Pirates of Silicon Valley

[tomwell]

Hi guys just watched the film Pirates of Silicon valley, it describes the rise and should i say Fall of Steve jobs... Its very entertaining i perosnaly think but Having seen it i am now in a new found state with regards to apple computer inc...

I think Steve Jobs Is a freak!!! Perhaps very talented but a FREAK nonetheless, i can say that about Mr Gates too... But i thought Jobs wasn't such a Wa*&"r...

Anyways use the poll and we will find out what people really think about Apple and Jobs with regards to there attitude(not there great computer design) as a designer i think they are works of art... but man is he a Tos%*r...

Peace

Tom

[gord]

arr me hartys! hand over all ye chips and bits or face me sword!

[tomwell]

Sorry i had not seen the poll refreshed as i posted i saw your vote...lol

sorry..

Peace

Tom

[23meg]

As an antidote of sorts you should watch Revolution OS as well.

[tomwell]

Will do 23meg...

In fact going to look it up straight away...

Pirates of silicon valley is quite fun i can only imagine people on here liking it...Its recounts how Mr gates stole windows from Apple and how apple got it free of charge from Xerox...

Its fun but man he is a freak !!!

LOL

Peace

Tom

[macewan]

I think Steve Jobs Is a freak!!! Perhaps very talented but a FREAK nonetheless, i can say that about Mr Gates too...

Tom

everyones a freak in so way to someone else, but go into the streets of London or NYC and look for the people rocking to their own world. Those mini bricks plugged into peoples ears will more than likely be iPods. And who in here doesn't want an iMac?

;)

[prizrak]

I have said for many many years that we are lucky Mr. Gates is the one who got the monopoly. Apple is much, much worse in terms of a monopoly. While Gates wants us to use his OS with his software we can still use other software even on Windows. If it were Apple we would be stuck with Jobs's OS, Jobs's hardware and Jobs's software all in one and there might not even have been Linux if Apple was the one who won out.
Xerox is the dumbest company alive I have so much hate for them. Back in the 70's they had a GUI driven PC with a mouse, a WYSIWYG editor and ethernet interface and they gave it away for no reason whatsoever.

[Linux BASHer]

Its recounts how Mr gates stole windows from Apple and how apple got it free of charge from Xerox...

Apple did not get it "free of charge". In fact, they paid Xerox a sum of money for it, and many Xerox employees who wanted to see their work come to life went to work for Apple.

[Linux BASHer]

I have said for many many years that we are lucky Mr. Gates is the one who got the monopoly. Apple is much, much worse in terms of a monopoly. While Gates wants us to use his OS with his software we can still use other software even on Windows. If it were Apple we would be stuck with Jobs's OS, Jobs's hardware and Jobs's software all in one and there might not even have been Linux if Apple was the one who won out.
Xerox is the dumbest company alive I have so much hate for them. Back in the 70's they had a GUI driven PC with a mouse, a WYSIWYG editor and ethernet interface and they gave it away for no reason whatsoever.

You seem to be suffering from some delusions. I, in no way, consider it lucky that an unethical, power-hungry man like Gates holds the monopoly on OS and Office software. Jobs, at least has a vision, although he isn't my favorite person either, and I would not have liked him to be the head of a monopoly either. But it is Jobs' very vision that holds him back from having a monopoly.

Apple makes good products, and I am happy to see them as an option. I even hope Macintosh market share rises. But NO COMPANY should hold a monopoly in the computing business.

Xerox did try to market it's computer, the Star, but failed. They were good inventors, but not good marketers. Thus, most of the development team left to Apple to see their dreams realise.

[tomwell]

Was Unaware of the fact they had paid for it... even if they had "good investment" lol

If its a choice between having Mr gates as Monopoly leader or Mr Jobs I choose Gates... All though i would still want to have the creativity of Apple they do make some nice looking objects...!!! lol

Macewan, I do not have a Macintosh computer never have owned one used them loads but dont like em, and now i have discovered Linux would never want one... Unless it was running Linux... LOL

It looks like Jobs is a bit of a freak...

Peace to all

Tom

[prizrak]

You seem to be suffering from some delusions. I, in no way, consider it lucky that an unethical, power-hungry man like Gates holds the monopoly on OS and Office software. Jobs, at least has a vision, although he isn't my favorite person either, and I would not have liked him to be the head of a monopoly either. But it is Jobs' very vision that holds him back from having a monopoly.

Apple makes good products, and I am happy to see them as an option. I even hope Macintosh market share rises. But NO COMPANY should hold a monopoly in the computing business.

Xerox did try to market it's computer, the Star, but failed. They were good inventors, but not good marketers. Thus, most of the development team left to Apple to see their dreams realise.
Simple fact is that at the time everything was going on there was an inevitable monopoly. If IBM didn't come out with their open architecture and MS with DOS Apple would have been the monopoly. There is no question about a Monopoly being bad, however an MS monopoly is by far much better than the Apple monopoly. Our x86 PCs run on open architecture that any of us with the required skill can create OS's and programs for (well if you were to bypass the OS and talk directly to the hardware). If we had an Apple monopoly we wouldn't even be able to chose our hardware the way we do now. So yes we are lucky that Gates was the one who won, vision or no visions he is the lesser evil.

[tomwell]

So yes we are lucky that Gates was the one who won, vision or no visions he is the lesser evil.

Amen

[jeremy]

I haven't voted because I've seen the film and thought it was neither here nor there. Gates is a wanker, and Jobs can't handle his acid too well.

[blueturtl]

If it were Apple we would be stuck with Jobs's OS, Jobs's hardware and Jobs's software all in one and there might not even have been Linux if Apple was the one who won out.

This is pure nonsence. Do you honestly think that had Apple become more popular in the homes PCs would have been wiped out? Apple would have automatically become a monopoly? Of course not! Apple aims at being an easy to use home computer whilst PC in it's original design was intended for geeks and those who require customized systems. Had Apple won over Microsoft we wouldn't still be teaching our siblings to use computers, going over to grandma's to wipe out giant virus farms or generally complaining about how things still don't work.

Your claim would only be true if we could also say that there can only be one. The fact that Apple is still in business proves this wrong.

Microsoft has enslaved the PC. They know if they made computers (like Apple does) nobody would buy them because Apple would have their asses. This is why they ride on the tops of custom technology built for them by a horde of hardware vendors. While PC tech is able to compete with Apple's hardware, the software obviously does not, unless you use something like Linux that shows what the true power of PC is: modularity, customizability, and openness. Microsoft is none of these things and thus it does not belong in the PC market.


While Gates wants us to use his OS with his software we can still use other software even on Windows.
Every step of the way Microsoft has hindered the user's choice on software on the desktop. This is the reason I moved to Linux.

Oh yeah, and the movie was nice :p

[tomwell]

This is pure nonsence. Do you honestly think that had Apple become more popular in the homes PCs would have been wiped out?

Well I think that Had Steve Jobs been in Bill gates shoes, he would be twice the monopolistic bastard that Gates is... I mean look at the Personal Music player wolrd...

Macs are no more than over priced pcs running Unix...!!! in my opinion (and they are well designed...)
I'd choose anyday a fast powerful pc with linux over a mac...


Oh yeah, and the movie was nice :p

It was a cool movie!!!

With regards to Steve's "bad Handling" of his acid trips, i think that to have the kinda visions he has means he would be going pretty far exploring the outer regions of acid space...!!

Peace

Tom

[prizrak]

This is pure nonsence.
Such claims require backup.

Do you honestly think that had Apple become more popular in the homes PCs would have been wiped out? Apple would have automatically become a monopoly? Of course not!
And why not? The only competing architectures back in the day and even now are Apple and x86 save for mainframe machines.

Apple aims at being an easy to use home computer whilst PC in it's original design was intended for geeks and those who require customized systems.
Do you not see how that is similar to Windows and Linux? Yet Linux still doesn't enjoy a significant market share on the desktop market. If you remember back in pre Windows days Apple was actually a more popular platform for home users because it was easier to deal with. Then Windows came out and all of a sudden you could get a real cheap and upgradeable computer that was pretty easy.

Had Apple won over Microsoft we wouldn't still be teaching our siblings to use computers, going over to grandma's to wipe out giant virus farms or generally complaining about how things still don't work.
Are you sure about that? If Apple was a monopoly it would act exactly like MS, in fact if you don't remember every single Mac OS up till OS X sucked and was alot less stable than even Windows. The only reason Apple even decided to go with a Unix based OS was because it was trying to compete with MS so they basically took what was known to be a stable, secure and quick OS and customized it to their liking while putting a pretty face on it. The only thing I might give you is that it would be easier to use.

Your claim would only be true if we could also say that there can only be one. The fact that Apple is still in business proves this wrong.
Desktop market share of Windows OS is 95% case closed. Apple is in business for other reasons than their computers. If a cheap modular architecture such as x86 with a fairly easy to use OS such as Windows didn't come around Apple would have had the 90+% market share on desktops right now it's a simple fact.

Microsoft has enslaved the PC. They know if they made computers (like Apple does) nobody would buy them because Apple would have their asses. This is why they ride on the tops of custom technology built for them by a horde of hardware vendors. While PC tech is able to compete with Apple's hardware, the software obviously does not, unless you use something like Linux that shows what the true power of PC is: modularity, customizability, and openness. Microsoft is none of these things and thus it does not belong in the PC market.
Apple would not have their asses in any way shape or form especially now. You can argue over software being better or worse, but the hardware is still open. If you have a problem with openness than why would you even consider Apple? Even their hardware is proprietary not to mention the software. Does Windows suck? In it's implementation and defaults it ships with yes. Does MS suck? Most definetly. However what you need to remember is that ANY corporation that achieves a top position will do everything to stay on top. You can see it in other industries just the same as you see it in the computer industry, even in the computer industry the big players use their size to leverage the industry. Take Symantec as an example, they have been buying up companies left and right latest being Sygate. They are trying to keep the competition down to the usual suspects. The reason any corporation exists is to make profit, in fact a corporation is mandated by law to increase its shareholders wealth. You can take to court any company that you feel is not engaging in activities that maximize your wealth as the shareholder and you can forcibly change their management.
If you think that Apple wouldn't do what MS is doing now and binding you to their product you are living in a dream world. Simple fact that there is STILL no Quicktime for Linux proves that. Apple could port all of its software to Linux since OS X is nothing but BSD with a pretty interface but they do not. Why do you think that is? Their not altruistic they want you to buy a Mac and an iPod and Quicktime Pro to make movies. The only reason the last two are even ported to Windows is because of how many Windows users there are so the market cannot be ignored. If Apple is as altruistic as you say it is why not port Aqua to Linux and let us all enjoy it? Because then no one would bother buying a Mac, I could get the same functionality with cheaper hardware. (Note: I'm not saying that Aqua has to be free of charge they could sell it)
You really need to wake up and smell the corporate world, Apple is alot more proprietary than MS ever can be and if choosing between the two I will take MS.

[Linux BASHer]

I am sorry to say, but prizrak and tomwell: You are very mistaken. In any case, at the least, you are taking your own assumptions about how things might have been and stating it as fact, in the process ignoring some very key facts and evidence.

First off, Apple is primarily a hardware company, though they churn out substantial quality software titles as well. But this is primarily to sell their hardware. You cannot directly compare Microsoft, a primarily software company (in the computer industry), to Apple.

Your main claim is that if Apple would have gotten to the dominant position that Microsoft is now, Apple would be just as bad. You refer to Gates and Jobs. First off, let me tell you that neither of these men are among my favorite people. The real hero of the story to me is Steve Wozniak.

But, either way, there is a key difference between these two men. They are both business men, but Gates is not an artist. Jobs is. Or at least, he is the one who directs the artists; The one with a vision. Gates has little vision but the way to get more green paper. Now, I'm not saying Jobs is this magical mystical guy, but he has a vision that powers his work, beyond the money. He is passionate about what Apple creates and it shows in the products. You may dismiss this as nonsense, as a non-factor, but I think it is a very important difference in the two companies' philosophies.

Now you claim that if Apple had "won" and gotten to M$'s status, we'd all be forced to use proprietary hardware, and in fact, Microsoft is the "savior" which has liberated us from a would be Apple monopoly, and given us an open platform. This is really absurd.

First off, Microsoft was not the one to give us an open, standard platform. It was IBM. Or was it? Do you think IBM intended to create an "open-platform" (as in open-source)? No!! IBM came out with simple hardware in order to compete with Apple (and others) and with the hopes that other manufacturers could easily, and would, make add ons for it. But IBM's design was so simple to copy that it was copied-- and copied, and copied. IBM didn't hand this out out of the goodness of their corporate heart. IBM's design was copied, plain and simple. IBM DID NOT seek out to create what you call an open-platform, it just turned out that way.

Secondly, Microsoft had little say in what hardware the industry would settle on (or for, given its historical limitations). So, M$ had nothing to do with the x86 platform. M$ only made an (or rather, many) OS for it. It became the dominant OS for a variety of reasons, one being the unethical way in which M$ suppressed, tricked and bought out all its rivals.

Even MS DOS, was not really MS DOS. It was another companies' DOS that MS made minor changes to and re-branded as MS DOS. Even in those days MS was playing dirty, locking other DOS systems out. Then Windows. Microsoft has continued to lock out other OSs. Linux, BeOS, etc.. you name it, have been unfairly, unethically blocked from being pre-loaded and sold by hardware makers who have a Windows license.

In addition, this OS has on many occasions found to have a preference against competing software (such as Netscape). It is an OS with is NOT open, an OS that SPIES on its users and contains ZERO Open-Source. This is a company that has gone out of its way to unfairly discredit Open-Source by all means available at its disposal, even claiming that Open-Source software helps terrorists.

So, tell me again please, just HOW has M$ liberated you? It certainly hasn't liberated me or any people I know. Microsoft merely expertly took advantage of the situation; It cheated and played its cards right. It is thanks to Microsoft that most other commercial operating systems have failed. Microsoft has denied the people the opportunity for something better. It has caused stagnation in the industry, in my view. What monopoly doesn't cause stagnation? Even now, Linux is not as used as it could be-- It is not in the hands of as many people as it could be. Simply because of Microsoft.

The only reason that Open-Source continues and prevails is that is not contained, like a single commercial product. This is why Microsoft can't snuff it out, can't fight it, or exhaust its resources. There are just too many people around the world developing for it. This is why Linux and Open-Source is our best bet against Microsoft.

Now, had Apple gotten to M$'s market share, as is Apple's business model, it would have never become a Microsoft, simply because the it is a hardware company. I don't think Apple would have had the opportunity (if even the desire) to exploit and abuse others the way Microsoft has, simply because of the differences in business models. In fact, I don't think Apple could have gotten to that level of market share. I'll tell you what I think would have happened:

At some point, another company would have come along. Maybe it would have been the Amiga, or another unknown company. And, eventually the market would have split. Apple could not have used the same dirty strategies that M$ employed because the Macintosh hardware must be made by Apple. Even with licensees, Apple could have dictated terms on Mac-compatibles, but not on other hardware (which is clearly unrelated). Eventually, there would have been two or four major platforms, and perhaps Open-Source would have taken off on one or all of them.

Of course, this is speculation. But, let's look at what Apple has really done today. The Mac, so far, has no truly invasive DRM (I'm sorry, but the iTunes DRM is probably the least offensive out there, even though I don't support any DRM.-- The Mac does not "call home" or spy on you, as XP does), partially Open-Source, and includes many of the (types of) apps that you must pay for separately on Windows.

Apple's iPod sales may be booming today, but it is clearly because of the Mac that Apple has survived. Apple IS primarily a hardware/computer company, and makes its profits off of hardware. It is ridiculous to me that you would "praise" in way way or another that company/OS that has, as blueturtl rightfully put it, enslaved the PC industry while you criticize the company that that has incorporated and, in large part, embraced Open-Source solutions.

The Classic Mac OS was a dependable system for its time. I never had even a fraction of the problems my Windows using friends had at that time. Only around Mac OS 8 and 9 did it become a little long in the tooth, and yes, Apple needed to migrate to more modern technology.

As for Aqua being Open-Source.... If Mac OS X is just BSD with a nice face, why do you care so much about Aqua? The fact is, the Open-Source community had PLENTY of time to come up with something like, or even better than, Aqua and yet it did not; It had to wait YEARS for Apple to come by and do it. Now, I have mentioned various times throughout this article that Apple is a hardware company, and its software is made to complement and enhance its hardware offerings/sales.

Apple worked hard to create Aqua. If it were to simply "give it away" it would lose its advantage, few people would buy Macs and Apple would suffer, probably even close shop eventually. So why would Apple shoot itself in the foot and give away its advantage for free? As far as compatibility, Apple doesn't restrict you from booting another OS. Ubunutu runs on the Mac. And, Apple has said, that Windows and any other x86 compatible system won't be specifically restricted in any form from booting on x86 Macs. So much for the monopoly theory, eh?

[Linux BASHer]

By the way, if you're interested check out Darwin (http://developer.apple.com/darwin/), Mac OS X's Open-Source foundation. Download it and use it. See if Microsoft will let you download any significant part of current Windows source-code.

[poptones]

BM DID NOT seek out to create what you call an open-platform

Wrong. They did exactly this and stated as such - if you will consult some actual written history of the time you will see this "objective fact" repeated over and over.

IBM made the entire platform open because they wanted to encourage hardware add-ons and growth. as a result of this open platform you could even buy motherboards based on the Motorola 68000 that would accept IBM compatible peripherals. IBM's blunder was in assuming it could forever control the platform via the BIOS ROMs.

The rest of it is moot because Apple would never and could never have achived this same success. They did not remain a niche because they couldn't compete with IBM, they remained a niche because Jobs refused to try to compete with IBM. With a closed and proprietary architecture they never stoood a chance, and if it had been opened then Apple would be as dead as IBM's PC business.

[tomwell]

They did not remain a niche because they couldn't compete with IBM, they remained a niche because Jobs refused to try to compete with IBM.

Job refused to try and compete????? err not!!! It was his main goal IBM was the enemy the corporate army of men in suits.... which might i add he later became....He is a total rat just like Gates is...!!!

He hides behind art to deflect from his power greedy nature...

Yes he is a Visionary (by that i mean that he is great at analysing trends, markets, etc...) But he is monopolistic !!!! Just as much as gates is...

Errr who has the biggest online music shop???

That you used to be able to use only on your apple computer??? If you wanted a Ipod you used to have to own a Mac computer...He uses great desing to sell overpriced computers and Hardware... And you knwo what? Thats Fair game!!! But to go as far and say he is NOT as monopolistic as Gates is juts plain blindness caused by the love and admiration of his great designs... LMAO!!!
He sells computers and blatently stops you from using another OS... For gods sake he is the creator of the first commercially used OS!!!!! He doesnt just sell Hardware...lol

As you mentioned in your post he does give you Microsoft software that you need to pay for in windows... But to my knowledge he doesnt quite give it to you ...

Something about a "test drive"??? lol he does use funky names for his stuff:

I this, I that, I see, I dont... ;o)

Anyways its all "hunky dory" I just wanted to know what people thought about the religious cult that is apple??? He is the leader of a Sect... At least that is how he sees life on a day to day basis...

To All

Peace

Tom

[prizrak]

Sorry accidentally double posted........

[prizrak]

LinuxBASHer:
I am sorry you are wrong, I am not taking assumptions. I have a degree in business and I have done countless case studies on many different corporations. Every corporation that gets to the top will use any means necessery to stay there. IBM's hardware was meaningless without an OS, MS was the company that gave them such OS w/e method they used is irrelevant. Now Jobs might be a visionary and an artist, however Apple is not run by Steven Jobs it is run by the board of directors. That board of directors is the body that makes all of the relevant decisions they might be nice enough to consult Mr. Jobs but it is not the requirenment. I can compare MS and Apple both make OS software both make applications, both make hardware actually. I also never said that MS liberated me I simply stated that Apple would have been worse because their paradigm is alot more proprietary than that of MS. The Apple Computers, Inc. makes proprietary hardware than run proprietary OS. It is changing now with their port to Intel but this is now. Back in the good ole days of Pirates of Silicone valley there were two major competing architectures, one was the x86 PC that was a collobaration between IBM (hardware) and MS (software) and the other was Apple (hardware AND software). I maintain that if MS did not come out with the Windows OS in 83-84 (unless my timeline is off this is when the very first version of Windows shipped) Apple could have gotten the upper hand and became the dominant force on the market to the point where a cheaper and more open architecture woulda been marginalized (Linux vs Windows is a great example).
Now do I think MS is great? No, I do not. However if I have a choice between a company that is a software monopoly leaving me with my choice of hardware, and one that is a both software AND hardware monopoly leaving me with no choice whatsoever I will chose the former. If for no other reason than for the fact that an open hardware standard enables you to write your own OS software.
Anyways, this is my last post on the subject as it seems like this particular topic is hitting a little close to emotional for alot of people :)
poptones:
What were you trying to say in your signature it seems like its in Russian but it doesn't make much sense.

[tomwell]

Once again Prizrak, I am totaly agreeing with you on this one...You seem to speak my mind in a much more eloquent way... ;o)

On a side note, I think its in 85 that M$ released there 1st copy of *******...

Peace to all...

T

[Linux BASHer]

IBM made the entire platform open because they wanted to encourage hardware add-ons and growth. as a result of this open platform you could even buy motherboards based on the Motorola 68000 that would accept IBM compatible peripherals. IBM's blunder was in assuming it could forever control the platform via the BIOS ROMs.

In other words, IBM still wanted to maintain control over the platform. How do you think that Apple has traditionally maintained control of the Mac platform? Through the ROM. Compatible PowerPC motherboards ARE available, but they are not as common-place, and Apple made sure no other company could legally copy the ROM, after having previous experiences with the Apple II.

IBM was merely looking to compete in the market, but it is widely accepted that other designs of the time, particularly that of the Apple II and then the Macintosh were superior to that of the IBM PC. That's one of the reasons IBM was not as protective of its platform. IBM did not invest as much in the PC platform as Apple did on its platforms.

tomwell, I don't know what you're writing about. All the software that I know of that comes pre-installed on a new Mac is full version and fully functional.

And prizrak, you are very pessimistic when it comes to companies. Call me crazy, but I actually believe that a company can be founded and managed on more than just profit. In fact, Apple maybe could have been even more profitable just selling PC-clones, but it chose not to, because there is an overall guiding vision. Apple would simply not be Apple if it weren't different and better.

Perhaps this is not the norm, maybe you're right about most companies, but I don't believe every company is like Microsoft at heart.

Apple could never be a monopoly with its Macintosh platform, simply because it is proprietary hardware (which is not totally a bad thing-- I know "proprietary" is a bad word to some people here, but it's not always a bad thing). Other hardware manufactures would have emerged, with different platforms, and eventually one with an open platform. So, I think the idea of an Apple Macintosh monopoly is unlikely and unrealistic, in the past, present or future, real or alternate.

On the other hand, the way I see it, the industry is dominated by this "open hardware", and yet this ogre called Microsoft has taken hold of it, through rather nefarious means, largely denying the world alternative, and in many cases, superior operating systems.

So would I prefer a Microsoft or Apple monopoly? The truth is, I don't consider that question valid or realistic. Apple cold not have become a monopoly the way you imply. Other, alternative or open hardware would have come into being, as it did.

Furthermore, as I have stated, Microsoft is not responsible for this open hardware, but it IS responsible for this software suppression that we are experiencing. So there is absolutely no reason to feel "grateful" or "relieved" for Microsoft, quite the contrary.

I find your thoughts/feelings on the matter rather misplaced. Rather than speculate on how awful Apple could have been, you should instead look at how things are and realize that Apple is promoting and working with Open-Source while Microsoft continues to suppress it.

[poptones]

ROTFL. The Apple II was "superior" to the IBM? the Apple II had 64K of ram and a slow 8 bit processor - it was as doomed as the S100 systems of the day. I loved the 6502 and even wrote a forth os for the system - that doesn't mean it was in any way "superior." If this were so then the Commodore 64 would have been superior to both since it built off the apple II design rationale but had even more power in its onboard peripherals!

Man, you are such a fanboi! I'm sure when the new winmacs come out with DRM up the yingyang you'll find a way to rationalize that into goodness as well.

There's no point in arguing with you - you Jobs worshippers make Scientologists look well balanced.

[KiwiNZ]

Play nice please

[arcanistherogue]

I actually just saw this movie recently also, great movie :D

[prizrak]

I'm gonna switch gears here. Just saw Revolution OS, a pretty good movie, although it wasn't like Pirates, it was more like an actual documentary. Still interesting things are talked about. (It's about the history of FOSS and Linux).

LinuxBASHer:
I guess we both have our opinions that will not be changed. Yes I am VERY pessimistic when it comes to corporate altruism :)

[Iandefor]

I thought it was a fun movie. Not too terribly good, but fun to watch, certainly!

[tomwell]

ROTFL. The Apple II was "superior" to the IBM? the Apple II had 64K of ram and a slow 8 bit processor - it was as doomed as the S100 systems of the day. I loved the 6502 and even wrote a forth os for the system - that doesn't mean it was in any way "superior." If this were so then the Commodore 64 would have been superior to both since it built off the apple II design rationale but had even more power in its onboard peripherals!

Man, you are such a fanboi! I'm sure when the new winmacs come out with DRM up the yingyang you'll find a way to rationalize that into goodness as well.

There's no point in arguing with you - you Jobs worshippers make Scientologists look well balanced.

LMFAO!!!!


Peace

Tom

[earobinson]

Is it a bad thing to be a freak?

[poptones]

I'd say "it's great to be (freak)king."

[tomwell]

There is being a freak, and that can be cool,and then there is being a Fascist (hidding behind the mask of a Hippy) "Control Freak"

Peace

T

[jc87]

I liked the movie very much (seen it twice) , the guy who plays Gates on it is a great actor , he almost looked as evil as the real one:smile:.

By the way , why dont the poll has a option like "How would you rate M$ evil on the movie".

[poptones]

There is being a freak, and that can be cool,and then there is being a Fascist (hidding behind the mask of a Hippy) "Control Freak"

ROTFL. I can't tell if you're talking about Jobs or me...

[tomwell]

There is being a freak, and that can be cool,and then there is being a Fascist (hidding behind the mask of a Hippy) "Control Freak"

ROTFL. I can't tell if you're talking about Jobs or me...

LMAO!!!

You of course ;o)

Peace

T

[Linux BASHer]

ROTFL. The Apple II was "superior" to the IBM? the Apple II had 64K of ram and a slow 8 bit processor[QUOTE]

I mean in architecture, not merely in memory and speed. But that's beside the main point.

[QUOTE=poptones]Man, you are such a fanboi! I'm sure when the new winmacs come out with DRM up the yingyang you'll find a way to rationalize that into goodness as well.

There's no point in arguing with you - you Jobs worshippers make Scientologists look well balanced.

If I were a "fanboi" I wouldn't have anything negative to say about Jobs or Apple, which is quite untrue, if you read my posts. I am a fan, however, of Apple hardware, and I think Jobs has done a pretty good job with Apple so far. However, in no way do I "worship Jobs", or even admire him to the level that I admire Woz, for example.

Now, I do expect the Mactels (or Macintels, but certainly not "winmacs") to come with some sort of mechanism aimed at preventing Mac OS X from running on a regular PC (via some kind of hardware verification, I'm sure). This I can live with. Apple has always done this, in other forms (most notably the copyrighted Macintosh ROM). A ROM by any other name...

However, other uses of invasive DRM I would not support or abide by, as I have said before. I don't even agree with this Intel switch, so no I don't just rationalize and support everything Apple/Jobs does.


LinuxBASHer:
I guess we both have our opinions that will not be changed. Yes I am VERY pessimistic when it comes to corporate altruism :)

Hey, that's okay. We can "agree to disagree", right? In the end, perhaps you're right about companies. Greed is reaching epidemic proportions these days. But, I merely hold on to a little hope that with at least some companies, not everything is about profit.

[kaamos]

Now, I do expect the Mactels (or Macintels, but certainly not "winmacs") to come with some sort of mechanism aimed at preventing Mac OS X from running on a regular PC (via some kind of hardware verification, I'm sure). This I can live with. Apple has always done this, in other forms (most notably the copyrighted Macintosh ROM). A ROM by any other name...

Yes, apple has confirmed that they will prevent running OSX on anything but a mac, but surprise surprise this protection has already been broken. There is even a wiki for installing (http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page). And one of the methods uses an ubuntu live cd.. :D

[aysiu]

I just saw this movie, and it was... interesting. It appeared exaggerated and twisted, but what can you expect from a TV movie based on a true story?

There were some bits I really liked, though.

My favorite moment is the presentation to the NY Xerox executives and the head guy picking up the three-button mouse and just laughing, "What is this? You want us to use something called... a mouse?!! Ha ha ha!"

Another great moment was Steve Wozniak going into Hewlett-Packard and the HP executive saying, "Why would ordinary people want to use a computer?"

A fun movie that leaves a lot of stuff out. Interesting to see the ER guy playing Jobs and the Sixteen Candles guy playing Gates. I was at the Stanford commencement last year and heard Jobs speak about his life... just about everything he mentioned about his past was left out of the movie and very little of what he recounted was included in the movie. About the only overlap was a mention of Oregon...

[Synikk]

A lot of the movie was exaggerated, sure, but it was entertaining nonetheless. The best part was when Gates and Jobs are arguing and Jobs says "We're better than you! We have better stuff!" and Gates says "That doesn't matter!"

Yeah, I don't like Gates or Jobs. They're both pricks, just in different ways.

[aysiu]

Oh, yeah--that part was good, too.

Lots of good one-liners in there that could be applied to criticisms of desktop Linux...