Posted on 03/08/2005 12:06:04 PM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at macworld.com ...
Seen that. AAC rules over WMA. AAC tends to fare better under subjective listening tests of various music types. Also, the graph of AAC output compared to the original looks better than WMA's, being a closer the original, plus WMA has a sharp cutoff at 14KHz.
That's load of horse manure. Your circular thinking has brought you to a false conclusion. The market is buying MORE iPods, not less.
Apple stock split week before last. I bought some shares less than two years ago, and they are now worth 685% of what I paid.
Your opinion is yours. Most folk apparently do not agree, and have made Apple profitable... by buying iPods. With the Mini, and the stable G5 desktops and servers, and the G4 PowerBooks (hopefully soon to be G5) Apple is hitting hard, at all markets!
A lesson I learned on value... picture a balance scale...when the money on one side is overweighted by features and benefits, it tips, and a value is established. A sale is made. That is easy to verify. If no sales, then no value...if lots of sales, lots of value... in the eyes on the ones that count, the buyers!
My stock reflects the real truth!
No, they are not. That is why your logic is fallacious.
Americans are human but not all humans are Americans but it is incorrect to claim Americans=human is a false statement. Firmware is always software - always. But it is faulty logic to assume the inverse is also true
Bush = President is true.
President = Bush is not.
Firmware = software is true
software = firmware is faulty logic based on equivocation.
100 % of firmware is software but 100% of software is not firmware. You are falsely trying to equate a subset with the total. Bush is 100% the President but Bush is not 100% of the group Presidents.
Your error is trying to equivocate a subset with the set. Firmware is 100% software but the subgroup Firmware is not 100% software.
We are going through these faulty logic gymnastics merely because you refuse to admit firmware is software. Please stick to the subject and explain exactly when firmware is not software.
I'm done. Drive safely.
Your error is trying to equivocate a subset with the set.
That is YOUR error. Every time you write firmware=software, YOU make that error.
Don't forget to tip your waitstaff.
I wish your logic were true, then we'd all be driving Porsches. Make mine a GT3 with ceramic brakes, and give me the maintenance budget to replace them.
Petronski Logic: FALSE! Bush is a president - Bush is a member of the group Presidents but Bush = President is FALSE!
You're going all over the place with your wording again, not being specific, and then complaining when people don't agree with your wording. This stuff needs qualifying:
President Bush = a member of the group of all American presidents (true)
President Bush = the group of all American presidents (false)
President Bush = currently elected American President (true)
President Bush = President (veracity indeterminate due to the need for clarification of "President", past? present? which country or organization?...)
And you were earlier getting on me for not specifically qualifying what I meant by "hardware." Relax.
Too bad we can't represent the set symbols here, might make it a bit easier.
Yet the packaging of firmware (without which it wouldn't be firmware) is considered hardware. That's why they call it "firmware" instead of "hardware" or "software" -- they needed a new term since it falls under both sets. But, unless someone is being purposely obstreperous as you are now, people will accept calling firmware either hardware or software depending on the context.
Hype affects demand. Thus the demand grows, thus the price and value grow to match. Again, the iPod is, by Market Theory, perfectly priced and valued.
You can not equate value of a product by what the market will bear.
That is exactly Market Theory. You could value the iPod according to Labor Theory, so break out your copy of Das Kapital to see what Marx thinks. I'm sure he'll believe it's overpriced, too.
That is only true is you are a market - human beings are allowed to draw their own conclusions.
Going back to what I said earlier -- it might be overpriced to you by personal value judgement, but you cannot state that it is overpriced in general because the continuing high demand shows the price is not too high.
First of all, I think I can back up my claims, while I seriously doubt you could back up yours. Second, I never claimed to have purchased the iPod for the logo, but for the quality sound. Finally, trying to slam my views as opinion and not fact (duh?) is a little silly and accomplishes nothing.
My only point was that there are those that buy these devices for things other the logo, as you state. I agree its overpriced, but I'm willing to pay mor for quality.
So. That does not mean the Ipod is not overpriced and that was my only point. People have a history of buying overpriced products if they are hyped - just because people buy it does not prove it is not overpriced.
Your opinion is yours. Most folk apparently do not agree, and have made Apple profitable... by buying iPods.
I made no comment about Apple profitability - go back and read what was actually said and try again - you have gone off half-cocked.
I think you were done before you started.
When the going gets tough...some just leave.
Unless you can explain when firmware is not software (which you can't) - you are barking up you own private tree of faulty logic.
Now I understanding why you are running away.
Coming from FR's #1 Microsoft Cheerleader, I'll take that as a compliment.
We only post "Get a Mac" advice on threads where Windows users are complaining about their computer problems, and a Mac is a realistic solution. Feel free to post the opposite advice on any threads where Mac users are complaining - if you can find such a thread.
Too bad all the technical definition of the word firmware disagrees with your definition
ALL SOFTWARE - let me repeat - ALL SOFTWARE resides on what is considered hardware. There is no time when software is not "packaged" in hardware. This is just silly now. When Photoshop is on a hard drive - since a hard drive is hardware - we must consider Photoshop to be hardware? Or something in between software and hardware - maybe Shardware?
BTW: Your definition is incorrect. Software on a CD fits the definition of firmware and it is not packages in a PROM but it is still read-only
That's why they call it "firmware" instead of "hardware" or "software" -- they needed a new term since it falls under both sets.
What a silly statement. ALL SOFTWARE is packaged on hardware - not just firmware. Firmware is not at the same level as the terms hardware and software - firmware is a sub-term meaning software stored on read-only hardware. Firmware is a subset of software - firmware is not a group onto itself - that is the error most of you are making.
So you can back up your opinions - with what? More opinion.
Please cite the claim YOU think I can't back up, Mr. OpenEndedMeaninglessAccusation.
Second, I never claimed to have purchased the iPod for the logo, but for the quality sound.
I never claimed you did. Does using an Apple product effect one's ability to read?
Finally, trying to slam my views as opinion and not fact (duh?) is a little silly and accomplishes nothing.
You views are ONLY opinion. Your ego has got you confused. Everything in your statement was opinion, not fact (except it is a fact they are your opinions)
My only point was that there are those that buy these devices for things other the logo, as you state.
No. I never stated that. All I said was all I would get for the additional $220 was the Apple UI and the Apple logo - it was not worth it. The Apple UI is better, but not that much better.
I agree its overpriced, but I'm willing to pay mor for quality.
So why are you so defensive. Don't blame me, I bought a Creative Nomad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.