grawk
Mar 14, 10:07 AM
Lion Server
Simply a better server.
Lion Server is now part of Mac OS X Lion. It�s easy to set up your Mac as a server and take advantage of the many services Lion Server has to offer. Here are just a few of the new features that make server deployment faster, easier, and more powerful than ever.
That doesn't say anything about the preview.
Simply a better server.
Lion Server is now part of Mac OS X Lion. It�s easy to set up your Mac as a server and take advantage of the many services Lion Server has to offer. Here are just a few of the new features that make server deployment faster, easier, and more powerful than ever.
That doesn't say anything about the preview.
NT1440
Mar 29, 06:36 PM
I love how so many here buy into this crap and denounce these things as PR stunts with no evidence.
A man can't have some ****ing coffee with a friend? Damn.:rolleyes:
A man can't have some ****ing coffee with a friend? Damn.:rolleyes:
Pastorius
Sep 15, 01:40 AM
I've gone under anesthesia twice now, once under general anesthesia for a broken and dislocated arm, and on the other under a peridural for the removal of a pilonidal cyst directy above my tailbone (not nice).
I'll tell you straight away the general anesthesia was MUCH worse. I was about 12 at the time, and it was all pretty smooth throughout. Don't try to cheat while fasting, otherwise you'll almost certainly throw up. I stayed under observation for about two days, and it was worth it. When I was told I could walk, I went to the bathroom with some help from a nurse to take a bath (or at least rinse a little) and fainted (the only time in my life). I woke up a little later on the bed, still a little dazed. After that it was hard to keep food or drinks down, too. I'm absolutely certain it was the anaesthesia, since I was only on paracetamol and I have NEVER had ANY problem with that, and I have migraines once every two or three days (genetic thing).
During the cyst operation, which happened in january of this year, the peridural was smooth. I was given something to make me sleepy, since I told the anaesthesiologist it would be boring and I'd be annoying him with questions about how everything was going "down there". I could "walk" fine after I laid on my gurney for a couple of hours, though you have to remember that a surgeon had just removed all the tissue above my tailbone. First time I had ever seen a nurse I deemed "hot as hell".
Anyway, yeah. Good times. Oh, and both were IV. According to my father, who is a surgeon himself, gas is hardly used nowadays, and the main reason for it to be used is if the person does NOT want needles. If its general, you'll probably be woozly later and feel light-headed, although it might be local for you, I'm not sure. It seems scary to be awake while someone is cutting you with a scalpel, but you really feel nothing at all. For kicks, get someone to film you when you wake up, it can get really funny. :p
P.S. First post, yay.
I'll tell you straight away the general anesthesia was MUCH worse. I was about 12 at the time, and it was all pretty smooth throughout. Don't try to cheat while fasting, otherwise you'll almost certainly throw up. I stayed under observation for about two days, and it was worth it. When I was told I could walk, I went to the bathroom with some help from a nurse to take a bath (or at least rinse a little) and fainted (the only time in my life). I woke up a little later on the bed, still a little dazed. After that it was hard to keep food or drinks down, too. I'm absolutely certain it was the anaesthesia, since I was only on paracetamol and I have NEVER had ANY problem with that, and I have migraines once every two or three days (genetic thing).
During the cyst operation, which happened in january of this year, the peridural was smooth. I was given something to make me sleepy, since I told the anaesthesiologist it would be boring and I'd be annoying him with questions about how everything was going "down there". I could "walk" fine after I laid on my gurney for a couple of hours, though you have to remember that a surgeon had just removed all the tissue above my tailbone. First time I had ever seen a nurse I deemed "hot as hell".
Anyway, yeah. Good times. Oh, and both were IV. According to my father, who is a surgeon himself, gas is hardly used nowadays, and the main reason for it to be used is if the person does NOT want needles. If its general, you'll probably be woozly later and feel light-headed, although it might be local for you, I'm not sure. It seems scary to be awake while someone is cutting you with a scalpel, but you really feel nothing at all. For kicks, get someone to film you when you wake up, it can get really funny. :p
P.S. First post, yay.
~Shard~
Oct 26, 12:52 PM
Interesting, I didn't hear anything about this in the rumor mill. I'm not sure how it will fare, but competition is always a good thing...
more...
swiftaw
Nov 14, 09:51 AM
Very cool idea. Now, what airlines need to do is publish this information on their websites so you can know when choosing your seats what are the accommodations of 19F.
I always use seatguru.com to choose a good seat.
I always use seatguru.com to choose a good seat.
Horrortaxi
Apr 2, 04:34 PM
I like Word for one thing: typing. I'm a writer (not trying to sound egotistical) and I hate it when an application tries to tell me how do do something TOTALLY WRONG. (And yes, I know I can turn that off.)
You don't like to be told how do do things the wrong way but you like Word?
You don't like to be told how do do things the wrong way but you like Word?
more...
ranviper
Apr 14, 08:19 AM
It's about $3.90 here. But that sucks, because it costs like 65 bucks to fill my Jeep. Gas Guzzler, the price you pay to be able to drive in snow.
frunkis54
Aug 20, 11:34 PM
people are overreacting about this.
1. you physically have to go to places and check in for anyone to see where your at.
2. you control who sees it. you can set it up so all your friends see it or only certain ones. if your worried about someone knowing your not at home. you might want to think who you have for friends on your FB account because they are the only ones that will know where you are or you aren't
1. you physically have to go to places and check in for anyone to see where your at.
2. you control who sees it. you can set it up so all your friends see it or only certain ones. if your worried about someone knowing your not at home. you might want to think who you have for friends on your FB account because they are the only ones that will know where you are or you aren't
more...
2000m
Nov 5, 06:38 PM
at&t will know what your doing at all times:eek:
chrfr
Mar 29, 09:39 AM
Thatisme, maybe Canon can help clear up your confusion. http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/lenses/ef-s_and_field_of_view.do
more...
Master-D
Mar 10, 05:13 AM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5082/5258900474_266e7d179b_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/69707513@N00/5258900474/)
soulreaver99
Mar 16, 11:43 PM
Sucks to be in California!!!
more...
macman312
Apr 5, 06:09 PM
that's exactly what i was wondering about! i don't know if EU regulations apply to the ipad, but they certainly do apply to the iphone. and i think, apple has to include a miniUSB port (standardized charger) to the iphone 5 if they want to sell it here in europe. a simply dock connector just won't do.
Why the hell do you have to have a miniUSB for a phone in the EU?
what is wrong with just using a apple dock connector?? Apple is NEVER going to put a miniUSB port but they may make an adaptor for the idiots who want one (for what I ask)
Why the hell do you have to have a miniUSB for a phone in the EU?
what is wrong with just using a apple dock connector?? Apple is NEVER going to put a miniUSB port but they may make an adaptor for the idiots who want one (for what I ask)
Apple Corps
Feb 18, 06:43 PM
MODERATOR NOTE
Many posts and responses in this thread have been removed for violating the Forum Rules.
A quick reminder: please avoid replying to posts that break the rules. Doing so increases its exposure, encourages offenders to continue, and makes more work for the moderators. This translates to slower response times. Instead, report the post using the "report post" button (http://guides.macrumors.com/images/b/b7/Report.gif) to the left of each post. Thanks.
Eric - good point that we don't want to give these violators more forum visibility to spread their garbage. That said, many of us hope that there will be tighter moderation and action against this behavior.
Also - were any of the bad actors banned?
Many posts and responses in this thread have been removed for violating the Forum Rules.
A quick reminder: please avoid replying to posts that break the rules. Doing so increases its exposure, encourages offenders to continue, and makes more work for the moderators. This translates to slower response times. Instead, report the post using the "report post" button (http://guides.macrumors.com/images/b/b7/Report.gif) to the left of each post. Thanks.
Eric - good point that we don't want to give these violators more forum visibility to spread their garbage. That said, many of us hope that there will be tighter moderation and action against this behavior.
Also - were any of the bad actors banned?
more...
CaptMurdock
Apr 23, 11:43 AM
... free everything and someone to teach us how to wipe our butts. We have this weird vision for American where everything should be an incentive to be responsible.
anything else promotes irresponsibility
How about you help get the Morality Police off our backs first and then we'll talk about the "incentive to be responsible"? I have a job, I take care of my family, I pay my bills, I'm not slicing co-eds' throats in the middle of the night, I'm not selling guns to Middle Eastern nutballs -- so at what point does the Holier-Than-Me crowd take me off its speed-dial? They say it's all about Personal Responsibility and yet when I achieve my Decent Member Of Society Merit Badge, they're still telling me how to live, and more to the point, what my wife does with her body.
anything else promotes irresponsibility
How about you help get the Morality Police off our backs first and then we'll talk about the "incentive to be responsible"? I have a job, I take care of my family, I pay my bills, I'm not slicing co-eds' throats in the middle of the night, I'm not selling guns to Middle Eastern nutballs -- so at what point does the Holier-Than-Me crowd take me off its speed-dial? They say it's all about Personal Responsibility and yet when I achieve my Decent Member Of Society Merit Badge, they're still telling me how to live, and more to the point, what my wife does with her body.
nonameowns
Apr 12, 12:43 PM
don't care
page and keynote still rock
page and keynote still rock
more...
tktaylor1
Apr 23, 10:59 PM
Why? How could a Republican possibly be any kind of improvement? The last Republican president really lowered the bar, and the current president has imperceptibly raised it, it can only get worse. Either way, really.
What has Obama really done besides go on vacation for the last few years? How the hell has he raised any bar? Tell me what all he promised to do and then tell me exactly how many of those things he has accomplished so far.
What has Obama really done besides go on vacation for the last few years? How the hell has he raised any bar? Tell me what all he promised to do and then tell me exactly how many of those things he has accomplished so far.
Beaverman3001
Apr 24, 08:43 PM
3G, a cpu option that doesn't mean a garbage gpu.
ro2nie
Aug 14, 10:22 AM
Yay! 20 more ads
Oh here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rjpn3L3bSJQ&mode=related&search=) I found some new "get a mac" ads
Oh here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rjpn3L3bSJQ&mode=related&search=) I found some new "get a mac" ads
cirus
Apr 24, 09:48 AM
i get very puzzled when people ask for an Arrandale Core I3 ULV when that's slower than the C2D ULVs that we have. People are apparently falling for all the marketing.
I think you mean an i5 or i7 ULV sandy bridge. The cpu will be much stronger but the graphics will be weaker (compared to the 320m nvidia chipset). Sandy bridge integrated graphics are twice arrandale graphics.
Don't fall prey to the megahertz myth. Clock speed is not all. I've got a 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 computer (desktop) and my 1.66 GHz core 2 duo (laptop) completely destroys it, even on single threaded tasks. Core 2 duo was extremely efficient compared to pentium 4.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i7-2657M-Notebook-Processor.49737.0.html
Benchmarks for the i7 2657M (the best ULV processor). It looks pretty good. 3D mark 06 was better than the standard voltage i3 2310. It ranks around an arrandale standard voltage i3 for most of the benchmarks. In some it even passes some of the i5 CPUs. But for this to happen it needs good cooling.
I think you mean an i5 or i7 ULV sandy bridge. The cpu will be much stronger but the graphics will be weaker (compared to the 320m nvidia chipset). Sandy bridge integrated graphics are twice arrandale graphics.
Don't fall prey to the megahertz myth. Clock speed is not all. I've got a 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 computer (desktop) and my 1.66 GHz core 2 duo (laptop) completely destroys it, even on single threaded tasks. Core 2 duo was extremely efficient compared to pentium 4.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i7-2657M-Notebook-Processor.49737.0.html
Benchmarks for the i7 2657M (the best ULV processor). It looks pretty good. 3D mark 06 was better than the standard voltage i3 2310. It ranks around an arrandale standard voltage i3 for most of the benchmarks. In some it even passes some of the i5 CPUs. But for this to happen it needs good cooling.
dusty59
Dec 28, 09:13 AM
"AT&T may 'periodically modify [their] promotions and distribution channels.'"
Not so much doubt cast, unless one believes that such periodic modifications are random and mercurial.
AT&T sucks, plain & simple. They've been allowed to score big w/ their exclusive iPhone contract, and think that marketing will remedy the problem.
Wake up Apple.
Not so much doubt cast, unless one believes that such periodic modifications are random and mercurial.
AT&T sucks, plain & simple. They've been allowed to score big w/ their exclusive iPhone contract, and think that marketing will remedy the problem.
Wake up Apple.
cybrscot
Apr 6, 02:56 AM
Insightful from the Woz!
ender land
Apr 23, 11:00 PM
Yea see I don't like his campaign. I recently watched an interview and he said he would renegotiate with China about our debt and the lady said you can't just call a nation and do that and Trump said with the right people you can do anything. I laughed so hard at that. China is not just going to cave in to your requests. And also the only thing his "campaign" will run on is the birther issue which will get him nowhere.
Well you kinda can if you know enough of the right people :)
. I just hope the republicans find a good candidate because I really don't want Obama back in office.
I feel similarly but also as if Republicans are like "ok guys, what's the WORST candiate we can think of to put up?" for president as of late. Maybe Sarah Palin got character assassinated (which probably happened some) but even as someone who liked McCain she drove me up the wall with how ditzy she seemingly tried to be.
Well you kinda can if you know enough of the right people :)
. I just hope the republicans find a good candidate because I really don't want Obama back in office.
I feel similarly but also as if Republicans are like "ok guys, what's the WORST candiate we can think of to put up?" for president as of late. Maybe Sarah Palin got character assassinated (which probably happened some) but even as someone who liked McCain she drove me up the wall with how ditzy she seemingly tried to be.
MikeTheC
Nov 3, 01:19 AM
I'd like to tackle a few points in the discussion here.
Dirt-Cheap vs. Reasonable Economy (a.k.a. "The Wal-Martization of America"):
Apple has always had the philosophy that their name needs to mean a superior product. They have tended to shy away from producing bargain-basement products because it tends to take away from the "high-quality" reputation they are otherwise known for and desire to continue cultivating.
At direct odds with this is the pervasive and continually-perpetuated attitude in the U.S. (and elsewhere, perhaps) that the universe revolves exclusively around the mantra of "faster, cheaper, better", with emphasis on the latter two: cheaper and better. What I have noticed in my own 34 years on this planet is a considerable change in attitude, most easily summed up as people in general having their tastes almost "anti-cultured". It isn't "... cheaper, better" for them, but rather "cheaper = better". You can see this at all levels. Businesses, despite their claims to the contrary, tend to prioritize the executives specifically and the company generally making money over any other possible consideration. They try and drive their workforce from well-paid, highly competent full-time people, to part-time, no-medical or retirement-benefits-earning, low-experience, low-paid domestic help; and the second prong of their pincer movement is to outsource the rest.
Or, in short, "let's make a lot of money, but don't spend any in the process."
My goal here is not to get into the lengthy and well-trod discussion of corporate exploitation of the masses; rather it is to show the Wal-Mart effect at all levels.
More and more over the years I find that people have no taste. Steve Jobs accuses Microsoft of having no taste (a point I am not trying to argue against); I think however that he's hit a little low of the mark. The attitude out there seems to be one of total self-focus -- and not merely "me first", but rather "me first, me last, and ******* everybody else". They're the "I don't want to know anything", "all I want to do is get out of having to do anything I can, including not using my brain except for pleasure-seeking tasks," and "For God's sake, I surely don't want to have to spend more than the minimum on a computer" bunch.
Now, clearly, not everyone in the U.S. is like this; obviously, if they were, Apple would have no customers at all. But this is a real and fairly large group. Short of Apple practically giving away their computers, it's hard to imagine them being all that specifically attractive to that demographic. Moreover, those people are not merely non-enthusiasts; they want all of the benefits of having this trendy computer thing, but wish to be encumbered by none of the responsibilities.
To my way of thinking, frankly however large this group of people is, I would encourage Apple to avoid appealing to them whenever and wherever possible. If this means continuing the perception mentioned above of being a computer "for yuppies", then so be it.
Market Share Percentage and it's Perception:
Clearly, there is something to be gained by having the perception that "everyone's doing it". It's part of the reason why smoking, drinking, under-age sex, and drugs are so amazingly popular with us human beings the world over. It's part of the reason (maybe even a significant part) that iPods are so incredibly successful. Now, before someone here puts forth the argument that, "Well, you know, Apple's got a better design, and that's what attracts people to it," -- and that's quite true in it's own right -- let's break things down a bit.
Many animals develop and learn through a process called "patterning", and through imitation. Humans are not psychologically exempt from this; we do it all the time, and particularly so when we're younger. It's the fundamental force behind fashion, fads, and trends. There are definitely positive benefits to this. Kids, as they develop their social skills, learn from others the socially approved ways of behaving and interacting. Please note I did not use the term "correct" nor "right", but merely the "approved" (or, one might call it the "accepted") way. We also learn and learn from such things as casualty (actions have consequences), and other factors too numerous to pursue here.
Anyhow, all of these factors are in operation when it comes to buying technology (which is the boiled-down essence of what we're talking about here). Microsoft has learned this game, and has played it well for many years. Regardless of the "technically, we know it's bulls**t" truth, the reality of it is (and has been) when an unsavvy person walks into a store to buy a computer, and they see ten Windows-running computers on the shelf, and only one or two Mac OS-running computers there, they get the prima-facia notion that most computers are Windows computers, and by extension that statistically most people must be running Windows; therefore they should buy a Windows computer, too. There's a whole other subject here about how the ignorant sales people in electronics stores essentially use the same process to unwittingly deceive themselves into thinking the same thing. This is one of the factors which helped catapult Microsoft into the major, successful company they became. In truth, this specific scenario is a bit more 1994 than but it helps to explain why most people today who own a computer have only known life in a Microsoft world. As enough people attained this status, it became the dominant developmental factor in the world at large, which sort of helped to self-perpetuate the effect.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that these statistics of percentage of platform used by definition leave out one particular group of people -- those who don't use a computer at all. After all, if you don't own a computer, you can't browse the web, send or receive email, or have your computer platform of choice tabulated in any kind of statistical data sample. One might be tempted to think that such a notion is silly, but it isn't. True, once we get to the point that only a statistically insignificant number of people on this planet don't own a computer (which is still far from the reality of today), counting their numbers won't matter for statistical purposes, it does matter. Why? Well, the statistics as presented make it seem like Macs (or Linux, or anything else) are only used by a subset of people on this planet. Not true! They're only used by a subset of a subset, the latter being the number of people on this planet who have a computer to be counted in such statistics in the first place.
Also, statistics vary depending on a variety of factors. It's also easy to write them off as a business or let them drop "below the radar" by various statistical gathering or reporting agencies; or merely through the informal process on the part of business owners of anecdotal evidence. Here's a perfect example of that very factor.
When the Macintosh came on the scene in 1984, and as it continued through it's early incarnations in the mid 1980s, it entered the fray of lots of non-defacto computer platforms. Or, to put it another way, it "came late to the party". So, you had all these computer dealers who were already trying to sell Apple ][s, TRS-80s, Commodore 64s (and later, C128s), Timex Sinclairs, an assortment of other PCs running proprietary OSs, amongst which were those which ran this thing called MS-DOS, and so forth and so on. Also, people who wound up buying Macs didn't exactly fit the same profile as those who had bought the other computers. You had artists -- literary, graphic, musical, etc. -- buying these things. While they didn't mind being technologically self-sufficent, they were not people who were interested in such things as tearing their computer apart and having a go at it's various electronic innards. Anyhow, they formed their own communities, and for various reasons didn't get a lot of support initially from local dealers and computer software stores. However, Apple did get quite a number of companies to write software or build hardware for their Mac platform. These companies started using mail-order as a significant portion of their sales strategy. Consequently, Mac owners used it as their more-and-more-primary computer-stuff purchasing regimen.
Ultimately, fewer and fewer Mac owners were going locally to buy stuff, due to availability and pricing. What then happened largely was this "perception" on the part of shop owners (and later their suppliers, etc.) that nobody out there used a Mac. As a result of their mis-perception, companies began to simply ignore us Mac users (I was around back then), acting as if we didn't exist; or at the least there weren't enough of us to bother supporting us or even trying to make money from us.
Now, at this point there's no denying there's more Windows boxen out there than Mac boxen, but this is still a valid factor and should not be discounted.
Besides, what number you hear quoted still, as it has for many, many years, depends on what your source is. I've heard numbers within the past month that range from 4.1 percent to 6 percent. Which one is correct? Does anyone even really know?
Since we can run Windows, why run Mac OS? (paranoia of market erosion):
I've been hearing this since before Apple ever disclosed their plans to switch to x86. It was actually one of the topics frequently -- and rather hotly, as I recall -- debated in these forums. However, I think the fear is greatly unjustified, and here's why.
First, let's look at it from an economic standpoint: Buying a Mac to run Windows is hardly the most cost-effective approach.
Second, let's look at it from a socio-economic standpoint: People don't buy a Mac to run Windows so much as they buy it to either try something different, or to escape Windows and the onslaught of problems that, in more recent years, it has brought to them.
Third, and while this really applies more to tech-savvy people: Windows represents a security and stability liability which most other operating systems do not.
In other words, by and large, people out there who are switching to a Mac are doing more than merely switching hardware: they're switching OS platforms. The fact that they can run Windows on a Mac is only slightly more of interest to them than is running an x86-based distro of GNU/Linux.
Bottom Line: Apple will appeal to and convert those that they can, and those are the hearts and minds which are the most vital and important anyhow. Let's not forget the relative merits of dummy-dropping. Sometimes, Darwin's theories of Evolution are more satisfyingly applied sociologically than biologically.
Dirt-Cheap vs. Reasonable Economy (a.k.a. "The Wal-Martization of America"):
Apple has always had the philosophy that their name needs to mean a superior product. They have tended to shy away from producing bargain-basement products because it tends to take away from the "high-quality" reputation they are otherwise known for and desire to continue cultivating.
At direct odds with this is the pervasive and continually-perpetuated attitude in the U.S. (and elsewhere, perhaps) that the universe revolves exclusively around the mantra of "faster, cheaper, better", with emphasis on the latter two: cheaper and better. What I have noticed in my own 34 years on this planet is a considerable change in attitude, most easily summed up as people in general having their tastes almost "anti-cultured". It isn't "... cheaper, better" for them, but rather "cheaper = better". You can see this at all levels. Businesses, despite their claims to the contrary, tend to prioritize the executives specifically and the company generally making money over any other possible consideration. They try and drive their workforce from well-paid, highly competent full-time people, to part-time, no-medical or retirement-benefits-earning, low-experience, low-paid domestic help; and the second prong of their pincer movement is to outsource the rest.
Or, in short, "let's make a lot of money, but don't spend any in the process."
My goal here is not to get into the lengthy and well-trod discussion of corporate exploitation of the masses; rather it is to show the Wal-Mart effect at all levels.
More and more over the years I find that people have no taste. Steve Jobs accuses Microsoft of having no taste (a point I am not trying to argue against); I think however that he's hit a little low of the mark. The attitude out there seems to be one of total self-focus -- and not merely "me first", but rather "me first, me last, and ******* everybody else". They're the "I don't want to know anything", "all I want to do is get out of having to do anything I can, including not using my brain except for pleasure-seeking tasks," and "For God's sake, I surely don't want to have to spend more than the minimum on a computer" bunch.
Now, clearly, not everyone in the U.S. is like this; obviously, if they were, Apple would have no customers at all. But this is a real and fairly large group. Short of Apple practically giving away their computers, it's hard to imagine them being all that specifically attractive to that demographic. Moreover, those people are not merely non-enthusiasts; they want all of the benefits of having this trendy computer thing, but wish to be encumbered by none of the responsibilities.
To my way of thinking, frankly however large this group of people is, I would encourage Apple to avoid appealing to them whenever and wherever possible. If this means continuing the perception mentioned above of being a computer "for yuppies", then so be it.
Market Share Percentage and it's Perception:
Clearly, there is something to be gained by having the perception that "everyone's doing it". It's part of the reason why smoking, drinking, under-age sex, and drugs are so amazingly popular with us human beings the world over. It's part of the reason (maybe even a significant part) that iPods are so incredibly successful. Now, before someone here puts forth the argument that, "Well, you know, Apple's got a better design, and that's what attracts people to it," -- and that's quite true in it's own right -- let's break things down a bit.
Many animals develop and learn through a process called "patterning", and through imitation. Humans are not psychologically exempt from this; we do it all the time, and particularly so when we're younger. It's the fundamental force behind fashion, fads, and trends. There are definitely positive benefits to this. Kids, as they develop their social skills, learn from others the socially approved ways of behaving and interacting. Please note I did not use the term "correct" nor "right", but merely the "approved" (or, one might call it the "accepted") way. We also learn and learn from such things as casualty (actions have consequences), and other factors too numerous to pursue here.
Anyhow, all of these factors are in operation when it comes to buying technology (which is the boiled-down essence of what we're talking about here). Microsoft has learned this game, and has played it well for many years. Regardless of the "technically, we know it's bulls**t" truth, the reality of it is (and has been) when an unsavvy person walks into a store to buy a computer, and they see ten Windows-running computers on the shelf, and only one or two Mac OS-running computers there, they get the prima-facia notion that most computers are Windows computers, and by extension that statistically most people must be running Windows; therefore they should buy a Windows computer, too. There's a whole other subject here about how the ignorant sales people in electronics stores essentially use the same process to unwittingly deceive themselves into thinking the same thing. This is one of the factors which helped catapult Microsoft into the major, successful company they became. In truth, this specific scenario is a bit more 1994 than but it helps to explain why most people today who own a computer have only known life in a Microsoft world. As enough people attained this status, it became the dominant developmental factor in the world at large, which sort of helped to self-perpetuate the effect.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that these statistics of percentage of platform used by definition leave out one particular group of people -- those who don't use a computer at all. After all, if you don't own a computer, you can't browse the web, send or receive email, or have your computer platform of choice tabulated in any kind of statistical data sample. One might be tempted to think that such a notion is silly, but it isn't. True, once we get to the point that only a statistically insignificant number of people on this planet don't own a computer (which is still far from the reality of today), counting their numbers won't matter for statistical purposes, it does matter. Why? Well, the statistics as presented make it seem like Macs (or Linux, or anything else) are only used by a subset of people on this planet. Not true! They're only used by a subset of a subset, the latter being the number of people on this planet who have a computer to be counted in such statistics in the first place.
Also, statistics vary depending on a variety of factors. It's also easy to write them off as a business or let them drop "below the radar" by various statistical gathering or reporting agencies; or merely through the informal process on the part of business owners of anecdotal evidence. Here's a perfect example of that very factor.
When the Macintosh came on the scene in 1984, and as it continued through it's early incarnations in the mid 1980s, it entered the fray of lots of non-defacto computer platforms. Or, to put it another way, it "came late to the party". So, you had all these computer dealers who were already trying to sell Apple ][s, TRS-80s, Commodore 64s (and later, C128s), Timex Sinclairs, an assortment of other PCs running proprietary OSs, amongst which were those which ran this thing called MS-DOS, and so forth and so on. Also, people who wound up buying Macs didn't exactly fit the same profile as those who had bought the other computers. You had artists -- literary, graphic, musical, etc. -- buying these things. While they didn't mind being technologically self-sufficent, they were not people who were interested in such things as tearing their computer apart and having a go at it's various electronic innards. Anyhow, they formed their own communities, and for various reasons didn't get a lot of support initially from local dealers and computer software stores. However, Apple did get quite a number of companies to write software or build hardware for their Mac platform. These companies started using mail-order as a significant portion of their sales strategy. Consequently, Mac owners used it as their more-and-more-primary computer-stuff purchasing regimen.
Ultimately, fewer and fewer Mac owners were going locally to buy stuff, due to availability and pricing. What then happened largely was this "perception" on the part of shop owners (and later their suppliers, etc.) that nobody out there used a Mac. As a result of their mis-perception, companies began to simply ignore us Mac users (I was around back then), acting as if we didn't exist; or at the least there weren't enough of us to bother supporting us or even trying to make money from us.
Now, at this point there's no denying there's more Windows boxen out there than Mac boxen, but this is still a valid factor and should not be discounted.
Besides, what number you hear quoted still, as it has for many, many years, depends on what your source is. I've heard numbers within the past month that range from 4.1 percent to 6 percent. Which one is correct? Does anyone even really know?
Since we can run Windows, why run Mac OS? (paranoia of market erosion):
I've been hearing this since before Apple ever disclosed their plans to switch to x86. It was actually one of the topics frequently -- and rather hotly, as I recall -- debated in these forums. However, I think the fear is greatly unjustified, and here's why.
First, let's look at it from an economic standpoint: Buying a Mac to run Windows is hardly the most cost-effective approach.
Second, let's look at it from a socio-economic standpoint: People don't buy a Mac to run Windows so much as they buy it to either try something different, or to escape Windows and the onslaught of problems that, in more recent years, it has brought to them.
Third, and while this really applies more to tech-savvy people: Windows represents a security and stability liability which most other operating systems do not.
In other words, by and large, people out there who are switching to a Mac are doing more than merely switching hardware: they're switching OS platforms. The fact that they can run Windows on a Mac is only slightly more of interest to them than is running an x86-based distro of GNU/Linux.
Bottom Line: Apple will appeal to and convert those that they can, and those are the hearts and minds which are the most vital and important anyhow. Let's not forget the relative merits of dummy-dropping. Sometimes, Darwin's theories of Evolution are more satisfyingly applied sociologically than biologically.
No comments:
Post a Comment