Re: Thoughts on Windows 7...

In article 005aa818$0$1594$, John Doe at
d wrote on 10/23/09 4:56 PM:

....
....
>... if Microsoft decided not to make Office for the Mac,
> Apple would go under as documented in the big antitrust trial.

Baloney: Then was then and now is now.

--
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) € OS X (10.5.8)

In article 231020091404546695%, nospam at
d wrote on 10/23/09 5:04 PM:

> In article <005aa818$0$1594$>, John Doe
> <> wrote:
>
>> In fact, if Microsoft decided not to make Office for the Mac,
>> Apple would go under as documented in the big antitrust trial.
>
> and where was that documented?

It's not. MS actually threw some shekels at Apple -- it preferred a "weak"
Apple to no Apple at all, to help deflect the claim that it (MS) was a
predatory monopoly exercising unfair market control.

> apple is not about to go under should
> office disappear.

....just as Apple survived the Mac community's loss of IE. If anything,
Office for the Mac may simply disappear out of diminishing demand.

--
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) € OS X (10.5.8)

In article <C707C926.497A7%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, Nick Naym
<nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:

> >> In fact, if Microsoft decided not to make Office for the Mac,
> >> Apple would go under as documented in the big antitrust trial.
> >
> > and where was that documented?
>
> It's not.

i know that. it was rhetorical.

> MS actually threw some shekels at Apple -- it preferred a "weak"
> Apple to no Apple at all, to help deflect the claim that it (MS) was a
> predatory monopoly exercising unfair market control.

microsoft bought $150 mil in nonvoting apple stock for patent
infringements. it was an out of court settlement, and spun to look like
they were doing apple some sort of favour.

> > apple is not about to go under should
> > office disappear.
>
> ...just as Apple survived the Mac community's loss of IE. If anything,
> Office for the Mac may simply disappear out of diminishing demand.

there's still a demand for it, even if office 2008 is a pile. the fact
that office 2004 running in rosetta is *faster* than office 2008
running native is really sad.

In article 231020091803597452%, nospam at
d wrote on 10/23/09 9:03 PM:

> In article <C707C926.497A7%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, Nick Naym
> <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> In fact, if Microsoft decided not to make Office for the Mac,
>>>> Apple would go under as documented in the big antitrust trial.
>>>
>>> and where was that documented?
>>
>> It's not.
>
> i know that. it was rhetorical.

How so?


>> MS actually threw some shekels at Apple -- it preferred a "weak"
>> Apple to no Apple at all, to help deflect the claim that it (MS) was a
>> predatory monopoly exercising unfair market control.
>
> microsoft bought $150 mil in nonvoting apple stock for patent
> infringements. it was an out of court settlement, and spun to look like
> they were doing apple some sort of favour.

The "spin" indeed was a spin -- a "the market is competitive" spin.


>>> apple is not about to go under should
>>> office disappear.
>>
>> ...just as Apple survived the Mac community's loss of IE. If anything,
>> Office for the Mac may simply disappear out of diminishing demand.
>
> there's still a demand for it, even if office 2008 is a pile. the fact
> that office 2004 running in rosetta is *faster* than office 2008
> running native is really sad.

Yesterday, there were no serious alternatives to Office -- even in the PC
World. Today, there are many. The era of ubiquitous proprietary desktop apps
is pretty much bygone (IMNSHO).

--
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) € OS X (10.5.8)

In article <C707CDD9.497AD%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, Nick Naym
<nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:

> >>>> In fact, if Microsoft decided not to make Office for the Mac,
> >>>> Apple would go under as documented in the big antitrust trial.
> >>>
> >>> and where was that documented?
> >>
> >> It's not.
> >
> > i know that. it was rhetorical.
>
> How so?

because his statement was bullshit.

In article 231020091827241717%, nospam at
d wrote on 10/23/09 9:27 PM:

> In article <C707CDD9.497AD%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, Nick Naym
> <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> In fact, if Microsoft decided not to make Office for the Mac,
>>>>>> Apple would go under as documented in the big antitrust trial.
>>>>>
>>>>> and where was that documented?
>>>>
>>>> It's not.
>>>
>>> i know that. it was rhetorical.
>>
>> How so?
>
> because his statement was bullshit.

You might've said something like "and that's documented _where_?"


--
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) € OS X (10.5.8)

In article <C70870A2.36FB8%>,
George Kerby <> wrote:

> > In fact, if Microsoft decided not to make Office for the Mac,
> > Apple would go under as documented in the big antitrust trial.
>
> Are you a troll? Or, are you really that ****in' stupid? Both?!?

Both. He's a windroid.

--
Member National Rifle Association
Member American Civil Liberties Union
Member Human Rights Campaign

In article <231020091310198603%>,
nospam <> wrote:

> In article <009b1394$0$32356$>, JF Mezei
> <> wrote:
>
> > Seems that users of Windows XP will not be able to UPGRADE to Windows 7.
> > They will have to re-install from scratch. Anyone know if this requires
> > that they re-install all their applications and possibly lose their
> > documents ?
>
> apps need to be reinstalled but the data can be preserved (and it's a
> major pain in the butt), unless you buy a third party product.
>
> <http://cnettv.cnet.com/upgrade-windo...-1_53-50078260.
> html>
>
> > That would be good news for Apple since many people will choose to NOT
> > upgrade if it means so much trouble and if they're going to have to a
> > buy a new computer, they might go for a Mac :-)
>
> it's incredibly stupid to not have a direct migration path from xp.
> after all, that's what most windows users are currently using.

Considering the flop that Vista was and how Windows 7 is supposed to be
such an improvement, it's unimaginable that MS would not have an easy
migration path for XP as well as Vista. Most users are still using XP,
so you are forcing them to do the most work to upgrade. Ridiculous.

I think another problem with Vista was the confusion of all the
products, with Basic, Pro, Ultimate, then all the upgrade versions of
those as well, and different pricing for each possibility. I thought
maybe they would have learned something from that, but here we are with
the same scheme with Windows 7. Compare to Mac OS X - you have client
and server, period.

I have to chuckle at the commercials for Windows 7 as well. They tout
all these new features, which are things the Mac has done for years!
Wow, you can stream music from one computer to another on your home
network - cool, sign me up!

In article
<djstewart->,
DanS <> wrote:

> I have to chuckle at the commercials for Windows 7 as well. They tout
> all these new features, which are things the Mac has done for years!
> Wow, you can stream music from one computer to another on your home
> network - cool, sign me up!

Reminds me of the time I first saw a Linux desktop, years ago, it was
Red Hat 5.something, just before 6, and Gnome came up, ugly as sin, and
the manual was all breathless about "if you drop the file's icon on the
application's icon, the file will _open_ in that application," and I was
like "My god, can that be true? Be still my beating heart" 'cause, you
know, the Mac had been doing that for a decade already by then.
--
Suddenly he realized that he was alone
with a giant halfwit on a dark deserted street.
-- Chester Himes

DanS wrote:
> I have to chuckle at the commercials for Windows 7 as well. They tout
> all these new features, which are things the Mac has done for years!

Maybe they would be better off touting their (relatively few)
advantages. Like drag-n-drop FTP. Apple had it (sort of)
in OS 9's Network Browser but it crashed a lot and they gave it up.

MicroSuck has had it working well since IE 5.

Of course, I'd love to see some "counterproductive ads," like:

It's got this cool pop-up that tells you several times a day
that you are connected to your WiFi network!

:-)

--
Wes Groleau

TANSTAAFL
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=984