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.

[Last Visible Dog]

This is just bad algebra.. and more bad logic... from you, not from Petronski. The units are not the same and cannot be compared... apples and oranges.

You totally missed the point Grasshopper, it is not algebra.

It is fallacious logic to try and equate the subset with the whole. To overcome this Petronski was forced to make absurd statements (rather than simply correct the faulty logic). Some people simple refuse to admit they are wrong.

[js1138]

software stored in read-only memory = firmware

So when my CD burner manufacturer says the firmware can be upgraded via a download, they are lying? Or my firewall/router?

[Last Visible Dog]

You do not even understand what we are talking about. Have you ever taken a course in economics?

Yadda, yadda, yadda (and you can quote me on that)

[Onyxx]

Ping! Ping! Ping!

[Last Visible Dog]

The point that started all this is that COMPAQ took the HARD BURNED, HARD-WIRED ROM out of a IBM-PC and reverse engineered the OUTPUT of that piece of hardware by determining what it did and creating a new code that did the same thing... and then installed it in their own piece of hardware.

Actually none of that is true - it is pretty obvious you are blow-hard that really does not understand the subject. Compaq did not take the bios out of the machine. Compaq used two groups of software engineers - one that had access to the source code for the bios (software) and one that did not and wrote a bios (software) that functioned like the IBM bios (by observing the functioning of an IBM PC). Compaq reverse-engineer software, not hardware. The bios software is written to ROM chips - all software is written to some form of hardware.

Let's repeat the first line of the definition:

In computing, firmware is software that is embedded in a hardware device, that allows reading and executing the software, but does not allow modification, e.g., writing or deleting data by an end user.

Now will you stop trying to claim firmware<>software. The only difference between the subgroup firmware and the superset software is firmware is read-only - all software is contained on a hardware device.

Last example:

Draw circle the size of a diner plate.

That is group A

Draw a circle inside of the group A circle the size of a quarter.

That is group B

The area inside of group B is 100% group A

B=A

The area inside of group A is not 100% of group B - only a small percent of A is within group B

A<>B

Group A is software and group B is firmware.

[Petronski]

It is fallacious logic to try and equate the subset with the whole.

So stop doing it.

Every time you type software=firmware or firmware=software, YOU are equivocating and/or equating the two. For seven straight days I've been trying to explain to you that YOU are equating them. Whenever I type "firmware=software is false," I am directly contradicting your equation/equivocation of the two.

[Bush2000]

I can sum it up in two words: superior engineering.

And yet you are at a loss for words to describe how, exactly, it's superior. You simply "feel" that it is.

Value is subjective, not objective. An commodity's value on the open market is not just the sum of its parts. For example, it doesn't cost much to make a Lotus Elise, probably less than many other cars, but it's priced much higher than other cars in its category. Overpriced? Drive one and you won't think it is. That's the subjective value of a better user experience, like with the iPod.

No, you're unconsciously comparing the Elise to cars which aren't in the same category. Compared to cars in the same category, there are certainly competitors that can beat the Elise on performance. Value is certainly measurable with objective criteria. We can both agree that, despite the fact that you might be attached to your 85hp Honda Civic, it just won't compare to a 405hp Porsche 911 Twin Turbo. The engine performance is an objective criterion. So is cost. So is speed. So is weight. So is acceleration. These criteria aren't subjective. You can't legitimately argue that 85hp > 405hp because you "feel" it is, subjectively. Which gets to the heart of the issue with you: The reason that you don't want to accept objective criteria in evaluating the iPod or your iMac is that, when you look at the hardware on paper, it's obvious that your choices are outgunned by competitors. Lower cost. Better storage. Better battery. Better fidelity. The only things that you can point to, in justifying your choice, are intangible subjective criteria (perceptions of "quality" look, interface, etc)

Understand this: Market demand is often driven by herd mentality. Hype. Memes. Icons. Market demand does not equate to quality.

[Petronski]

Now will you stop trying to claim firmware<>software. The only difference between the subgroup firmware and the superset software is firmware is read-only - all software is contained on a hardware device.

In the first sentence, you implore him to stop saying they're different. In the second sentence, you outline a difference. LOL

[Bush2000]

I have quite a few clients running OSX and still running classic apps... they have no problems.

I simply do not believe that there are "no problems". Anybody who works in this industry knows that you're selling snake oil when you make such blanket statements. Legacy apps ALWAYS create problems and yet, somehow, we're supposed to believe that you've never had any. Rubbish. Fantasyland. I just pointed you at a ton of problems that people are having with classic apps. Either they're all lying -- or you are. Which is it?

[CFC__VRWC]

I honestly can't say which format is better, since I haven't spent any time evaluating them; however, 14K is a reasonable place to start thinking about cutting off, since higher frequency sound is probably going to be distinguishable only to dogs...

Then why do manufacturers routinely make speakers that respond up to 20,000 Hz? And I'm not talking about high-end audiophile stuff, either. I'm talking about average-quality speakers designed for the mass market. Why build in that capacity if no one will notice it?

[Last Visible Dog]

LVD: ALL SOFTWARE resides on what is considered hardware.

Swordmaker: I disagree... Software resides on MEDIA...The media might be a part of a piece of hardware...

So what you are saying is software does not reside on hardware it resided on media that is hardware. Did you also major in doublespeak? You are claiming "media" might be part of hardware - really - when is media not hardware Mr Einstein.

Software also resides in RAM and inside the CPU - do you call RAM and the CPU media? Oops, you didn't think of that.

All software resides in hardware.

Different types of hardware in which software resides: PROM, EPROM, RAM, hard disk, floppy disk, core memory, flash memory, drum memory, various silicon chips. Some of the hardware is read/write and some is read-only - when the software is stored on read-only hardware it is firmware.

If you wish to push this to absurdity - there is one state of software where it is not residing on hardware and that is when software is in the ether - now it takes hardware to send it into the ether and it takes hardware to return the software to your computer hardware but when software is in the ether between two wireless points, it is not contained in hardware.

[Last Visible Dog]

LVD:Software on a CD fits the definition of firmwar

Again, you are wrong. A CD that contains data does not have to fit the definition of "firmware" unless its content is designed by a company to direct the operation of a piece of hardware the firm has built or designed.

You really don't understand much about computer technology and you do have problems with reading comprehension - notice I said "software on a CD" - not data.

All software directs the operations of hardware. Software does nothing without hardware and vice-versa (unless you include uses like paper weight)

Lets review a definition of firmware:

firmware: n : (computer science) coded instructions that are stored permanently in read-only memory (WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University)

Question: Is a CD (not a CD-RW) read-only permanent memory?

Answer: yes.

[Last Visible Dog]

Incidentally your CD is really referred to CD-ROM... which translates as Compact Disc - Read Only Memory. Of course some are the equivalent of PROM... those would be CD-R, while others are equivalent to EPROM... the CD R/W.

You fingers are writing checks your knowledge can not cash

EPROM's are not equivalent to CD-R/W (similar but not equivalent). You can not Read/Write to an EPROM. An EPROM can only be erased in totality. E = erasable.

Thank you for pointing that a CD is actually a CDROM meaning it is read-only memory and what makes software firmware - say it with me - "when it is stored in read-only memory".

[Last Visible Dog]

LVD: most modern PROM's are not erasable

antiRepublicrat: Duh, that's the definition of a PROM.

Actually you are confused on two counts.

First I was replying to your statement:

antiRepublicrat: ...to be placed on a ROM (or EPROM, can't remember)

Second: EPROM's are PROM's

Actually, they reverse-engineered an entire published specification, of which the software was a part.

Not true. First, the IBM bios was proprietary - it was not a published specification. Second, the hardware was a published standard so reverse-engineering was not needed.

This all started because you wanted to make a mountain out of a molehill. You lost the main argument, so you started delving into semantics and definitions.

You made an incorrect statement when you claimed Compaq reverse-engineered that hardware and you have spent days unsuccessfully trying to spin it into truth - bringing use to the core nonsense statement of firmware<>software.

A mountain has been made, but is looks like you were the builder.

[Last Visible Dog]

A ROM, PROM, EPROM or EEPROM is firmware when there's software on it.

Yes, that has been my point all along. Firmware=software stored in read-only memory.

The software on an EEPROM isn't read-only and it's easily changed.

EEPROM is not read-only memory therefore software stored on it is not firmware (based on all definitions).

Flashing my Linksys firmware is as easy as writing to my hard drive. It's not the "easy" that counts.

No it is not. The OS allows you to read/write to the harddisk, you must use a specific application to read-write firmware. NOTE: technically firmware that is read/write-able is not firmware (please review the definitions)

Like all technical terms, the meaning is not concret and can change over time. One thing we know for sure is firmware is not hardware like you first claim.

[Last Visible Dog]

So a CD-ROM is firmware?

Read the definitions and decide for yourself.

[antiRepublicrat]

Yes, that has been my point all along. Firmware=software stored in read-only memory.

At which point you call it firmware, not software. That's my point.

EEPROM is not read-only memory therefore software stored on it is not firmware (based on all definitions).

Funny, the firmware on my computer's BIOS, video card BIOS, phone and Linksys is all writeable, and it's called firmware.

The OS allows you to read/write to the harddisk

The OS has specialized software (explorer.exe, cmd.com) running in it that allows you to write to the drives. The flash program is another piece of specialized software running in your OS that allows you to write to firmware.

please review the definitions)

Which included PROMS, EPROMS and EEPROMS. You're losing it.

[Last Visible Dog]

But the way firmware functions is different than that of standard software.

Not true.

In theory I could lay out the PROM in MAGIC and produce a fixed VLSI chip that can replace the firmware.

VLSI chips can contain firmware.

Photoshop on the hard drive is only there as a form of storage not so it can function there.

Firmware "functions" in the same place Photoshop "functions" - the CPU. Firmware does not "function" inside read-only memory. Hard disks and read-only memory are merely two ways to store software.

AR is right in that the reason its not called system software and was given the name firmware is that it functions in a way fundamentally different than other software (and yet for the same purpose

That statement is simply not true. Software on the hard disk "functions" in the exact same way as firmware. Firmware is merely a method of storage - like a hard drive only firmware is read-only. All software "functions" in the same way - within the CPU. One of the ONLY reasons the bios is not on the hard disk is the bios tells the computer how to use the I/O so until the bios software is executed, the computer cannot use the hard drive. The computer has embedded boot-strap routines (more firmware) that tell it to read and execute the software in the read-only memory (firmware). The firmware provides basic disk I/O (BDOS) so the computer can then read the software off the hard disk and load the OS which provides extended disk I/O and other cool stuff but it is all software and it all "functions" the same (where "functions" means used by the computer)

NOTE: Part of the IBM-PC ROM BIOS (firmware) was something called ROM-BASIC. This was later reverse-engineered into a standard executable.

[Last Visible Dog]

In the first sentence, you implore him to stop saying they're different. In the second sentence, you outline a difference. LOL

If you spent more time reading and less time laughing, you would not make such a fool out of yourself.

100% of the subgroup (firmware) is made up of the superset (software). The differences I pointed out were related to where the software was stored, not whether or not firmware is software. Read closely before you post and you will save yourself some embarrassment.

Read what I said and try again.

Your argument boils down to something like this: Apples in the store are different from apples in my house because apples in my house are stored in my house and apples in the store are stored in the store (even though the apples in my house came from the store). Therefore Store Apples<>My Apples. If all you want to argue is where the software is stored, you might have a leg to stand on but you extrapolated to absurdity and claimed firmware is not software.

[Petronski]

Firmware does not EQUAL software. Stop equivocating them. they are NOT equal.