thatisme
Mar 29, 07:24 AM
robbieduncan is right-on with his explanation, you're making incorrect claims: focal lengths are independent of the size of the sensor, a 50 mm lens will be a 50 mm lens on a medium format body, a full frame analog body or an APS-C-sized dslr. What changes is the field of view, which is an angle. It is this angle which is different on the above-mentioned cameras. The reason why people write something to the effect `a 50 mm lens on a crop body is equivalent to 75~80 mm lens on a full frame body' is that we've gotten used to associating focal lengths on 35 mm bodies to FOVs. Sort of like Americans got used to measuring distances in miles rather than kilometers.
which is why I have not made the claim that 200mm on one lens is not equal to 200mm on the other (by actual measurements). What I have claimed is that the EFFECTIVE (perceived) focal length is different, when angle is taken into effect (the size of the sensor in relation to the size of the rear element).
YOU WILL GET DIFFERENT IMAGES IF YOU USE A 200mm EF Lens on a 7D (APS-C) and a 200mm EF-S lens on that same camera due to the FOVCF. on the EF lens, the 200mm assumes you are using the ENTIRE image circle of the lens, which you are not. You ARE using the ENTIRE image circle on the EF-S lens, which is a True 200mm for that camera. You have to use the ENTIRE image circle to get a true measure of the focal length. when you use only a portion of that image circle, you have to apply the FOVCF to get the EFFECTIVE focal length.
Your last 2 sentences actually prove my point for me. Everything in today's photography arsenal (at least in DSLR) is based on the old film standard of 35mm image recording space (or sensor size). It is you standard of measure. It has not changed with Digital. This is why we have conversion factors and have to talk of EFFECTIVE focal lengths.
which is why I have not made the claim that 200mm on one lens is not equal to 200mm on the other (by actual measurements). What I have claimed is that the EFFECTIVE (perceived) focal length is different, when angle is taken into effect (the size of the sensor in relation to the size of the rear element).
YOU WILL GET DIFFERENT IMAGES IF YOU USE A 200mm EF Lens on a 7D (APS-C) and a 200mm EF-S lens on that same camera due to the FOVCF. on the EF lens, the 200mm assumes you are using the ENTIRE image circle of the lens, which you are not. You ARE using the ENTIRE image circle on the EF-S lens, which is a True 200mm for that camera. You have to use the ENTIRE image circle to get a true measure of the focal length. when you use only a portion of that image circle, you have to apply the FOVCF to get the EFFECTIVE focal length.
Your last 2 sentences actually prove my point for me. Everything in today's photography arsenal (at least in DSLR) is based on the old film standard of 35mm image recording space (or sensor size). It is you standard of measure. It has not changed with Digital. This is why we have conversion factors and have to talk of EFFECTIVE focal lengths.
whooleytoo
Sep 26, 06:03 AM
But here you're implying that Apple has any rights at all to the word podcast, when it was clearly invented by someone else (Adam Curry, perhaps, though there is some debate; it was certainly not Apple Computer). How in the heck can they make a claim? It's not like they are called iPodcasts. That I could see being an infringement. Just how far are they intending to go with the word 'pod'?
I agree wholeheartedly - how can they trademark a term someone else created?
For a company that was so rebellious and different in its infancy, Apple sure is getting cranky in its middle age.
I agree wholeheartedly - how can they trademark a term someone else created?
For a company that was so rebellious and different in its infancy, Apple sure is getting cranky in its middle age.
Terrabit
Sep 20, 01:25 AM
Sigh.,
The problem is with RAID systems that you have to boot of a Non-Raid OS-x Boot Drive, run the two sets of firmware update, then move back to RAID drives.
Technically: the firware is stored on a specific sector of the hard drive, the computer reboots into special firmware loading software, the firmware loading software naively tries to search for the firm ware at a specific location on the hard drive. If you have RAID, its not going to find the firmware.
You can leave your RAID drives visible (you don't have to unplug anything) but you do have to boot of a booring-normal OS X setup.
There are few ways you can do this:
* Install OS X on an External drive
* Install OS X on an iPod harddrive (20 gig model, etc).
* etc.
Its a pain.
The problem is with RAID systems that you have to boot of a Non-Raid OS-x Boot Drive, run the two sets of firmware update, then move back to RAID drives.
Technically: the firware is stored on a specific sector of the hard drive, the computer reboots into special firmware loading software, the firmware loading software naively tries to search for the firm ware at a specific location on the hard drive. If you have RAID, its not going to find the firmware.
You can leave your RAID drives visible (you don't have to unplug anything) but you do have to boot of a booring-normal OS X setup.
There are few ways you can do this:
* Install OS X on an External drive
* Install OS X on an iPod harddrive (20 gig model, etc).
* etc.
Its a pain.
bjdku
Sep 27, 11:09 AM
Never fear. Apple will invent a new number, complete with a new character. 10.4.9 will include updates to all system font files and keyboard layouts containing this new symbol.
Now that's innovation.
Ya, who says they won't use hex? Although if they have been using hex all this time it would have been OS A instead of OS 10 :) :)
Now that's innovation.
Ya, who says they won't use hex? Although if they have been using hex all this time it would have been OS A instead of OS 10 :) :)
more...
tsadi
Apr 5, 10:45 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
-double post-
-double post-
rdowns
Apr 27, 06:36 PM
You have a moral compass, use it.
Trump has no moral compass.
Trump has no moral compass.
more...
Kilamite
Jun 25, 05:59 AM
I work for a large telecom company and was installing home internet service for a customer that had an iPhone. When I asked if he wanted me to set up his wifi for him he said sure. When I looked at it the top right hand corner said T-mobile. I looked at the phone and said to myself T-Mobile? Then just carried on. So now looking at this article makes me think that they are actually testing it on their network. I don't know what to think of it actually.
Carrier logos on the iPhone are in the top left corner. As a forum newbie I will tell you folks around here are sticklers for having your facts straight. You didn't see anything special ... Just an unlocked iPhone on T-mobile just like the one I have had since 2007!
It's called unlocking. He'll have an unlocked iPhone (by whatever means) and stuck a T-Mobile sim in it. Doubt he'll have any data plans for it, just a cheap contract (or PAYG) and use WiFi when needed.
Carrier logos on the iPhone are in the top left corner. As a forum newbie I will tell you folks around here are sticklers for having your facts straight. You didn't see anything special ... Just an unlocked iPhone on T-mobile just like the one I have had since 2007!
It's called unlocking. He'll have an unlocked iPhone (by whatever means) and stuck a T-Mobile sim in it. Doubt he'll have any data plans for it, just a cheap contract (or PAYG) and use WiFi when needed.
dwright1974
Apr 12, 02:06 PM
aaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh I want to buy this!!!! But alas I cannot afford it at present, well it depends on if I get a 3DS next weekend or not. But having used the demo of Outlook I love it, much better then Mail IMO.
If anyone knows of a cheaper price then around �160 in the UK let me know cause that's the best I've found.
Are you in education? Or do you have children in education?
If so, then you can buy it for just under �39 from RM (www.RM.com/thebasement).
Full disclosure: I work for RM.
HTH
D
If anyone knows of a cheaper price then around �160 in the UK let me know cause that's the best I've found.
Are you in education? Or do you have children in education?
If so, then you can buy it for just under �39 from RM (www.RM.com/thebasement).
Full disclosure: I work for RM.
HTH
D
more...
DaveGee
Apr 16, 03:39 PM
Is it me or is Apple becoming a silly caricature of its own 1984 ad?
If when you say silly you mean terrifying? Then yes I do... :mad:
If when you say silly you mean terrifying? Then yes I do... :mad:
applefan69
Apr 14, 01:49 PM
noone seems to be happy Apple is bringing in employees from even microsoft. But dont ya think this is kinda a real sign of the dominance Apple is starting to have.
Also maybe Apple has managed to pick out the small piece of talent microsoft had? haha the new strategy will be steal all the good employees, much cheaper than buying them out.
Also maybe Apple has managed to pick out the small piece of talent microsoft had? haha the new strategy will be steal all the good employees, much cheaper than buying them out.
more...
FrankieTDouglas
Apr 9, 12:34 AM
I am all for getting rid of those too. This topic was about PP, so I expressed my feelings for that colossal waste of money. I didn't want to stray too far off topic.
Well since you're on a streak here, how do you feel about public education? Is elementary school a government handout and should be best left to private schools, even for those who can't foot the bill?
Are roads also a government handout? Should all of them be privately owned tolls roads?
I'm curious to see where a self-proclaimed proud bigot draws the line.
Well since you're on a streak here, how do you feel about public education? Is elementary school a government handout and should be best left to private schools, even for those who can't foot the bill?
Are roads also a government handout? Should all of them be privately owned tolls roads?
I'm curious to see where a self-proclaimed proud bigot draws the line.
notjustjay
Nov 14, 09:48 AM
United is the ONLY airline that does this.
Really? That's too bad... it was a really neat feature. I knew when to expect altitude changes, when (and, more importantly, why) various turns were being made, and whether to expect turbulence up ahead. Hearing the hand-off between various centers also gave me a rough idea of where we were, and gave me an idea of our surroundings (I heard pilots and ATC commenting on what was likely smoke from a forest fire).
Really? That's too bad... it was a really neat feature. I knew when to expect altitude changes, when (and, more importantly, why) various turns were being made, and whether to expect turbulence up ahead. Hearing the hand-off between various centers also gave me a rough idea of where we were, and gave me an idea of our surroundings (I heard pilots and ATC commenting on what was likely smoke from a forest fire).
more...
samh004
Nov 14, 10:38 AM
Well, this is pretty cool.
Is there going to be some downside to this, like a fee or (worse) ads? (Much worse, if the ads can't be skipped or easily ignored.)
I think the integration could be used as enticement for customers to use a particular airline over another. It doesn't matter if everyone eventually adopts the technology, as you've built up a reputation and some customers.
Ads or a fee aren't needed as your attracting more revenue, ads and additional fees would be more likely to push people away.
Sounds great to me! Did anyone here anything about Zune intergration in planes? I didn't think so. :p
I'm sure Microsoft could pay the airlines enough to install it at no cost just to push their brand.
Is there going to be some downside to this, like a fee or (worse) ads? (Much worse, if the ads can't be skipped or easily ignored.)
I think the integration could be used as enticement for customers to use a particular airline over another. It doesn't matter if everyone eventually adopts the technology, as you've built up a reputation and some customers.
Ads or a fee aren't needed as your attracting more revenue, ads and additional fees would be more likely to push people away.
Sounds great to me! Did anyone here anything about Zune intergration in planes? I didn't think so. :p
I'm sure Microsoft could pay the airlines enough to install it at no cost just to push their brand.
Origin
Sep 19, 04:22 PM
I'm a bit confused, because, I can't update the EFI ... I strictly followed the instructions. Poweron while holding the power button... then some secondes after speed flashs of the led (I mean stroboscopic) and then just a long BIIIIIP and normal boot after that ...
Tried many times, any hints ?
Thx a lot
Tried many times, any hints ?
Thx a lot
more...
assembled
Mar 19, 08:04 AM
Do these devices need to access anything on your LAN, or do they just need Internet access ?
If they need LAN access, then if you're thinking about just using mac address filtering for them, then why bother with WPA2e for the rest ?
If they just need Internet access, then use a different SSID connected to a VLAN that only has Internet access, obviously with suitable firewall rules in place.
I tend to suggest using a wired connection for anything that doesn't support wireless at the required security level, and if it only supports wireless at a level that doesn't meet the required security level, then I wouldn't purchase it.
If they need LAN access, then if you're thinking about just using mac address filtering for them, then why bother with WPA2e for the rest ?
If they just need Internet access, then use a different SSID connected to a VLAN that only has Internet access, obviously with suitable firewall rules in place.
I tend to suggest using a wired connection for anything that doesn't support wireless at the required security level, and if it only supports wireless at a level that doesn't meet the required security level, then I wouldn't purchase it.
corbijnal
Jan 4, 10:06 AM
I used to have a Garmin Nuvi but I won't be going anywhere near this!
I'd say your 500MB data allowance on O2 would be churned up in no time.
What's the problem with downloading the maps? TomTom takes up about 2-3GB on my 32GB iPhone... big deal!
I'd say your 500MB data allowance on O2 would be churned up in no time.
What's the problem with downloading the maps? TomTom takes up about 2-3GB on my 32GB iPhone... big deal!
more...
cfitz7111
Mar 25, 01:18 AM
Does anyone know if Target is price matching or is expected to be following suit with their own reduced prices? I have a hefty credit with Target that I would very much enjoy using on purchasing the original ipad at the new verizon price.
I dont think so. Working at Target the policy is that it has to be a print ad, and not a copy of an internet sale. Below is the policy from the website.
"If you find an item in a competitor's printed ad that is priced lower than it is at your Target store, we will match the price. The competitor's ad must be local and current, and the product must be the identical item, brand name, quantity and model number. Target.com is excluded from our price matching policy. Competitor catalogs can also be ad matched as long as the catalog displays a valid date and meets all other qualifications."
"Please show us the entire printed advertisement. Photos, photocopies, or mobile phone versions of the ad cannot be accepted as verification of competitive pricing."
Believe me I wish they would, with my normal 10% discount and an additional 5% for using the Target Debit card, I would be one happy camper.
I dont think so. Working at Target the policy is that it has to be a print ad, and not a copy of an internet sale. Below is the policy from the website.
"If you find an item in a competitor's printed ad that is priced lower than it is at your Target store, we will match the price. The competitor's ad must be local and current, and the product must be the identical item, brand name, quantity and model number. Target.com is excluded from our price matching policy. Competitor catalogs can also be ad matched as long as the catalog displays a valid date and meets all other qualifications."
"Please show us the entire printed advertisement. Photos, photocopies, or mobile phone versions of the ad cannot be accepted as verification of competitive pricing."
Believe me I wish they would, with my normal 10% discount and an additional 5% for using the Target Debit card, I would be one happy camper.
p0intblank
Sep 25, 11:52 AM
I've had enough of this voting system. Look for a thread on it in the Community Discussion.
Edit: Make that the Site and Forum Feedback forum...
Edit: Make that the Site and Forum Feedback forum...
MikeTheC
Nov 3, 01:19 AM
I'd like to tackle a few points in the discussion here.
Dirt-Cheap vs. Reasonable Economy (a.k.a. "The Wal-Martization of America"):
Apple has always had the philosophy that their name needs to mean a superior product. They have tended to shy away from producing bargain-basement products because it tends to take away from the "high-quality" reputation they are otherwise known for and desire to continue cultivating.
At direct odds with this is the pervasive and continually-perpetuated attitude in the U.S. (and elsewhere, perhaps) that the universe revolves exclusively around the mantra of "faster, cheaper, better", with emphasis on the latter two: cheaper and better. What I have noticed in my own 34 years on this planet is a considerable change in attitude, most easily summed up as people in general having their tastes almost "anti-cultured". It isn't "... cheaper, better" for them, but rather "cheaper = better". You can see this at all levels. Businesses, despite their claims to the contrary, tend to prioritize the executives specifically and the company generally making money over any other possible consideration. They try and drive their workforce from well-paid, highly competent full-time people, to part-time, no-medical or retirement-benefits-earning, low-experience, low-paid domestic help; and the second prong of their pincer movement is to outsource the rest.
Or, in short, "let's make a lot of money, but don't spend any in the process."
My goal here is not to get into the lengthy and well-trod discussion of corporate exploitation of the masses; rather it is to show the Wal-Mart effect at all levels.
More and more over the years I find that people have no taste. Steve Jobs accuses Microsoft of having no taste (a point I am not trying to argue against); I think however that he's hit a little low of the mark. The attitude out there seems to be one of total self-focus -- and not merely "me first", but rather "me first, me last, and ******* everybody else". They're the "I don't want to know anything", "all I want to do is get out of having to do anything I can, including not using my brain except for pleasure-seeking tasks," and "For God's sake, I surely don't want to have to spend more than the minimum on a computer" bunch.
Now, clearly, not everyone in the U.S. is like this; obviously, if they were, Apple would have no customers at all. But this is a real and fairly large group. Short of Apple practically giving away their computers, it's hard to imagine them being all that specifically attractive to that demographic. Moreover, those people are not merely non-enthusiasts; they want all of the benefits of having this trendy computer thing, but wish to be encumbered by none of the responsibilities.
To my way of thinking, frankly however large this group of people is, I would encourage Apple to avoid appealing to them whenever and wherever possible. If this means continuing the perception mentioned above of being a computer "for yuppies", then so be it.
Market Share Percentage and it's Perception:
Clearly, there is something to be gained by having the perception that "everyone's doing it". It's part of the reason why smoking, drinking, under-age sex, and drugs are so amazingly popular with us human beings the world over. It's part of the reason (maybe even a significant part) that iPods are so incredibly successful. Now, before someone here puts forth the argument that, "Well, you know, Apple's got a better design, and that's what attracts people to it," -- and that's quite true in it's own right -- let's break things down a bit.
Many animals develop and learn through a process called "patterning", and through imitation. Humans are not psychologically exempt from this; we do it all the time, and particularly so when we're younger. It's the fundamental force behind fashion, fads, and trends. There are definitely positive benefits to this. Kids, as they develop their social skills, learn from others the socially approved ways of behaving and interacting. Please note I did not use the term "correct" nor "right", but merely the "approved" (or, one might call it the "accepted") way. We also learn and learn from such things as casualty (actions have consequences), and other factors too numerous to pursue here.
Anyhow, all of these factors are in operation when it comes to buying technology (which is the boiled-down essence of what we're talking about here). Microsoft has learned this game, and has played it well for many years. Regardless of the "technically, we know it's bulls**t" truth, the reality of it is (and has been) when an unsavvy person walks into a store to buy a computer, and they see ten Windows-running computers on the shelf, and only one or two Mac OS-running computers there, they get the prima-facia notion that most computers are Windows computers, and by extension that statistically most people must be running Windows; therefore they should buy a Windows computer, too. There's a whole other subject here about how the ignorant sales people in electronics stores essentially use the same process to unwittingly deceive themselves into thinking the same thing. This is one of the factors which helped catapult Microsoft into the major, successful company they became. In truth, this specific scenario is a bit more 1994 than but it helps to explain why most people today who own a computer have only known life in a Microsoft world. As enough people attained this status, it became the dominant developmental factor in the world at large, which sort of helped to self-perpetuate the effect.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that these statistics of percentage of platform used by definition leave out one particular group of people -- those who don't use a computer at all. After all, if you don't own a computer, you can't browse the web, send or receive email, or have your computer platform of choice tabulated in any kind of statistical data sample. One might be tempted to think that such a notion is silly, but it isn't. True, once we get to the point that only a statistically insignificant number of people on this planet don't own a computer (which is still far from the reality of today), counting their numbers won't matter for statistical purposes, it does matter. Why? Well, the statistics as presented make it seem like Macs (or Linux, or anything else) are only used by a subset of people on this planet. Not true! They're only used by a subset of a subset, the latter being the number of people on this planet who have a computer to be counted in such statistics in the first place.
Also, statistics vary depending on a variety of factors. It's also easy to write them off as a business or let them drop "below the radar" by various statistical gathering or reporting agencies; or merely through the informal process on the part of business owners of anecdotal evidence. Here's a perfect example of that very factor.
When the Macintosh came on the scene in 1984, and as it continued through it's early incarnations in the mid 1980s, it entered the fray of lots of non-defacto computer platforms. Or, to put it another way, it "came late to the party". So, you had all these computer dealers who were already trying to sell Apple ][s, TRS-80s, Commodore 64s (and later, C128s), Timex Sinclairs, an assortment of other PCs running proprietary OSs, amongst which were those which ran this thing called MS-DOS, and so forth and so on. Also, people who wound up buying Macs didn't exactly fit the same profile as those who had bought the other computers. You had artists -- literary, graphic, musical, etc. -- buying these things. While they didn't mind being technologically self-sufficent, they were not people who were interested in such things as tearing their computer apart and having a go at it's various electronic innards. Anyhow, they formed their own communities, and for various reasons didn't get a lot of support initially from local dealers and computer software stores. However, Apple did get quite a number of companies to write software or build hardware for their Mac platform. These companies started using mail-order as a significant portion of their sales strategy. Consequently, Mac owners used it as their more-and-more-primary computer-stuff purchasing regimen.
Ultimately, fewer and fewer Mac owners were going locally to buy stuff, due to availability and pricing. What then happened largely was this "perception" on the part of shop owners (and later their suppliers, etc.) that nobody out there used a Mac. As a result of their mis-perception, companies began to simply ignore us Mac users (I was around back then), acting as if we didn't exist; or at the least there weren't enough of us to bother supporting us or even trying to make money from us.
Now, at this point there's no denying there's more Windows boxen out there than Mac boxen, but this is still a valid factor and should not be discounted.
Besides, what number you hear quoted still, as it has for many, many years, depends on what your source is. I've heard numbers within the past month that range from 4.1 percent to 6 percent. Which one is correct? Does anyone even really know?
Since we can run Windows, why run Mac OS? (paranoia of market erosion):
I've been hearing this since before Apple ever disclosed their plans to switch to x86. It was actually one of the topics frequently -- and rather hotly, as I recall -- debated in these forums. However, I think the fear is greatly unjustified, and here's why.
First, let's look at it from an economic standpoint: Buying a Mac to run Windows is hardly the most cost-effective approach.
Second, let's look at it from a socio-economic standpoint: People don't buy a Mac to run Windows so much as they buy it to either try something different, or to escape Windows and the onslaught of problems that, in more recent years, it has brought to them.
Third, and while this really applies more to tech-savvy people: Windows represents a security and stability liability which most other operating systems do not.
In other words, by and large, people out there who are switching to a Mac are doing more than merely switching hardware: they're switching OS platforms. The fact that they can run Windows on a Mac is only slightly more of interest to them than is running an x86-based distro of GNU/Linux.
Bottom Line: Apple will appeal to and convert those that they can, and those are the hearts and minds which are the most vital and important anyhow. Let's not forget the relative merits of dummy-dropping. Sometimes, Darwin's theories of Evolution are more satisfyingly applied sociologically than biologically.
Dirt-Cheap vs. Reasonable Economy (a.k.a. "The Wal-Martization of America"):
Apple has always had the philosophy that their name needs to mean a superior product. They have tended to shy away from producing bargain-basement products because it tends to take away from the "high-quality" reputation they are otherwise known for and desire to continue cultivating.
At direct odds with this is the pervasive and continually-perpetuated attitude in the U.S. (and elsewhere, perhaps) that the universe revolves exclusively around the mantra of "faster, cheaper, better", with emphasis on the latter two: cheaper and better. What I have noticed in my own 34 years on this planet is a considerable change in attitude, most easily summed up as people in general having their tastes almost "anti-cultured". It isn't "... cheaper, better" for them, but rather "cheaper = better". You can see this at all levels. Businesses, despite their claims to the contrary, tend to prioritize the executives specifically and the company generally making money over any other possible consideration. They try and drive their workforce from well-paid, highly competent full-time people, to part-time, no-medical or retirement-benefits-earning, low-experience, low-paid domestic help; and the second prong of their pincer movement is to outsource the rest.
Or, in short, "let's make a lot of money, but don't spend any in the process."
My goal here is not to get into the lengthy and well-trod discussion of corporate exploitation of the masses; rather it is to show the Wal-Mart effect at all levels.
More and more over the years I find that people have no taste. Steve Jobs accuses Microsoft of having no taste (a point I am not trying to argue against); I think however that he's hit a little low of the mark. The attitude out there seems to be one of total self-focus -- and not merely "me first", but rather "me first, me last, and ******* everybody else". They're the "I don't want to know anything", "all I want to do is get out of having to do anything I can, including not using my brain except for pleasure-seeking tasks," and "For God's sake, I surely don't want to have to spend more than the minimum on a computer" bunch.
Now, clearly, not everyone in the U.S. is like this; obviously, if they were, Apple would have no customers at all. But this is a real and fairly large group. Short of Apple practically giving away their computers, it's hard to imagine them being all that specifically attractive to that demographic. Moreover, those people are not merely non-enthusiasts; they want all of the benefits of having this trendy computer thing, but wish to be encumbered by none of the responsibilities.
To my way of thinking, frankly however large this group of people is, I would encourage Apple to avoid appealing to them whenever and wherever possible. If this means continuing the perception mentioned above of being a computer "for yuppies", then so be it.
Market Share Percentage and it's Perception:
Clearly, there is something to be gained by having the perception that "everyone's doing it". It's part of the reason why smoking, drinking, under-age sex, and drugs are so amazingly popular with us human beings the world over. It's part of the reason (maybe even a significant part) that iPods are so incredibly successful. Now, before someone here puts forth the argument that, "Well, you know, Apple's got a better design, and that's what attracts people to it," -- and that's quite true in it's own right -- let's break things down a bit.
Many animals develop and learn through a process called "patterning", and through imitation. Humans are not psychologically exempt from this; we do it all the time, and particularly so when we're younger. It's the fundamental force behind fashion, fads, and trends. There are definitely positive benefits to this. Kids, as they develop their social skills, learn from others the socially approved ways of behaving and interacting. Please note I did not use the term "correct" nor "right", but merely the "approved" (or, one might call it the "accepted") way. We also learn and learn from such things as casualty (actions have consequences), and other factors too numerous to pursue here.
Anyhow, all of these factors are in operation when it comes to buying technology (which is the boiled-down essence of what we're talking about here). Microsoft has learned this game, and has played it well for many years. Regardless of the "technically, we know it's bulls**t" truth, the reality of it is (and has been) when an unsavvy person walks into a store to buy a computer, and they see ten Windows-running computers on the shelf, and only one or two Mac OS-running computers there, they get the prima-facia notion that most computers are Windows computers, and by extension that statistically most people must be running Windows; therefore they should buy a Windows computer, too. There's a whole other subject here about how the ignorant sales people in electronics stores essentially use the same process to unwittingly deceive themselves into thinking the same thing. This is one of the factors which helped catapult Microsoft into the major, successful company they became. In truth, this specific scenario is a bit more 1994 than but it helps to explain why most people today who own a computer have only known life in a Microsoft world. As enough people attained this status, it became the dominant developmental factor in the world at large, which sort of helped to self-perpetuate the effect.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that these statistics of percentage of platform used by definition leave out one particular group of people -- those who don't use a computer at all. After all, if you don't own a computer, you can't browse the web, send or receive email, or have your computer platform of choice tabulated in any kind of statistical data sample. One might be tempted to think that such a notion is silly, but it isn't. True, once we get to the point that only a statistically insignificant number of people on this planet don't own a computer (which is still far from the reality of today), counting their numbers won't matter for statistical purposes, it does matter. Why? Well, the statistics as presented make it seem like Macs (or Linux, or anything else) are only used by a subset of people on this planet. Not true! They're only used by a subset of a subset, the latter being the number of people on this planet who have a computer to be counted in such statistics in the first place.
Also, statistics vary depending on a variety of factors. It's also easy to write them off as a business or let them drop "below the radar" by various statistical gathering or reporting agencies; or merely through the informal process on the part of business owners of anecdotal evidence. Here's a perfect example of that very factor.
When the Macintosh came on the scene in 1984, and as it continued through it's early incarnations in the mid 1980s, it entered the fray of lots of non-defacto computer platforms. Or, to put it another way, it "came late to the party". So, you had all these computer dealers who were already trying to sell Apple ][s, TRS-80s, Commodore 64s (and later, C128s), Timex Sinclairs, an assortment of other PCs running proprietary OSs, amongst which were those which ran this thing called MS-DOS, and so forth and so on. Also, people who wound up buying Macs didn't exactly fit the same profile as those who had bought the other computers. You had artists -- literary, graphic, musical, etc. -- buying these things. While they didn't mind being technologically self-sufficent, they were not people who were interested in such things as tearing their computer apart and having a go at it's various electronic innards. Anyhow, they formed their own communities, and for various reasons didn't get a lot of support initially from local dealers and computer software stores. However, Apple did get quite a number of companies to write software or build hardware for their Mac platform. These companies started using mail-order as a significant portion of their sales strategy. Consequently, Mac owners used it as their more-and-more-primary computer-stuff purchasing regimen.
Ultimately, fewer and fewer Mac owners were going locally to buy stuff, due to availability and pricing. What then happened largely was this "perception" on the part of shop owners (and later their suppliers, etc.) that nobody out there used a Mac. As a result of their mis-perception, companies began to simply ignore us Mac users (I was around back then), acting as if we didn't exist; or at the least there weren't enough of us to bother supporting us or even trying to make money from us.
Now, at this point there's no denying there's more Windows boxen out there than Mac boxen, but this is still a valid factor and should not be discounted.
Besides, what number you hear quoted still, as it has for many, many years, depends on what your source is. I've heard numbers within the past month that range from 4.1 percent to 6 percent. Which one is correct? Does anyone even really know?
Since we can run Windows, why run Mac OS? (paranoia of market erosion):
I've been hearing this since before Apple ever disclosed their plans to switch to x86. It was actually one of the topics frequently -- and rather hotly, as I recall -- debated in these forums. However, I think the fear is greatly unjustified, and here's why.
First, let's look at it from an economic standpoint: Buying a Mac to run Windows is hardly the most cost-effective approach.
Second, let's look at it from a socio-economic standpoint: People don't buy a Mac to run Windows so much as they buy it to either try something different, or to escape Windows and the onslaught of problems that, in more recent years, it has brought to them.
Third, and while this really applies more to tech-savvy people: Windows represents a security and stability liability which most other operating systems do not.
In other words, by and large, people out there who are switching to a Mac are doing more than merely switching hardware: they're switching OS platforms. The fact that they can run Windows on a Mac is only slightly more of interest to them than is running an x86-based distro of GNU/Linux.
Bottom Line: Apple will appeal to and convert those that they can, and those are the hearts and minds which are the most vital and important anyhow. Let's not forget the relative merits of dummy-dropping. Sometimes, Darwin's theories of Evolution are more satisfyingly applied sociologically than biologically.
tringo
Sep 26, 11:20 PM
Yes Adam Curry should own the name "Podcast" since he is the one that coined the term.
Thank you very much, I was worried that I would read this whole thread and no-one would know about Adam Curry. Him and his friend came up with the name a long time ago ago and theoretically it was the first "podacst" ever.
Also, Apple is being very ignorant here. Its not called an iPodcast, so how on earth can they clame that anything with the word "pod" in it must refer to the iPod. Absolute BS, grow up Apple.
Thank you very much, I was worried that I would read this whole thread and no-one would know about Adam Curry. Him and his friend came up with the name a long time ago ago and theoretically it was the first "podacst" ever.
Also, Apple is being very ignorant here. Its not called an iPodcast, so how on earth can they clame that anything with the word "pod" in it must refer to the iPod. Absolute BS, grow up Apple.
racer1441
Apr 24, 08:23 PM
15 inch version.
Price is no problem.
Price is no problem.
Apple OC
May 2, 07:54 PM
Genetic tests for identification usually take up to 5-10 days, but usually more than 2. Technology. heh.
on a mission like this ... you bring the "Lab" with you
on a mission like this ... you bring the "Lab" with you
Compufix
Sep 20, 06:01 PM
You can't boot XP from CD on a Mac. You can't you can't you can't. The Mac boots using EFI, which XP doesn't support.
You need to use Boot Camp to install it, as legacy BIOS emulation has to be loaded specifically for XP.
No...the EFI room supports BIOS emulation. Bootcamp is nothing more than a GUI to access the Disk Utility to resize the HD partition, Set the proper Boot volume, and burn a Driver CD.
You can totally install XP without even installing Bootcamp, however you do need the drivers.
If you boot and hold the option key down then insert the XP cd, you WILL see it there, and you CAN boot from it. However you will need to have the HD's partitioned and set up ahead of time, and the BootCamp utility makes that easier.
The BIOS emulation is a feature built into EFI...Apple had it disabled on the MacBook Pro, and the first firmware upgrade enabled it, and since then Apple has had it enabled on all current models.
You need to use Boot Camp to install it, as legacy BIOS emulation has to be loaded specifically for XP.
No...the EFI room supports BIOS emulation. Bootcamp is nothing more than a GUI to access the Disk Utility to resize the HD partition, Set the proper Boot volume, and burn a Driver CD.
You can totally install XP without even installing Bootcamp, however you do need the drivers.
If you boot and hold the option key down then insert the XP cd, you WILL see it there, and you CAN boot from it. However you will need to have the HD's partitioned and set up ahead of time, and the BootCamp utility makes that easier.
The BIOS emulation is a feature built into EFI...Apple had it disabled on the MacBook Pro, and the first firmware upgrade enabled it, and since then Apple has had it enabled on all current models.
ejfontenot
Apr 2, 09:46 PM
Just sold my used 16g wifi, getting a white 32g 3G ATT from ms connection Tuesday. Anyone wanna trade this for an unopened black one?
0 comments:
Post a Comment