(foxnews)
PC users don't really get the Mac, and have never gotten the Mac.

Since most of the world talks Windows, it's no surprise that few in
the industry really appreciate the windfall that's in store for Apple
Computer (AAPL) over the next 18 months.

The big deal for Mac users will be upgrades, primarily meaning the
transition of the installed base of Mac users to the Intel-based
(INTC) machines.

The first sign of the pent-up demand for newer, faster Macs can be
seen in Apple's latest quarterly results. The sales of some 800,000
notebooks — almost all the high-priced spread — represents a 61
percent increase from the year-ago quarter.

"We know all about that," you say, of course. It was almost a year ago
that Apple CEO Steve Jobs walked onstage at the company's WWDC
(Worldwide Developers Conference) and announced the switch.

With our internal clocks it feels as if it all must have happened by
now. But it's only just beginning. For example, Apple's super-loyal
base of professional content creators haven't yet received their Intel
machines.

.. . . . .

Word is that Winders Vista is even crappier than XP - all the
supposed 'advanced' features removed because they couldn't get
them to work plus it's not nearly as flexible about 3rd-party
add-on hardware. I guess MS just needed a revenue fix so they
decided to foist this 'new & improved' el-crapo system on the
world. The hardware blindness clearly reflects their annoyance
with incompatibilities ... and they just decided to limit our
options rather than fix or document their driver interfaces.
(it's rumored that a lot of Winders ISN'T documented worth a
**** - explaining why 'fixes' have unintended results)

IMHO, if you're about to replace your old PC, buy an i-Mac
instead. They have programs that do the same things your old
Winders programs do - and often better. Best of all, you won't
be feeding the evil empire anymore ...

The final stroke against Winders would come if Apple decides to
make OS-X availible for generic x-86 boxes instead of just their
Made-By-Apple boxes. A well-refined Winders alternative - more
user friendly and standardized than Linux - with a decent software
base could be VERY attractive.

I understand that MS owns about 10% of Apples stock - so switching
wouldn't exactly drive Bill Gates to the poorhouse - but he might
have to resume his day job again ....

We have to wonder though, faced with mass defection, what would
Gates and MS come up with to stall the switchover - or destroy
Apple ? I seem to remember they once tried to claim ownership
of GUIs - even though they stole the idea from Apple, which
stole it from Sun. Both Linux and Mac PCs come with software
that allows many Winders programs to run within the alien
system - easing transition shock. Will MS go after "work-
alike" emulators ? Pay off politicians ? It could get pretty
evil because we're talking BIG money here.

"B1ackwater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:44ce134e.5680093@news.west.earthlink.net...
> We have to wonder though, faced with mass defection, what would
> Gates and MS come up with to stall the switchover - or destroy
> Apple ? I seem to remember they once tried to claim ownership
> of GUIs - even though they stole the idea from Apple, which
> stole it from Sun.

Sun? <chuckle> No, Apple stole it from Xerox. Specifically, Xerox PARC,
which developed the Xerox Star computer. In the early 80's, Sun was just a
networked UNIX-based workstation. And actually, Apple didn't "steal" it
from Xerox, they bought it (licensed it).

"B1ackwater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:44ce134e.5680093@news.west.earthlink.net...
> We have to wonder though, faced with mass defection, what would
> Gates and MS come up with to stall the switchover - or destroy
> Apple ? I seem to remember they once tried to claim ownership
> of GUIs - even though they stole the idea from Apple, which
> stole it from Sun.

Sun? <chuckle> No, Apple stole it from Xerox. Specifically, Xerox PARC,
which developed the Xerox Star computer. In the early 80's, Sun was just a
networked UNIX-based workstation. And actually, Apple didn't "steal" it
from Xerox, they bought it (licensed it).

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 11:08:38 -0500, "Lloyd King"
<lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote:

>"B1ackwater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
>news:44ce134e.5680093@news.west.earthlink.net.. .
>> We have to wonder though, faced with mass defection, what would
>> Gates and MS come up with to stall the switchover - or destroy
>> Apple ? I seem to remember they once tried to claim ownership
>> of GUIs - even though they stole the idea from Apple, which
>> stole it from Sun.
>
>Sun? <chuckle> No, Apple stole it from Xerox. Specifically, Xerox PARC,
>which developed the Xerox Star computer.

I thought they stole the MOUSE from Xerox and
the GUI idea from Sun ... but perhaps the GUI
was a Xerox idea too ....

Odd how Xerox was involved in so many watershed
ideas for personal computing, yet never really
made much money in that biz.

>In the early 80's, Sun was just a
>networked UNIX-based workstation. And actually, Apple didn't "steal" it
>from Xerox, they bought it (licensed it).

What weenies ! They spent money while Gates simply stole.
Sometimes, crime DOES pay ... billions .... :-)

Well, I can only trash Gates just SO much. He leveraged
the fairly novel idea of CHARGING for sofware and a
certain licensing strategy into a huge mountain of money.
Clever. Just the right plan at just the right moment.
And Winders and such ... well ... they're "adequate"
for most purposes even if they're not perfect for ANY
purpose.

Even thus, I'd rather see Apple prosper ...

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 11:08:38 -0500, "Lloyd King"
<lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote:

>"B1ackwater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
>news:44ce134e.5680093@news.west.earthlink.net.. .
>> We have to wonder though, faced with mass defection, what would
>> Gates and MS come up with to stall the switchover - or destroy
>> Apple ? I seem to remember they once tried to claim ownership
>> of GUIs - even though they stole the idea from Apple, which
>> stole it from Sun.
>
>Sun? <chuckle> No, Apple stole it from Xerox. Specifically, Xerox PARC,
>which developed the Xerox Star computer.

I thought they stole the MOUSE from Xerox and
the GUI idea from Sun ... but perhaps the GUI
was a Xerox idea too ....

Odd how Xerox was involved in so many watershed
ideas for personal computing, yet never really
made much money in that biz.

>In the early 80's, Sun was just a
>networked UNIX-based workstation. And actually, Apple didn't "steal" it
>from Xerox, they bought it (licensed it).

What weenies ! They spent money while Gates simply stole.
Sometimes, crime DOES pay ... billions .... :-)

Well, I can only trash Gates just SO much. He leveraged
the fairly novel idea of CHARGING for sofware and a
certain licensing strategy into a huge mountain of money.
Clever. Just the right plan at just the right moment.
And Winders and such ... well ... they're "adequate"
for most purposes even if they're not perfect for ANY
purpose.

Even thus, I'd rather see Apple prosper ...

"B1ackwater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:44ce4524.18438421@news.west.earthlink.net...
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 11:08:38 -0500, "Lloyd King"
> <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote:
>
>>"B1ackwater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
>>news:44ce134e.5680093@news.west.earthlink.net. ..
>>> We have to wonder though, faced with mass defection, what would
>>> Gates and MS come up with to stall the switchover - or destroy
>>> Apple ? I seem to remember they once tried to claim ownership
>>> of GUIs - even though they stole the idea from Apple, which
>>> stole it from Sun.
>>
>>Sun? <chuckle> No, Apple stole it from Xerox. Specifically, Xerox PARC,
>>which developed the Xerox Star computer.
>
> I thought they stole the MOUSE from Xerox and
> the GUI idea from Sun ... but perhaps the GUI
> was a Xerox idea too ....

The mouse and the GUI sort of go hand in hand.

He said (in interviews for the program Triumph of the Nerds - a GREAT 3-part
series about the development of micros - HIGHLY recommended):

"And they showed me really three things. But I was so blinded by the first
one I didn't even really see the other two. One of the things they showed me
was object orienting programming they showed me that but I didn't even see
that. The other one they showed me was a networked computer system...they
had over a hundred Alto computers all networked using email etc., etc., I
didn't even see that. I was so blinded by the first thing they showed me
which was the graphical user interface. I thought it was the best thing I'd
ever seen in my life. Now remember it was very flawed, what we saw was
incomplete, they'd done a bunch of things wrong. But we didn't know that at
the time but still though they had the germ of the idea was there and they'd
done it very well and within you know ten minutes it was obvious to me that
all computers would work like this some day."


GUI (including the mouse), Local Area Networking (ethernet) and Object
Oriented Programming (smalltalk at Xerox, Apple did it in Pascal for the
early Lisas and Macs) were the three main things that he "stole" from Xerox.
Xerox also pioneered the laser printer.



>
> Odd how Xerox was involved in so many watershed
> ideas for personal computing, yet never really
> made much money in that biz.

Xerox PARC was an amazing place. I visited there once in about 1979 or 80
and I knew people who had Xerox Stars in a network and laser printers. All
pretty amazing stuff. But PARC was a bunch of renegade pirates off in their
own universe as far as Xerox corporate was concerned, and the suits at
corporate never did catch on to what they had. If they HAD caught on, they
could have OWNED the desktop computer martket worldwide and there never
would have been a Microsoft and Apple would probably have folded. Apple
hired a number of people away from Xerox PARC as it was. So in a way, not
only did Apple not "steal" the concepts from PARC (they paid for them), they
hired the people who invented the things (they were getting frustrated with
Xerox because Xerox had no clue what the ideas were worth), and so Apple
was, in a very real sense, a natural heir to Xerox in the development of
those things.


>
>>In the early 80's, Sun was just a
>>networked UNIX-based workstation. And actually, Apple didn't "steal" it
>>from Xerox, they bought it (licensed it).
>
> What weenies ! They spent money while Gates simply stole.
> Sometimes, crime DOES pay ... billions .... :-)

Actually, Gates licensed the GUI from Apple. That's why Microsoft won the
lawsuit later. And, IIRC, Microsoft also licensed from Xerox.


>
> Well, I can only trash Gates just SO much. He leveraged
> the fairly novel idea of CHARGING for sofware and a
> certain licensing strategy into a huge mountain of money.
> Clever. Just the right plan at just the right moment.

More than that. He also pioneered the idea of exclusive licenses, so that a
computer manufacturer had to pay the DOS license even if the end user wasn't
going to use DOS. If the manufacturer wanted to sell DOS at all (and of
course they all did, because they wanted to be compatible with IBM's
systems), they had to include it on every single machine they sold, even if
the user wanted to use CP/M, DR-DOS, MP/M, Xenix or whatever else.

And, of course, the real reason Gates was able to pull all that off was
because IBM stupidly didn't insist on an exclusive license with Microsoft
for the use of DOS. If they had, Microsoft would have been crushed soon
when IBM developed their own version (or bought out Microsoft), and they
would have owned the PC world.

> And Winders and such ... well ... they're "adequate"
> for most purposes even if they're not perfect for ANY
> purpose.
>
> Even thus, I'd rather see Apple prosper ...

Apple certainly has its own problems - they tend to be too exclusive. They
have always tried for what Xerox and IBM should have seized, but they always
had huge competitors in IBM and Microsoft and they just didn't have the
legal exclusivity of the ideas nor the marketing heft to corner the market.
But it's a very common thing, still, to say "WOW! That is really cool!" a
lot when seeing Apple products - especially new ones. I recently got a new
G5 - and I even said "WOW! That is really cool!" a number of times as I took
it out of the box, plugged it in and just started using it. But "WOW! That
is really cool!" is seldom heard when people use Windows PC's. When I set
up Windows PC's, it's mostly swear words.

"B1ackwater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:44ce4524.18438421@news.west.earthlink.net...
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 11:08:38 -0500, "Lloyd King"
> <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote:
>
>>"B1ackwater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
>>news:44ce134e.5680093@news.west.earthlink.net. ..
>>> We have to wonder though, faced with mass defection, what would
>>> Gates and MS come up with to stall the switchover - or destroy
>>> Apple ? I seem to remember they once tried to claim ownership
>>> of GUIs - even though they stole the idea from Apple, which
>>> stole it from Sun.
>>
>>Sun? <chuckle> No, Apple stole it from Xerox. Specifically, Xerox PARC,
>>which developed the Xerox Star computer.
>
> I thought they stole the MOUSE from Xerox and
> the GUI idea from Sun ... but perhaps the GUI
> was a Xerox idea too ....

The mouse and the GUI sort of go hand in hand.

He said (in interviews for the program Triumph of the Nerds - a GREAT 3-part
series about the development of micros - HIGHLY recommended):

"And they showed me really three things. But I was so blinded by the first
one I didn't even really see the other two. One of the things they showed me
was object orienting programming they showed me that but I didn't even see
that. The other one they showed me was a networked computer system...they
had over a hundred Alto computers all networked using email etc., etc., I
didn't even see that. I was so blinded by the first thing they showed me
which was the graphical user interface. I thought it was the best thing I'd
ever seen in my life. Now remember it was very flawed, what we saw was
incomplete, they'd done a bunch of things wrong. But we didn't know that at
the time but still though they had the germ of the idea was there and they'd
done it very well and within you know ten minutes it was obvious to me that
all computers would work like this some day."


GUI (including the mouse), Local Area Networking (ethernet) and Object
Oriented Programming (smalltalk at Xerox, Apple did it in Pascal for the
early Lisas and Macs) were the three main things that he "stole" from Xerox.
Xerox also pioneered the laser printer.



>
> Odd how Xerox was involved in so many watershed
> ideas for personal computing, yet never really
> made much money in that biz.

Xerox PARC was an amazing place. I visited there once in about 1979 or 80
and I knew people who had Xerox Stars in a network and laser printers. All
pretty amazing stuff. But PARC was a bunch of renegade pirates off in their
own universe as far as Xerox corporate was concerned, and the suits at
corporate never did catch on to what they had. If they HAD caught on, they
could have OWNED the desktop computer martket worldwide and there never
would have been a Microsoft and Apple would probably have folded. Apple
hired a number of people away from Xerox PARC as it was. So in a way, not
only did Apple not "steal" the concepts from PARC (they paid for them), they
hired the people who invented the things (they were getting frustrated with
Xerox because Xerox had no clue what the ideas were worth), and so Apple
was, in a very real sense, a natural heir to Xerox in the development of
those things.


>
>>In the early 80's, Sun was just a
>>networked UNIX-based workstation. And actually, Apple didn't "steal" it
>>from Xerox, they bought it (licensed it).
>
> What weenies ! They spent money while Gates simply stole.
> Sometimes, crime DOES pay ... billions .... :-)

Actually, Gates licensed the GUI from Apple. That's why Microsoft won the
lawsuit later. And, IIRC, Microsoft also licensed from Xerox.


>
> Well, I can only trash Gates just SO much. He leveraged
> the fairly novel idea of CHARGING for sofware and a
> certain licensing strategy into a huge mountain of money.
> Clever. Just the right plan at just the right moment.

More than that. He also pioneered the idea of exclusive licenses, so that a
computer manufacturer had to pay the DOS license even if the end user wasn't
going to use DOS. If the manufacturer wanted to sell DOS at all (and of
course they all did, because they wanted to be compatible with IBM's
systems), they had to include it on every single machine they sold, even if
the user wanted to use CP/M, DR-DOS, MP/M, Xenix or whatever else.

And, of course, the real reason Gates was able to pull all that off was
because IBM stupidly didn't insist on an exclusive license with Microsoft
for the use of DOS. If they had, Microsoft would have been crushed soon
when IBM developed their own version (or bought out Microsoft), and they
would have owned the PC world.

> And Winders and such ... well ... they're "adequate"
> for most purposes even if they're not perfect for ANY
> purpose.
>
> Even thus, I'd rather see Apple prosper ...

Apple certainly has its own problems - they tend to be too exclusive. They
have always tried for what Xerox and IBM should have seized, but they always
had huge competitors in IBM and Microsoft and they just didn't have the
legal exclusivity of the ideas nor the marketing heft to corner the market.
But it's a very common thing, still, to say "WOW! That is really cool!" a
lot when seeing Apple products - especially new ones. I recently got a new
G5 - and I even said "WOW! That is really cool!" a number of times as I took
it out of the box, plugged it in and just started using it. But "WOW! That
is really cool!" is seldom heard when people use Windows PC's. When I set
up Windows PC's, it's mostly swear words.

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 13:48:38 -0500, "Lloyd King"
<lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote:

>
>"B1ackwater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
>news:44ce4524.18438421@news.west.earthlink.net. ..
>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 11:08:38 -0500, "Lloyd King"
>> <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"B1ackwater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
>>>news:44ce134e.5680093@news.west.earthlink.net.. .
>>>> We have to wonder though, faced with mass defection, what would
>>>> Gates and MS come up with to stall the switchover - or destroy
>>>> Apple ? I seem to remember they once tried to claim ownership
>>>> of GUIs - even though they stole the idea from Apple, which
>>>> stole it from Sun.
>>>
>>>Sun? <chuckle> No, Apple stole it from Xerox. Specifically, Xerox PARC,
>>>which developed the Xerox Star computer.
>>
>> I thought they stole the MOUSE from Xerox and
>> the GUI idea from Sun ... but perhaps the GUI
>> was a Xerox idea too ....
>
>The mouse and the GUI sort of go hand in hand.

Not necessarily, although the Xerox people may have had that
idea. Back in the 60s, memory was gawdawfully expensive and
CPU speeds were pitiful ... and a GUI needs a LOT of memory
and a CPU capable of moving big blocks of it around quickly.
Now most old CAD/CAM programs used VECTOR graphics - point to
point stuff - and a mouse would have fit right in with the
light-pens and trackballs of the era.

I remember around 1980 I had a discussion with someone who asked
why any personal computer needed more than 64k of memory or 16-bit
processors. I said "graphics" ... but they thought I meant the
quality of stuff you saw on a VIC-20 video game .....

>He said (in interviews for the program Triumph of the Nerds - a GREAT 3-part
>series about the development of micros - HIGHLY recommended):
>
>"And they showed me really three things. But I was so blinded by the first
>one I didn't even really see the other two. One of the things they showed me
>was object orienting programming they showed me that but I didn't even see
>that.

OOP ... it's just adding function pointers
to 'C' "Struct"s or Pascal 'Record's ...

Gets cumbersome after awhile though, too
much AA.BB.CC.DD.EE.FF.GG.HH(1,2,3). Things
were easier when you could just HH(1,2,3) :-)

>The other one they showed me was a networked computer system...they
>had over a hundred Alto computers all networked using email etc., etc., I
>didn't even see that.

Bad thing to not see ... e-mail. Became somewhat popular
as I recall .....

>I was so blinded by the first thing they showed me
>which was the graphical user interface. I thought it was the best thing I'd
>ever seen in my life. Now remember it was very flawed, what we saw was
>incomplete, they'd done a bunch of things wrong. But we didn't know that at
>the time but still though they had the germ of the idea was there and they'd
>done it very well and within you know ten minutes it was obvious to me that
>all computers would work like this some day."
>
>GUI (including the mouse), Local Area Networking (ethernet) and Object
>Oriented Programming (smalltalk at Xerox, Apple did it in Pascal for the
>early Lisas and Macs) were the three main things that he "stole" from Xerox.
>Xerox also pioneered the laser printer.

Clever people ... but apparently the forgot to write
their patents correctly. If they'd got even five bucks
out of ever mouse, network card and GUI sold ...

>> Odd how Xerox was involved in so many watershed
>> ideas for personal computing, yet never really
>> made much money in that biz.
>
>Xerox PARC was an amazing place. I visited there once in about 1979 or 80
>and I knew people who had Xerox Stars in a network and laser printers. All
>pretty amazing stuff. But PARC was a bunch of renegade pirates off in their
>own universe as far as Xerox corporate was concerned, and the suits at
>corporate never did catch on to what they had. If they HAD caught on, they
>could have OWNED the desktop computer martket worldwide and there never
>would have been a Microsoft and Apple would probably have folded.

Hindsight is always 20/20 ...

As for the suits ... why do you think the 'Dilbert'
cartoon exists ? (I think the artist was with IBM
for awhile). The Peter principle reigns supreme in
any large bureaucracy.

>Apple
>hired a number of people away from Xerox PARC as it was. So in a way, not
>only did Apple not "steal" the concepts from PARC (they paid for them),

Reminds me of the great deal the amerindians got
for Manhattan island ...

>they
>hired the people who invented the things (they were getting frustrated with
>Xerox because Xerox had no clue what the ideas were worth), and so Apple
>was, in a very real sense, a natural heir to Xerox in the development of
>those things.

Apples big screwup wasn't in having too little talent, it
has always been the PRICE of their computers. By insisting
on making both software AND hardware they wound up limiting
their market a bit, to people with money. That's all the
edge IBM and Gates needed ...

Apple REALLY needs to offer OS-X for generic Taiwanese x-86
boxes ... $149.95 maybe. They're cheap and EVERYWHERE. If
they're stubborn they can still make a high-priced all-Apple
deluxe super-optimized system for elitist snobs.

>>>In the early 80's, Sun was just a
>>>networked UNIX-based workstation. And actually, Apple didn't "steal" it
>>>from Xerox, they bought it (licensed it).
>>
>> What weenies ! They spent money while Gates simply stole.
>> Sometimes, crime DOES pay ... billions .... :-)
>
>Actually, Gates licensed the GUI from Apple. That's why Microsoft won the
>lawsuit later. And, IIRC, Microsoft also licensed from Xerox.
>
>
>>
>> Well, I can only trash Gates just SO much. He leveraged
>> the fairly novel idea of CHARGING for sofware and a
>> certain licensing strategy into a huge mountain of money.
>> Clever. Just the right plan at just the right moment.
>
>More than that. He also pioneered the idea of exclusive licenses, so that a
>computer manufacturer had to pay the DOS license even if the end user wasn't
>going to use DOS.

That's the 'licensing strategy' I was refering too. Made him
a bundle from IBM ... and a lot of others too. "We'll sell you
our operating system for cheap guys - BUT, small print, you've
gotta buy a copy for every machine you sell from now on.".

>If the manufacturer wanted to sell DOS at all (and of
>course they all did, because they wanted to be compatible with IBM's
>systems), they had to include it on every single machine they sold, even if
>the user wanted to use CP/M, DR-DOS, MP/M, Xenix or whatever else.
>
>And, of course, the real reason Gates was able to pull all that off was
>because IBM stupidly didn't insist on an exclusive license with Microsoft
>for the use of DOS. If they had, Microsoft would have been crushed soon
>when IBM developed their own version (or bought out Microsoft), and they
>would have owned the PC world.

Well, those pointy-haired bosses can't think of EVERYTHING ...

Dunno if IBM would have 'ruled' however. It may have been too
big and too bureaucratic to respond to users wants and needs
in a timely, sane, fashion. OS-2 was OK, but not GREAT - and
they needed GREAT. They also needed orientation towards the
consumers rather than their usual focus on the business
environment. MS could do that - jam in neat-o bells and
whistles by the dozen. IBM would have felt it made the
system "unprofessional".

>> And Winders and such ... well ... they're "adequate"
>> for most purposes even if they're not perfect for ANY
>> purpose.
>>
>> Even thus, I'd rather see Apple prosper ...
>
>Apple certainly has its own problems - they tend to be too exclusive. They
>have always tried for what Xerox and IBM should have seized, but they always
>had huge competitors in IBM and Microsoft and they just didn't have the
>legal exclusivity of the ideas nor the marketing heft to corner the market.

They DO have good propaganda however.

>But it's a very common thing, still, to say "WOW! That is really cool!" a
>lot when seeing Apple products - especially new ones. I recently got a new
>G5 - and I even said "WOW! That is really cool!" a number of times as I took
>it out of the box, plugged it in and just started using it. But "WOW! That
>is really cool!" is seldom heard when people use Windows PC's. When I set
>up Windows PC's, it's mostly swear words.

Yep.

But that Apple "WOW !" will COST you ...

And Winders has an absolute mountain of apps from commercial to
freeware. Apple doesn't. Linux does - but most of the apps are
kinda crude, with that Winders 3.11 feel (and we won't mention
all those configuration files and sub-sub-sub-versions of Linux
that aren't QUITE compatible ...).

The new "i-Mac Mini" boxes aren't too expensive however. A bit
low on RAM alas. Still, they'll do what 90% of computer buyers
WANT to do with computers ... e-mail, web surfing and multimedia.

Anyhow, I'd be happy to see Apple get a solid 25% share of the
market. That's enough so we WOULD see a lot more software ported
to Macs. If Vista is even half as crappy as I've been told, Apple
may very well GET that 25%. Their recent commercials are good too,
emphasizing the "It Just WORKS" aspect nobody sees from Winders.

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 13:48:38 -0500, "Lloyd King"
<lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote:

>
>"B1ackwater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
>news:44ce4524.18438421@news.west.earthlink.net. ..
>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 11:08:38 -0500, "Lloyd King"
>> <lloydking@kinglloydcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"B1ackwater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
>>>news:44ce134e.5680093@news.west.earthlink.net.. .
>>>> We have to wonder though, faced with mass defection, what would
>>>> Gates and MS come up with to stall the switchover - or destroy
>>>> Apple ? I seem to remember they once tried to claim ownership
>>>> of GUIs - even though they stole the idea from Apple, which
>>>> stole it from Sun.
>>>
>>>Sun? <chuckle> No, Apple stole it from Xerox. Specifically, Xerox PARC,
>>>which developed the Xerox Star computer.
>>
>> I thought they stole the MOUSE from Xerox and
>> the GUI idea from Sun ... but perhaps the GUI
>> was a Xerox idea too ....
>
>The mouse and the GUI sort of go hand in hand.

Not necessarily, although the Xerox people may have had that
idea. Back in the 60s, memory was gawdawfully expensive and
CPU speeds were pitiful ... and a GUI needs a LOT of memory
and a CPU capable of moving big blocks of it around quickly.
Now most old CAD/CAM programs used VECTOR graphics - point to
point stuff - and a mouse would have fit right in with the
light-pens and trackballs of the era.

I remember around 1980 I had a discussion with someone who asked
why any personal computer needed more than 64k of memory or 16-bit
processors. I said "graphics" ... but they thought I meant the
quality of stuff you saw on a VIC-20 video game .....

>He said (in interviews for the program Triumph of the Nerds - a GREAT 3-part
>series about the development of micros - HIGHLY recommended):
>
>"And they showed me really three things. But I was so blinded by the first
>one I didn't even really see the other two. One of the things they showed me
>was object orienting programming they showed me that but I didn't even see
>that.

OOP ... it's just adding function pointers
to 'C' "Struct"s or Pascal 'Record's ...

Gets cumbersome after awhile though, too
much AA.BB.CC.DD.EE.FF.GG.HH(1,2,3). Things
were easier when you could just HH(1,2,3) :-)

>The other one they showed me was a networked computer system...they
>had over a hundred Alto computers all networked using email etc., etc., I
>didn't even see that.

Bad thing to not see ... e-mail. Became somewhat popular
as I recall .....

>I was so blinded by the first thing they showed me
>which was the graphical user interface. I thought it was the best thing I'd
>ever seen in my life. Now remember it was very flawed, what we saw was
>incomplete, they'd done a bunch of things wrong. But we didn't know that at
>the time but still though they had the germ of the idea was there and they'd
>done it very well and within you know ten minutes it was obvious to me that
>all computers would work like this some day."
>
>GUI (including the mouse), Local Area Networking (ethernet) and Object
>Oriented Programming (smalltalk at Xerox, Apple did it in Pascal for the
>early Lisas and Macs) were the three main things that he "stole" from Xerox.
>Xerox also pioneered the laser printer.

Clever people ... but apparently the forgot to write
their patents correctly. If they'd got even five bucks
out of ever mouse, network card and GUI sold ...

>> Odd how Xerox was involved in so many watershed
>> ideas for personal computing, yet never really
>> made much money in that biz.
>
>Xerox PARC was an amazing place. I visited there once in about 1979 or 80
>and I knew people who had Xerox Stars in a network and laser printers. All
>pretty amazing stuff. But PARC was a bunch of renegade pirates off in their
>own universe as far as Xerox corporate was concerned, and the suits at
>corporate never did catch on to what they had. If they HAD caught on, they
>could have OWNED the desktop computer martket worldwide and there never
>would have been a Microsoft and Apple would probably have folded.

Hindsight is always 20/20 ...

As for the suits ... why do you think the 'Dilbert'
cartoon exists ? (I think the artist was with IBM
for awhile). The Peter principle reigns supreme in
any large bureaucracy.

>Apple
>hired a number of people away from Xerox PARC as it was. So in a way, not
>only did Apple not "steal" the concepts from PARC (they paid for them),

Reminds me of the great deal the amerindians got
for Manhattan island ...

>they
>hired the people who invented the things (they were getting frustrated with
>Xerox because Xerox had no clue what the ideas were worth), and so Apple
>was, in a very real sense, a natural heir to Xerox in the development of
>those things.

Apples big screwup wasn't in having too little talent, it
has always been the PRICE of their computers. By insisting
on making both software AND hardware they wound up limiting
their market a bit, to people with money. That's all the
edge IBM and Gates needed ...

Apple REALLY needs to offer OS-X for generic Taiwanese x-86
boxes ... $149.95 maybe. They're cheap and EVERYWHERE. If
they're stubborn they can still make a high-priced all-Apple
deluxe super-optimized system for elitist snobs.

>>>In the early 80's, Sun was just a
>>>networked UNIX-based workstation. And actually, Apple didn't "steal" it
>>>from Xerox, they bought it (licensed it).
>>
>> What weenies ! They spent money while Gates simply stole.
>> Sometimes, crime DOES pay ... billions .... :-)
>
>Actually, Gates licensed the GUI from Apple. That's why Microsoft won the
>lawsuit later. And, IIRC, Microsoft also licensed from Xerox.
>
>
>>
>> Well, I can only trash Gates just SO much. He leveraged
>> the fairly novel idea of CHARGING for sofware and a
>> certain licensing strategy into a huge mountain of money.
>> Clever. Just the right plan at just the right moment.
>
>More than that. He also pioneered the idea of exclusive licenses, so that a
>computer manufacturer had to pay the DOS license even if the end user wasn't
>going to use DOS.

That's the 'licensing strategy' I was refering too. Made him
a bundle from IBM ... and a lot of others too. "We'll sell you
our operating system for cheap guys - BUT, small print, you've
gotta buy a copy for every machine you sell from now on.".

>If the manufacturer wanted to sell DOS at all (and of
>course they all did, because they wanted to be compatible with IBM's
>systems), they had to include it on every single machine they sold, even if
>the user wanted to use CP/M, DR-DOS, MP/M, Xenix or whatever else.
>
>And, of course, the real reason Gates was able to pull all that off was
>because IBM stupidly didn't insist on an exclusive license with Microsoft
>for the use of DOS. If they had, Microsoft would have been crushed soon
>when IBM developed their own version (or bought out Microsoft), and they
>would have owned the PC world.

Well, those pointy-haired bosses can't think of EVERYTHING ...

Dunno if IBM would have 'ruled' however. It may have been too
big and too bureaucratic to respond to users wants and needs
in a timely, sane, fashion. OS-2 was OK, but not GREAT - and
they needed GREAT. They also needed orientation towards the
consumers rather than their usual focus on the business
environment. MS could do that - jam in neat-o bells and
whistles by the dozen. IBM would have felt it made the
system "unprofessional".

>> And Winders and such ... well ... they're "adequate"
>> for most purposes even if they're not perfect for ANY
>> purpose.
>>
>> Even thus, I'd rather see Apple prosper ...
>
>Apple certainly has its own problems - they tend to be too exclusive. They
>have always tried for what Xerox and IBM should have seized, but they always
>had huge competitors in IBM and Microsoft and they just didn't have the
>legal exclusivity of the ideas nor the marketing heft to corner the market.

They DO have good propaganda however.

>But it's a very common thing, still, to say "WOW! That is really cool!" a
>lot when seeing Apple products - especially new ones. I recently got a new
>G5 - and I even said "WOW! That is really cool!" a number of times as I took
>it out of the box, plugged it in and just started using it. But "WOW! That
>is really cool!" is seldom heard when people use Windows PC's. When I set
>up Windows PC's, it's mostly swear words.

Yep.

But that Apple "WOW !" will COST you ...

And Winders has an absolute mountain of apps from commercial to
freeware. Apple doesn't. Linux does - but most of the apps are
kinda crude, with that Winders 3.11 feel (and we won't mention
all those configuration files and sub-sub-sub-versions of Linux
that aren't QUITE compatible ...).

The new "i-Mac Mini" boxes aren't too expensive however. A bit
low on RAM alas. Still, they'll do what 90% of computer buyers
WANT to do with computers ... e-mail, web surfing and multimedia.

Anyhow, I'd be happy to see Apple get a solid 25% share of the
market. That's enough so we WOULD see a lot more software ported
to Macs. If Vista is even half as crappy as I've been told, Apple
may very well GET that 25%. Their recent commercials are good too,
emphasizing the "It Just WORKS" aspect nobody sees from Winders.

B1ackwater wrote:

> (foxnews)
> PC users don't really get the Mac, and have never gotten the Mac.
>
> Since most of the world talks Windows, it's no surprise that few in
> the industry really appreciate the windfall that's in store for Apple
> Computer (AAPL) over the next 18 months.
>
> The big deal for Mac users will be upgrades, primarily meaning the
> transition of the installed base of Mac users to the Intel-based
> (INTC) machines.
>
> The first sign of the pent-up demand for newer, faster Macs can be
> seen in Apple's latest quarterly results. The sales of some 800,000
> notebooks — almost all the high-priced spread — represents a 61
> percent increase from the year-ago quarter.
>
> "We know all about that," you say, of course. It was almost a year ago
> that Apple CEO Steve Jobs walked onstage at the company's WWDC
> (Worldwide Developers Conference) and announced the switch.
>
> With our internal clocks it feels as if it all must have happened by
> now. But it's only just beginning. For example, Apple's super-loyal
> base of professional content creators haven't yet received their Intel
> machines.
>
> . . . . .
>
> Word is that Winders Vista is even crappier than XP - all the
> supposed 'advanced' features removed because they couldn't get
> them to work plus it's not nearly as flexible about 3rd-party
> add-on hardware. I guess MS just needed a revenue fix so they
> decided to foist this 'new & improved' el-crapo system on the
> world. The hardware blindness clearly reflects their annoyance
> with incompatibilities ... and they just decided to limit our
> options rather than fix or document their driver interfaces.
> (it's rumored that a lot of Winders ISN'T documented worth a
> **** - explaining why 'fixes' have unintended results)
>
> IMHO, if you're about to replace your old PC, buy an i-Mac
> instead. They have programs that do the same things your old
> Winders programs do - and often better. Best of all, you won't
> be feeding the evil empire anymore ...
>
> The final stroke against Winders would come if Apple decides to
> make OS-X availible for generic x-86 boxes instead of just their
> Made-By-Apple boxes. A well-refined Winders alternative - more
> user friendly and standardized than Linux - with a decent software
> base could be VERY attractive.
>
> I understand that MS owns about 10% of Apples stock - so switching
> wouldn't exactly drive Bill Gates to the poorhouse - but he might
> have to resume his day job again ....
>
> We have to wonder though, faced with mass defection, what would
> Gates and MS come up with to stall the switchover - or destroy
> Apple ? I seem to remember they once tried to claim ownership
> of GUIs - even though they stole the idea from Apple, which
> stole it from Sun. Both Linux and Mac PCs come with software
> that allows many Winders programs to run within the alien
> system - easing transition shock. Will MS go after "work-
> alike" emulators ? Pay off politicians ? It could get pretty
> evil because we're talking BIG money here.



but but but but but but but but.................the G5 is FAST and RISC
and the Pentium is is is is old SNAIL, hot and obsolete CISC


x86 for Chrsit sake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


but but but but Altivec..............er............um
...............G5.................um.............. .....er...........


Apple is now x86, and the absorbed didn't even notice!!!! - after 20
years of SLAMMING x86!!!!!!!!!!!

pathetic.

--

B1ackwater wrote:

> (foxnews)
> PC users don't really get the Mac, and have never gotten the Mac.
>
> Since most of the world talks Windows, it's no surprise that few in
> the industry really appreciate the windfall that's in store for Apple
> Computer (AAPL) over the next 18 months.
>
> The big deal for Mac users will be upgrades, primarily meaning the
> transition of the installed base of Mac users to the Intel-based
> (INTC) machines.
>
> The first sign of the pent-up demand for newer, faster Macs can be
> seen in Apple's latest quarterly results. The sales of some 800,000
> notebooks — almost all the high-priced spread — represents a 61
> percent increase from the year-ago quarter.
>
> "We know all about that," you say, of course. It was almost a year ago
> that Apple CEO Steve Jobs walked onstage at the company's WWDC
> (Worldwide Developers Conference) and announced the switch.
>
> With our internal clocks it feels as if it all must have happened by
> now. But it's only just beginning. For example, Apple's super-loyal
> base of professional content creators haven't yet received their Intel
> machines.
>
> . . . . .
>
> Word is that Winders Vista is even crappier than XP - all the
> supposed 'advanced' features removed because they couldn't get
> them to work plus it's not nearly as flexible about 3rd-party
> add-on hardware. I guess MS just needed a revenue fix so they
> decided to foist this 'new & improved' el-crapo system on the
> world. The hardware blindness clearly reflects their annoyance
> with incompatibilities ... and they just decided to limit our
> options rather than fix or document their driver interfaces.
> (it's rumored that a lot of Winders ISN'T documented worth a
> **** - explaining why 'fixes' have unintended results)
>
> IMHO, if you're about to replace your old PC, buy an i-Mac
> instead. They have programs that do the same things your old
> Winders programs do - and often better. Best of all, you won't
> be feeding the evil empire anymore ...
>
> The final stroke against Winders would come if Apple decides to
> make OS-X availible for generic x-86 boxes instead of just their
> Made-By-Apple boxes. A well-refined Winders alternative - more
> user friendly and standardized than Linux - with a decent software
> base could be VERY attractive.
>
> I understand that MS owns about 10% of Apples stock - so switching
> wouldn't exactly drive Bill Gates to the poorhouse - but he might
> have to resume his day job again ....
>
> We have to wonder though, faced with mass defection, what would
> Gates and MS come up with to stall the switchover - or destroy
> Apple ? I seem to remember they once tried to claim ownership
> of GUIs - even though they stole the idea from Apple, which
> stole it from Sun. Both Linux and Mac PCs come with software
> that allows many Winders programs to run within the alien
> system - easing transition shock. Will MS go after "work-
> alike" emulators ? Pay off politicians ? It could get pretty
> evil because we're talking BIG money here.



but but but but but but but but.................the G5 is FAST and RISC
and the Pentium is is is is old SNAIL, hot and obsolete CISC


x86 for Chrsit sake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


but but but but Altivec..............er............um
...............G5.................um.............. .....er...........


Apple is now x86, and the absorbed didn't even notice!!!! - after 20
years of SLAMMING x86!!!!!!!!!!!

pathetic.

--

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 02:01:47 GMT, "gaffo" <gaffo@usenet.net> wrote:

>B1ackwater wrote:
>
>> (foxnews)
>> PC users don't really get the Mac, and have never gotten the Mac.
>>
>> Since most of the world talks Windows, it's no surprise that few in
>> the industry really appreciate the windfall that's in store for Apple
>> Computer (AAPL) over the next 18 months.
>>
>> The big deal for Mac users will be upgrades, primarily meaning the
>> transition of the installed base of Mac users to the Intel-based
>> (INTC) machines.
>>
>> The first sign of the pent-up demand for newer, faster Macs can be
>> seen in Apple's latest quarterly results. The sales of some 800,000
>> notebooks — almost all the high-priced spread — represents a 61
>> percent increase from the year-ago quarter.
>>
>> "We know all about that," you say, of course. It was almost a year ago
>> that Apple CEO Steve Jobs walked onstage at the company's WWDC
>> (Worldwide Developers Conference) and announced the switch.
>>
>> With our internal clocks it feels as if it all must have happened by
>> now. But it's only just beginning. For example, Apple's super-loyal
>> base of professional content creators haven't yet received their Intel
>> machines.
>>
>> . . . . .
>>
>> Word is that Winders Vista is even crappier than XP - all the
>> supposed 'advanced' features removed because they couldn't get
>> them to work plus it's not nearly as flexible about 3rd-party
>> add-on hardware. I guess MS just needed a revenue fix so they
>> decided to foist this 'new & improved' el-crapo system on the
>> world. The hardware blindness clearly reflects their annoyance
>> with incompatibilities ... and they just decided to limit our
>> options rather than fix or document their driver interfaces.
>> (it's rumored that a lot of Winders ISN'T documented worth a
>> **** - explaining why 'fixes' have unintended results)
>>
>> IMHO, if you're about to replace your old PC, buy an i-Mac
>> instead. They have programs that do the same things your old
>> Winders programs do - and often better. Best of all, you won't
>> be feeding the evil empire anymore ...
>>
>> The final stroke against Winders would come if Apple decides to
>> make OS-X availible for generic x-86 boxes instead of just their
>> Made-By-Apple boxes. A well-refined Winders alternative - more
>> user friendly and standardized than Linux - with a decent software
>> base could be VERY attractive.
>>
>> I understand that MS owns about 10% of Apples stock - so switching
>> wouldn't exactly drive Bill Gates to the poorhouse - but he might
>> have to resume his day job again ....
>>
>> We have to wonder though, faced with mass defection, what would
>> Gates and MS come up with to stall the switchover - or destroy
>> Apple ? I seem to remember they once tried to claim ownership
>> of GUIs - even though they stole the idea from Apple, which
>> stole it from Sun. Both Linux and Mac PCs come with software
>> that allows many Winders programs to run within the alien
>> system - easing transition shock. Will MS go after "work-
>> alike" emulators ? Pay off politicians ? It could get pretty
>> evil because we're talking BIG money here.
>
>
>
>but but but but but but but but.................the G5 is FAST and RISC
>and the Pentium is is is is old SNAIL, hot and obsolete CISC
>
>
>x86 for Chrsit sake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>but but but but Altivec..............er............um
>..............G5.................um.............. .....er...........
>
>
>Apple is now x86, and the absorbed didn't even notice!!!! - after 20
>years of SLAMMING x86!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>pathetic.

The only thing I had against x-86 was the ****ed segmented
memory space - messy, messy, messy.

The RISC/CISC debate continues, but I think it's clear
that CISC is coming out the winner. RISC may have had
a slight edge back before there was much parallelization
in CISC processors - but not THAT much even then.

As for the 'debate' relative to PCs/Apple - that was naught
but advertising hype.

I'm a bit confused by Apples decision to go with INTEL
rather than AMD however ... Intel has been BEHIND the
curve lately. Maybe it was desperate and offered a good
price on the chips ?

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 02:01:47 GMT, "gaffo" <gaffo@usenet.net> wrote:

>B1ackwater wrote:
>
>> (foxnews)
>> PC users don't really get the Mac, and have never gotten the Mac.
>>
>> Since most of the world talks Windows, it's no surprise that few in
>> the industry really appreciate the windfall that's in store for Apple
>> Computer (AAPL) over the next 18 months.
>>
>> The big deal for Mac users will be upgrades, primarily meaning the
>> transition of the installed base of Mac users to the Intel-based
>> (INTC) machines.
>>
>> The first sign of the pent-up demand for newer, faster Macs can be
>> seen in Apple's latest quarterly results. The sales of some 800,000
>> notebooks — almost all the high-priced spread — represents a 61
>> percent increase from the year-ago quarter.
>>
>> "We know all about that," you say, of course. It was almost a year ago
>> that Apple CEO Steve Jobs walked onstage at the company's WWDC
>> (Worldwide Developers Conference) and announced the switch.
>>
>> With our internal clocks it feels as if it all must have happened by
>> now. But it's only just beginning. For example, Apple's super-loyal
>> base of professional content creators haven't yet received their Intel
>> machines.
>>
>> . . . . .
>>
>> Word is that Winders Vista is even crappier than XP - all the
>> supposed 'advanced' features removed because they couldn't get
>> them to work plus it's not nearly as flexible about 3rd-party
>> add-on hardware. I guess MS just needed a revenue fix so they
>> decided to foist this 'new & improved' el-crapo system on the
>> world. The hardware blindness clearly reflects their annoyance
>> with incompatibilities ... and they just decided to limit our
>> options rather than fix or document their driver interfaces.
>> (it's rumored that a lot of Winders ISN'T documented worth a
>> **** - explaining why 'fixes' have unintended results)
>>
>> IMHO, if you're about to replace your old PC, buy an i-Mac
>> instead. They have programs that do the same things your old
>> Winders programs do - and often better. Best of all, you won't
>> be feeding the evil empire anymore ...
>>
>> The final stroke against Winders would come if Apple decides to
>> make OS-X availible for generic x-86 boxes instead of just their
>> Made-By-Apple boxes. A well-refined Winders alternative - more
>> user friendly and standardized than Linux - with a decent software
>> base could be VERY attractive.
>>
>> I understand that MS owns about 10% of Apples stock - so switching
>> wouldn't exactly drive Bill Gates to the poorhouse - but he might
>> have to resume his day job again ....
>>
>> We have to wonder though, faced with mass defection, what would
>> Gates and MS come up with to stall the switchover - or destroy
>> Apple ? I seem to remember they once tried to claim ownership
>> of GUIs - even though they stole the idea from Apple, which
>> stole it from Sun. Both Linux and Mac PCs come with software
>> that allows many Winders programs to run within the alien
>> system - easing transition shock. Will MS go after "work-
>> alike" emulators ? Pay off politicians ? It could get pretty
>> evil because we're talking BIG money here.
>
>
>
>but but but but but but but but.................the G5 is FAST and RISC
>and the Pentium is is is is old SNAIL, hot and obsolete CISC
>
>
>x86 for Chrsit sake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>but but but but Altivec..............er............um
>..............G5.................um.............. .....er...........
>
>
>Apple is now x86, and the absorbed didn't even notice!!!! - after 20
>years of SLAMMING x86!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>pathetic.

The only thing I had against x-86 was the ****ed segmented
memory space - messy, messy, messy.

The RISC/CISC debate continues, but I think it's clear
that CISC is coming out the winner. RISC may have had
a slight edge back before there was much parallelization
in CISC processors - but not THAT much even then.

As for the 'debate' relative to PCs/Apple - that was naught
but advertising hype.

I'm a bit confused by Apples decision to go with INTEL
rather than AMD however ... Intel has been BEHIND the
curve lately. Maybe it was desperate and offered a good
price on the chips ?

In article <44cf58e5.12073421@news.west.earthlink.net>,
bw@barrk.net (B1ackwater) wrote:


> >Apple is now x86, and the absorbed didn't even notice!!!! - after 20
> >years of SLAMMING x86!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> >pathetic.
>
> The only thing I had against x-86 was the ****ed segmented
> memory space - messy, messy, messy.
>
> The RISC/CISC debate continues, but I think it's clear
> that CISC is coming out the winner. RISC may have had
> a slight edge back before there was much parallelization
> in CISC processors - but not THAT much even then.
>
> As for the 'debate' relative to PCs/Apple - that was naught
> but advertising hype.
>
> I'm a bit confused by Apples decision to go with INTEL
> rather than AMD however ... Intel has been BEHIND the
> curve lately. Maybe it was desperate and offered a good
> price on the chips ?

Apple's decision to go with Intel was partly political-- to go with the
big guy rather than the alternative... that got it much more mind-share
from both the media and the masses. If Apple had switched from PPC to
AMD, both would have shrugged and been indifferent to them changing from
one 3-letter CPU acronym to another... instead, by going to the 'Intel
Inside' camp, it was major news.

For Apple wanting to move out of being perceived as a niche player,
moving to Intel rather than AMD makes sense.

As well, given that Apple's product mix has tilted towards notebooks--
with notebooks representing a higher percentage of Apple sales than for
the PC industry as a whole-- and that Intel, ever since the Pentium
M/Centrino release has had arguably stronger notebook CPUs than AMD, it
was a defensible position technically as well.

I have sympathies with AMD-- and like to see the underdog (including
Apple) get ahead... but I can understand Apple's decision on this one.

In article <44cf58e5.12073421@news.west.earthlink.net>,
bw@barrk.net (B1ackwater) wrote:


> >Apple is now x86, and the absorbed didn't even notice!!!! - after 20
> >years of SLAMMING x86!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> >pathetic.
>
> The only thing I had against x-86 was the ****ed segmented
> memory space - messy, messy, messy.
>
> The RISC/CISC debate continues, but I think it's clear
> that CISC is coming out the winner. RISC may have had
> a slight edge back before there was much parallelization
> in CISC processors - but not THAT much even then.
>
> As for the 'debate' relative to PCs/Apple - that was naught
> but advertising hype.
>
> I'm a bit confused by Apples decision to go with INTEL
> rather than AMD however ... Intel has been BEHIND the
> curve lately. Maybe it was desperate and offered a good
> price on the chips ?

Apple's decision to go with Intel was partly political-- to go with the
big guy rather than the alternative... that got it much more mind-share
from both the media and the masses. If Apple had switched from PPC to
AMD, both would have shrugged and been indifferent to them changing from
one 3-letter CPU acronym to another... instead, by going to the 'Intel
Inside' camp, it was major news.

For Apple wanting to move out of being perceived as a niche player,
moving to Intel rather than AMD makes sense.

As well, given that Apple's product mix has tilted towards notebooks--
with notebooks representing a higher percentage of Apple sales than for
the PC industry as a whole-- and that Intel, ever since the Pentium
M/Centrino release has had arguably stronger notebook CPUs than AMD, it
was a defensible position technically as well.

I have sympathies with AMD-- and like to see the underdog (including
Apple) get ahead... but I can understand Apple's decision on this one.