Opinion: Apple -- Here to Stay

MacCentral ^ | March 08, 2005 | Don Tennant

[r5boston]

Nearly a decade ago, just a few months after Microsoft shipped Windows 95, I asked Bill Gates if it was a conscious decision in the development of that product to give Windows more of a Mac look and feel. Of course I knew he'd say it wasn't, but I couldn't resist asking. "There was no goal even to compete with Macintosh," Gates proclaimed. "We don't even think of Macintosh as a competitor."

That was a crock, so I pressed the issue a little. I asked him how he accounted for the widespread perception that Windows 95 looked a lot like Mac 88, and whether the similarity was just a coincidence. I didn't expect a sobbing confession of mimicry, but I thought it would be cool to see how he'd respond. Surprisingly enough, Gates shifted gears and became more forthcoming.

[Bush2000]

The dealer had done all the prep work before I walked into the showroom.

Yeah -- and that's the point. He did the prep work AFTER YOU PURCHASED THE CAR but BEFORE YOU TOOK DELIVERY. That's precisely what I'm talking about. Get it through your head.

[Bush2000]

http://radio.weblogs.com/0001285/stories/2002/02/01/macOs9MoveToOsXHardlyTroub.html

"One lesson I learned in all of this was that running OS9 apps in the compatibility box inside OS X is not a great experience. One of the primary reasons I had decided that I had to get out of OS9 was the instability I was experiencing with printing to my Epson SC740 printer. Apps would send files to be printed, then hang without printing. Restart. Files are spooled so they'd print. Or in Word, a document would start to print, Word would crash, the document would print, but the entire system was immediately unstable. Restart. I finally decided I need a more stable environment. (That was after trying everything I, my friends, and my dealer could come up with to fix the problem including the ubiquitous and inevitable clean system reinstall.) "

Let me guess. This guy is a "M$ shill", right? /SARCASM

Also, let's not forget that running OS9 apps requires that you run with root privileges. Which has the potential to completely hose your machine, particularly if you get a macro virus or some other problem.

Here's a huge pile of issues relating to running OS9 apps... http://forums.macosxhints.com/archive/index.php/f-10.html

You should try writing to all of these "M$ shills" who are having problems.

[js1138]

On the other hand, I have drawers full of PC-DOS programs from the early 1980s that run fine under XP. Not to mention lots of early Windows programs. Not that I like running old programs, but some of them were database programs, and it is nice to know that the data can still be retrieved.

[Last Visible Dog]

"Socrates=man" is false.

So you are claiming Socrates was not a man - you just don't know when to stop digging. Clearly you have never studied logic. What I presented to you was merely an abbreviated form of basic study of Aristotelian logic:

Here is an example

Socrates=man is absolutely true.

Your logic fallacy is that of equivocation.

Your logic was:

If Software=Firmware, than Firmware=Software must be true. That is fallacious logic - this can be demonstrated many ways

Ford=car - using your logic: car=Ford

Micheal Jackson = singer - using your logic: singer = Micheal Jackson.

This is Logic 101 - logic fallacy equivocation (which is part of the Fallacy of Ambiguity)

Your use of "a" is actually the solution to YOUR logic flaw.

Firmware = software (it is A type of software)

Therefore you dove into the deep sea of logic fallacy when you claimed: if firmware=software therefore software=firmware. Your own statement exposed YOUR error.

Firmware=Software is true (Firmware is A type of software but not the only type software - so Software=Firmware is not true)

More examples:

C++ code=Software is true but Software=C++ code is not

Mac=Computer is true but Computer=Mac is not true

Firmware=software is true but Software=Firmware is not true.

Socrates=man is true. (was true) but man=Socrates is not true (Socrates a member of the group but not the only member)

BTW: if Socrates=a Man then Socrates sure as shinola = man. Another example: Bush=President is true but President=Bush is NOT ALWAYS true (the logic is faulty because it is not always true, not that it is false - that was your second error)

Note: a Venn diagram will expose your logic error in regards to firmware and software.

The funniest part of this is all you have done is explain why your own logic is faulty.

[1L]

>> Do you have anything to back this up other than your undying love for all things Apple?<<

In fairness to the iPod (I have a 40g model), the AAC format in particular and the iPod device in general sound much better than competing devices. I've done my own tests and that's my conclusion. If it means anything, I do consider myself at least somewhat of an audiophile with good relative pitch and (within a range) near perfect pitch.

And I think you will find that my opinions of Apple in general come closer to yours, but I bought my iPod because I consider it a better device. Overpriced? Yes, as all Apple products are.

[SupplySider]

It's just an engineering decision.

I never thought about those points, and accept that they may have been thinking about more than style. I suppose for a machine aimed at jogging etc., it makes sense to keep it super small and enclosed.

I wouldn't buy it, though. I have a RIO MP3 player that I love, but over the years the enclosed battery has gotten weaker to the point that I have to recharge the thing before every use, and even then it runs out sometimes.

[Petronski]

So you are claiming Socrates was not a man

No. I am stating that the set "Socrates" and the set "man" are not the same. Socrates was A man. Socrates does not define the term man. Socrates is a member of the set Man. In defining the term "man," Socrates is necessary, but not sufficient. To equate them means that one is completely defined by the other, with nothing needing to be added or removed. That is not the case.

[Last Visible Dog]

(the logic is faulty because it is not always true, not that it is false - that was your second error)

I left out an important word: (the logic is faulty because it is not always true, not that it is ALWAYS false - that was your second error)

[SlowBoat407]

(the logic is faulty because it is not always true, not that it is false - that was your second error)

You did not catch your mistake - that was your third error. You have not corrected your mistake - your fourth error. You are FLAWED! You are IMPERFECT. You ARE error! Correct your error! Correct your error!

[general_re]

If Socrates = man is true, is it also true that Petronski = man? If so, can we not clearly see that Petronski = Socrates?

;^)

[Petronski]

LOLOL

[Last Visible Dog]

No. I am stating that the set "Socrates" and the set "man" are not the same.

Yeah that was my point too but if Socrates is part of the group man than Socrates=Man is true. Just as Tom Brady is a member of the team Patriots therefore Tom Brady=Patriots is true but Patriots=Tom Brady is an example of the logic flaw of equivocation.

In defining the term "man," Socrates is necessary, but not sufficient.

The example was not trying to define the term "Man", that is why the logic man=Socrates is faulty (not always true). You are learning Grasshopper.

To equate them means that one is completely defined by the other, with nothing needing to be added or removed. That is not the case.

Bingo. Therefore Firmware=Software is true (Firmware is a member of the set Software) but Software=Firmware is false because 1. The set of software is not being defined 2. being a member of the set does not mean it is the only member of the set.

Therefore:

Socrates = man is true and was true his entire life.

but

Man = Socrates is not always true (therefore false)

Put another way: Socrates was a man but not the only man OR firmware is a type of software but not the only type of software.

Thank you for exposing the logic flaws in the following statement:

Petronski (msg #424): If you say firmware=software than that also means software=firmware

[Petronski]

Just as Tom Brady is a member of the team Patriots therefore Tom Brady=Patriots is true

Tom Brady is a member of the set "Patriots." Tom Brady=Patriots is not true.

[Petronski]

Certainly "Tom Brady equals Patriots" cannot be true, as Tom Brady is singular, but Patriots is plural. Tom Brady is A Patriot. He is a member of the set "Patriots."

[jpl]

Probably true. If I had a 95% market share and the other guy had 5% and charged twice as much I wouldn't think of him as a competitor either.

Furthermore, the main reason Apple is still even around today is because Microsoft bought out a bunch of their shares a few years ago and kept them floating when they were about to go completely under.

[Bush2000]

In fairness to the iPod (I have a 40g model), the AAC format in particular and the iPod device in general sound much better than competing devices. I've done my own tests and that's my conclusion. If it means anything, I do consider myself at least somewhat of an audiophile with good relative pitch and (within a range) near perfect pitch.

Read the specs on these devices. The frequency response and signal-to-noise ratio are identical to competing devices. It may "just sound better to you" -- but such a conclusion is not justified by the hardware design. You might want to consider encoding quality differences as a point of comparison, instead. Here's an interesting test of audio codecs: http://www.rjamorim.com/test/128extension/results.html. While I wouldn't tout those results as "conclusive", they're nonetheless interesting. You probably want to evaluate AAC versus WMA (MP3 is crap, IMHO--don't use it). Both AAC and WMA are lossy formats, which means they tradeoff quality for compression. Consequently, the compression bitrate that you choose has a *huge* impact on the resulting sound quality. Objectively, what you want to compare are two files that are approximately the same size (differences in bitrates, notwithstanding).

[Last Visible Dog]

In fairness to the iPod (I have a 40g model), the AAC format in particular and the iPod device in general sound much better than competing devices.

That is your personal opinion, not fact.

I've done my own tests and that's my conclusion.

Personal opinion, not fact.

I do consider myself at least somewhat of an audiophile with good relative pitch and (within a range) near perfect pitch.

Once again, personal opinion - not fact.

I consider myself a "sex machine to all the chicks", but that does not make it fact (even if I think it is, although Shaft might also disagree)

And I think you will find that my opinions of Apple in general come closer to yours, but I bought my iPod because I consider it a better device. Overpriced? Yes, as all Apple products are.

I really have no interest in bashing the Ipod. I too have opinions of the Ipod and I have explained them and like all other Apple debates - everything gets wrentched out of proportion. The Ipod is a dandy device and I came very close to buying one but I did not because it was way over priced, the battery issue (not a huge issue to me - it got stretched out of proportion in this debate). I have concerns about the longevity of these little hard drive devices so I didn't want to throw lots of money at it. I compared the Creative Nomad to the Ipod and I found the Ipod has a much better user interface but was absolutely comparable to Nomad in every other category except price. I really got my 40GB Nomad for $179 - sorry but UI and the Apple logo was not worth an additional $220. The only real negative with the Ipod is the price (the battery is just poor design on Apple's part).

[Last Visible Dog]

You did not catch your mistake - that was your third error. You have not corrected your mistake - your fourth error. You are FLAWED! You are IMPERFECT. You ARE error! Correct your error! Correct your error!

Isn't it a bit early to be hitting the bong?

[js1138]

I'm scratching my head wondering what perfect pitch has to do with the quality of digital encoding.

As for lossy compression, I'm convinced that Photoshop does a better job on jpegs than cheapo programs. Could be my imagination, but I have a number of images with large areas with little detail. The program used to edit them seems to make a difference in the number of visible artifacts.

I wonder if encoding and decoding programs make an audible difference on the quality of MP3s, for the same bitrate and file size.

[Last Visible Dog]

If Socrates = man is true, is it also true that Petronski = man? If so, can we not clearly see that Petronski = Socrates?

Only if you, like Petronski, would like to present yet another example of fallacious logic.

Here are the possibilities:

Petronski = man

Petronski = woman

Petronski = hermaphrodite

or even

Petronski = slug (that has learned how to use a computer)

At this point we need more data...