PING: mac

From : azwiley1

Q: craig c. wrote re-read the sentence einstein. when the technology was produced is not in question. when it was marketed is. re-read my reply. firewire was on the market prior to usb 1.1. the point was that iomega despite the fact that they were almost exclusively a mac peripheral maker for many years was never pushed or even approached to produce a firewire interface until way after usb had already taken a grip on the market. where are you going with this you tried to backup your absurd claim about firewire by mentioning iomega. iomega got their start with the bernoulli drive which was not almost exclusively a mac peripheral. not even close. you may be right i just had never read that from any *reliable* source. yes craig i am right. intel invested into firewire and bailed when apple insisted on its royalty payment plan. intel then went with the usb platform instead. linux/sco will not take over the windows market despite the decade old prediction. linux/sco has taken over windows on several markets. just as apple has in particular markets but not across the board. not always. moving to the lastest service pack on windoze is scary to the vast majority of enterprise i/t departments. they take a wait and see approach. huh i stated rebooting issues is a software issue more so than hardware. you reply not always and then state software issues i cant imagine that the few companies running 100% open systems are any different. in fact i would gamble that the pucker factor is even more intense when upgrading a version of linux or in your case sco. never any trouble upgrading sco changing hardware or software. smooth a can be. os9 pre-unix yes. os x nah. your being a stubborn ass. your full of it and cant prove this accusation at all. my own experience and my companies is nothing of the sort. your experience your companies...blah blah blah. well my experience and my companies say otherwise...whoopy. btw thanks for answering the questions i posed about red hat and sco. afraid your going to backed into a corner by your own definition no craig your question is irrelevant on the topic for which you came up with that absurd question. its like asking if a nike shoe is a good car!! unrelated since we were discussing hardware. a miles fact if its so great and stable why isnt there a larger pool of people/companies using it huh the largest sales of a product indicates which one is best hmm with that absurd logic of yours then youre saying windows is the best. too funny! .

Replies:

From : mac davis

tbone wrote no shit sherlock but what does that have to do with anything the fact is that while the pc and its clones were comming with an ide interface as standard the mac was using apples version of the much faster scsi. thats not entirely true at all. scsi was available on the ibm pc right from the very start. really care to back that up while there probably were some cards available at a huge price none of them had built in hdd support of any type and most went with mfm and then later rll. hell my first pc xt clone had a scsi drive. sure it did. the point was that apple often follows rather than leads in quite a few areas. it makes no sense to re-invent the wheel when all you are doing is increasing costs for no valid purpose and you should already know this if you were even half of the businessman that you claim to be. i really have my doubts about you. scsi was already in use in computers long before apple adopted it. prior to this apple used its own very slow proprietary drive bus. scsi was in use long before apple adopted it because apple had to develope and build its own scsi interface since nobody else was doing it closed system and then stayed with it because even the apple limited adaptation of scsi was far and away superior to what was coming on the typical clone. apple moved from scsi to ata due to cost and availability of the drives not to follow the pc. by follow i was referring to apple adopting others technology rather than lead the technology development. its all about the money miles and you have no idea what they may or may not have been working on. apple has created some decent hardware technology but their closed platform insistence that requires royalties kills it from being widely adopted in the industry. which makes complete sense in so many ways and if you were actually a business owner you would know this. unless apple were a peripheral or a chip manufacturer where they could make money from giving away their designes in the implementation phase what would be the point of giving them to the competition all that would do is cost them money and give away their competitive edge not exactly a bright idea. exactly and why do you think that is perhaps because ibm designed the pc as an open system from the start so that they could build it from off of the shelf parts. i will agree that they were short sighted but that doesnt change the facts. no they didnt want to spend the money for exclusive rights with the belief that nobody could compete with a product that had the letters ibm on it i must say miles you really are too funny. do you really believe this complete crap ibm has been in business for a long time and was a major computer manufacturer long before the pc. do you really think that they would be so stupid funny they seem to have patents on everything else that they build. you really need to do a little more research and stop making yourself look like a complete idiot. i agree they didnt think that their sytem boards would be stolen so fast and that others would be building complete machines so quickly with more features for less money but that is a risk that you take with an open system. they could have come out with a closed system but they tries that before and it was to expensive and failed to catch on. this worked in the business market quite well for ibm. the same logic does not work as well in the consumer market. you also are ignoring ibms attempt to stop cloning by using their ill-fated proprietary mca bus. i am well aware of their mca bus. the problem is that the clone manufacturers stole reverse engineered ibms bios and then changed it enough to make it not a copy and used it to steal ibms system board much faster than ibm expected. knowing that they did it and proving it are two very different things and ibm tried to cut it back by closing part of the system. the problem is that they waited to long to do it and didnt offer the features the clones did for the price. like i said before ibm had a bad habit of crippling their lower priced units to prevent a loss of sales of their higher end units and like you said while that may work in the business word it doesnt work so well in the retail consumer market and people went with the feature rich lower cost clones. also by then there were enough clone manufacturers that were compatible which significantly reduce the risk of going with the clones to businesses because if one died there were plenty more to take their place. even the clones didnt exist until ibm took off in the business world. tom you need to check out the time line yourself. the ibm pc was released in 1981. columbia eagle and compaq started working on their clone design immediatly and all had clones out the following year. lol one year is a huge amount of time in the pc world even back then. lol compa