing concerning H.264, then get back with
> us okay?
That's just encoding the videos in H.264. H.264 can't replace all the
different things Flash can do because H.264 doesn't handle vectors,
isn't scriptable, etc. It's a video codec. Flash is a platform.
> > Oh, right, Apple doesn't make it and Apple dominates. But Apple
> > doesn't make H.264, either... it's an open standard. D'oh! What's
> > your next delusion, dip****?
>
> Ah, but Apple is the leading PC sup****ter of H.264, and has done much
> work on the standard everyone will eventually use.
>
> http://www.apple.com/quicktime/technologies/h264/
I'm not sure everyone will eventually use it, but it's possible.
> > > > I actually use a mac laptop, and like it, but never realized how
> > > > delusional some mac fanatics are....Apple controls the desktop?
What
> > > > fantasy world do these people live in?
>
> > > Nah, most Mac users (like me) are pretty rational,
>
> > HAHA! "like me." You crack me up.
>
> I'm just more "knowledgeable" than the average PC user,
You know slightly more and think you know more than you actually do.
That's a dangerous thing.
> so it can piss
> people off that don't have such a deep understanding of what is actually
> going on.
It pisses off people who _do_ understand what's going on because they
can see how delusional you are.
> > > Apple has controlled
> > > the Desktop direction since 1984. EVERY PC user uses the Mac
interface
> > > today, even the bargain basement versions called Windows.
>
> > If it's the Mac interface, why do Mac people ***** about things not
> > being "Mac-like"? They're either the same or they're not. That's how
> > reality works, moron.
>
> > > Someday you'll have a better understanding of how the PC world
works,
>
> > Maybe you will.
>
> > > and soon Apple will control the Cell market, kinda cool!
>
> > Market domination in your dark disgusting basement doesn't mean
> > anything. Sorry.
>
> I never said "market" domination, I said they have an iron fist over the
> PC industry, which has been true for the last 31 years, except about 4
> years in the mid 90's when Apple was confused.
No, they don't.
> Now Microsoft and DeLL
> are confused, so it's fun to watch.
Microsoft's always confused because they're always trying to fight
against nonexistent threats, such as Netscape replacing the operating
system.
|
