«

"Bobs" <> wrote in message
news:485c486f$...
> http://blogs.nzherald.co.nz/blog/mac.../?c_id=1501832
>
> What a cretin. I especially like this bit
>
> "I don't have time to support another type of computer" or "It won't
> integrate!" "It's not on our program for software support!"
>
> The looks on their faces when someone like me plugs in a MacBook, says
> "Great, I'm online. Of these printers my Mac can already see on your
> network, which one should I use?" is comical to say the least. Poor
> things. How dare a damn Mac user so casually deal to their mana?
>
> ******
>
> So this tosser just connects his laptop to a corporate lan despite the
> person in charge of it, saying no? The look on their faces in probably one
> of utter amazement that this guy thinks it's perfectly acceptable to plug
> in a networked device onto a lan despite not having permission to do so.

Lol, the guy is a total tool. Macs don't work properly on Exchange mail
server, and many intranet based apps these days REQUIRE IE. IE on the Mac
hasn't been updated for years and is almost non functional.

As far as running Windows goes, well then it's a pc isn't it. Given that
Apple have given up on their own inferior (and always have been) cpus and
dodgy benchmarking the only thing distinguishing them from a pc now is the
OS. And if that OS is Windows then I'd call it a PC made by Apple, given
that all the hardware is now mainstream PC hardware.

J&H.

In <485c7bf2$> Jekyll and Hyde wrote:

> Lol, the guy is a total tool. Macs don't work properly on Exchange
> mail server, and many intranet based apps these days REQUIRE IE. IE
> on the Mac hasn't been updated for years and is almost non functional.

So, much like the Windows version then? :-p

> As far as running Windows goes, well then it's a pc isn't it. Given
> that Apple have given up on their own inferior (and always have been)
> cpus

The PowerPC CPU (Apple had a hand in it, but it was mainly Motorola and
IBM) was always a much better design than Intel's x86. For some brief
periods it was even faster (both in clock speeds and real world
performance, not just benchmarks or specialised tasks) than anything in
the PC world e.g. some of the 604e and G3 chips. Unfortunately Motorola
and IBM both failed to keep up with Intel's spending. Everyone in the
1990s was predicting the demise of the x86, but never considered that
Intel and their cloners would be willing to spend billions of dollars
fixing the x86 design.

> and dodgy benchmarking

Oh, there were some doozies.

> the only thing distinguishing them from a
> pc now is the OS. And if that OS is Windows then I'd call it a PC
> made by Apple, given that all the hardware is now mainstream PC
> hardware.
>
> J&H.

The Mac hardware platform existed for one reason and one reason only: to
run the Mac OS. Apple has been replacing their custom hardware with
generic PC hardware bit by bit since the Mac was released, as soon as
the PC hardware was good enough.

--
Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand -> http://roger.geek.nz

Freesias wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 18:26:48 +1200, sam wrote:
>
>>> All Web Applications should be browser agnostic, and should conform to
>>> the published W3C standards.
>>>
>>>
>> An intranet isn't the web
>
> If it uses a web browser, and if the pages are served from a web server,
> then the application should conform to all published W3C standards.
>
>
Why?

Freesias <> wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 05:47:31 +0000, Roger Johnstone wrote:
>
> > Everyone in the
> > 1990s was predicting the demise of the x86, but never considered that
> > Intel and their cloners would be willing to spend billions of dollars
> > fixing the x86 design.
>
> Has it been fixed? or just worked around?
>
> I thought that all x86 chips are fully backwards compatible all the way
> back to the original 4-bit Intel CPU.

No, definitely doesn't go back further than the 8088/8086. The next
older one (8080) has a different register architecture and incompatible
machine code, but translation of assembly language source code isn't too
hard because the 8086 is generally a superset of the 8080.

Still, that's compatibile all the way back to the late 1970s.

--
David Empson

sam <> wrote:

> Roger Johnstone wrote:
> > The Mac hardware platform existed for one reason and one reason only: to
> > run the Mac OS. Apple has been replacing their custom hardware with
> > generic PC hardware bit by bit since the Mac was released, as soon as
> > the PC hardware was good enough.
>
> So whats happened to the PowerPC ?

Used in every major game console (XBox 360, Playstation 3, Nintendo Wii)
- all different variants but based on the PowerPC architecture.

IBM seemingly weren't interested in advancing the PowerPC G5 fast enough
to get sufficient performance boosts for Apple's high-end workstations
(best was the 2.5 GHz dual-core G5, which was about two years after the
original top-end G5 was 2.0 GHz; there was a 2.7 GHz single core model
along the way).

IBM never got the power/heat down far enough to allow a G5 to be used in
a laptop, so Apple was forced to stick with G4 processors for its iBook
and PowerBook (and Mac Mini).

Motorola was dragging the chain on improving the G4, which in Apple's
high-end laptops went from 500 MHz in early 2001 up to 1 GHz by late
2002, 1.33 GHz was the best a year later, and the fastest they got (in
Apple laptops) was 1.67 GHz for all of 2005 (while the G5 was around the
2 to 2.5 GHz mark, and faster at the same clock speed).

Switching to Intel at the start of 2006 made a huge difference. iMacs
were about twice as fast (dual core), MacBook Pros almost four times
faster (dual core and on a par with the iMac), and the quad core Mac Pro
(Xeon) was significantly faster than the best quad core PowerMac G5.

--
David Empson

In <1iiwx8q.cx638pqjekv7N%> David Empson wrote:
> sam <> wrote:
>
>> Roger Johnstone wrote:
>> > The Mac hardware platform existed for one reason and one reason
>> > only: to run the Mac OS. Apple has been replacing their custom
>> > hardware with generic PC hardware bit by bit since the Mac was
>> > released, as soon as the PC hardware was good enough.
>>
>> So whats happened to the PowerPC ?
>
> Used in every major game console (XBox 360, Playstation 3, Nintendo
> Wii) - all different variants but based on the PowerPC architecture.
>
> IBM seemingly weren't interested in advancing the PowerPC G5 fast
> enough to get sufficient performance boosts for Apple's high-end
> workstations (best was the 2.5 GHz dual-core G5, which was about two
> years after the original top-end G5 was 2.0 GHz; there was a 2.7 GHz
> single core model along the way).

WWDC 2003: G5 2.0 GHz. Promised 3 GHz within a year. Cheers from crowd.
WWDC 2004: G5 2.5 GHz. Apology from Steve Jobs.
WWDC 2005: We're switching to Intel.

There is no way Steve Jobs would have made a public promise that Apple
would be shipping a 3 GHz CPU within one year unless he had a firm
reassurance from IBM that they could do it. Embarrasing Steve Jobs is
the last mistake you'll ever make if you want to do business with Apple.

--
Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand -> http://roger.geek.nz

In <485ceea9$> EMB wrote:
> Freesias wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 18:26:48 +1200, sam wrote:
>>
>>>> All Web Applications should be browser agnostic, and should conform
>>>> to the published W3C standards.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> An intranet isn't the web
>>
>> If it uses a web browser, and if the pages are served from a web
>> server, then the application should conform to all published W3C
>> standards.
>
> Why?

I came across this blog entry just yesterday:

Apple's MobileMe drops support for IE 6
http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/1...drops-support-
for-ie-6

Hardly shocking that Apple wouldn't support an old version of IE, but
the comments are more interesting.

~~~~~~
Lazlo 10 Jun 08
On the open web, IE is a ?web browser?. On tens of thousands of
intranets, IE is a ?web browser? and an application platform.

With Microsoft?s hearty encouragement, enterprise customers have spent
billions of dollars developing applications for that platform. Because
most of these applications were designed during the IE6 era (which
lasted over five years), and were written for a captive audience that
was guaranteed to have IE6 , they frequently rely on behaviors specific
to IE6 . Web-focused developers will sneer at this, but application
development isn?t web development. If you?re writing Mac applications,
you don?t ignore all the Mac-specific features and APIs available to you
on the off chance you might want to do a Windows version someday.

Along comes IE7 . It can?t peacefully coexist with IE6 so enterprise
customers have two options: stick with IE6 , or test/fix every app that
relies on IE to ensure that it works under IE7 . And the latter path
requires another choice: you either limit the fixes to stuff that works
in both IE6 and IE7 , or you get to deploy all the application changes
simultaneously, while deploying IE7 to every single desktop in the
entire organization at the exact same time. And if anything mission-
critical breaks as a result, you get to back it all out again. Every
last application, every last desktop.

Not a lot of orgs have hundreds of thousands/millions of dollars to burn
on development and QA just so they can have the exact same business
functionality on a slightly more up-to-date platform.
~~~~~~
Anonymous Coward 13 Jun 08
I can?t believe I work for one of the large corporations who are still
using IE6 (as standard), because some apps are not compatible with IE7 . ?
The crazy thing is, I can?t believe the software policy is to support a
particular browser (IE6) rather than web standards themselves.

When we finally upgrade to IE7 the software policy will be to support
IE7 . ? The problem will start all over again when IE8 is released ?
most likely breaking support for some sites written specifically for IE7 .
~~~~~~

--
Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand -> http://roger.geek.nz

In <485db468$> sam wrote:
> Roger Johnstone wrote:
>> In <1iiwx8q.cx638pqjekv7N%> David Empson wrote:
>>> sam <> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Roger Johnstone wrote:
>>>>> The Mac hardware platform existed for one reason and one reason
>>>>> only: to run the Mac OS. Apple has been replacing their custom
>>>>> hardware with generic PC hardware bit by bit since the Mac was
>>>>> released, as soon as the PC hardware was good enough.
>>>> So whats happened to the PowerPC ?
>>> Used in every major game console (XBox 360, Playstation 3, Nintendo
>>> Wii) - all different variants but based on the PowerPC architecture.
>>>
>>> IBM seemingly weren't interested in advancing the PowerPC G5 fast
>>> enough to get sufficient performance boosts for Apple's high-end
>>> workstations (best was the 2.5 GHz dual-core G5, which was about two
>>> years after the original top-end G5 was 2.0 GHz; there was a 2.7 GHz
>>> single core model along the way).
>>
>> WWDC 2003: G5 2.0 GHz. Promised 3 GHz within a year. Cheers from
>> crowd. WWDC 2004: G5 2.5 GHz. Apology from Steve Jobs. WWDC 2005:
>> We're switching to Intel. There is no way Steve Jobs would have made
>> a public promise that Apple would be shipping a 3 GHz CPU within one
>> year unless he had a firm reassurance from IBM that they could do it.
>> Embarrasing Steve Jobs is the last mistake you'll ever make if you
>> want to do business with Apple.
>
> All hail SJ
> Don't you get sick of all the hero worship ?

Do I detect a touch of sarcasm? My crack about Steve's shunning was a
funny comment demonstrating the way he does business. Do a web search
for Mercurial CEO and half the hits will be about Steve Jobs. I didn't
see any hero worshipping, although I do think he's done a fantastic job
resurrecting Apple over the past 10 years though, and as a Mac user I
appreciate that since it means my OS of choice is no longer under threat
of disappearing in the foreseeable future.

--
Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand -> http://roger.geek.nz

thingy wrote:
> Jekyll and Hyde wrote:
>> "Bobs" <> wrote in message
>> news:485c486f$...
>>> http://blogs.nzherald.co.nz/blog/mac.../?c_id=1501832
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What a cretin. I especially like this bit
>>>
>>> "I don't have time to support another type of computer" or "It
>>> won't integrate!" "It's not on our program for software support!"
>>>
>>>
>>> The looks on their faces when someone like me plugs in a MacBook,
>>> says "Great, I'm online. Of these printers my Mac can already
>>> see on your network, which one should I use?" is comical to say
>>> the least. Poor things. How dare a damn Mac user so casually deal
>>> to their mana?
>>>
>>> ******
>>>
>>> So this tosser just connects his laptop to a corporate lan
>>> despite the person in charge of it, saying no? The look on their
>>> faces in probably one of utter amazement that this guy thinks
>>> it's perfectly acceptable to plug in a networked device onto a
>>> lan despite not having permission to do so.
>>
>> Lol, the guy is a total tool. Macs don't work properly on Exchange
>> mail server,
>
> So this is a Macs fault? If Windows could get its act together or
> even release the proper specs there would be no issue.
>
I can think of several ways to get a Mac working with Exchange, but
isn't there a version of Office for Macs? That would provide Outlook for
use with Exchange servers.
>
> Its a sad indication of the level of in-competance of IT departments
> that they think they are there for IT, they decide what apps to
> deploy because it suits them....what they should be there for is the
> business.
>
Exchange/Outlook is still by far the best groupware tool out there.
That's why corporate IT departments use them. GroupWise? Ptui!! It's a
pile of manure.

Both Exchange and Outlook really require a Windows platform. Since all
clients will have to have Outlook it makes sense to standardise on
mainly Microsoft apps.

But if you have Windows you can have all the third party benefits,
things like Ghost for cloning machines, and other non-Microsoft apps
that people have written.
>
>> and many intranet based apps these days REQUIRE IE. IE on the Mac
>> hasn't been updated for years and is almost non functional.
>
> If you are relying on a web based tool that only works properly in IE
> then you are a fool.
>
Cheers,

Cliff

--

Have you ever noticed that if something is advertised as 'amusing' or
'hilarious', it usually isn't?

"thingy" <> wrote in message
news:485dcf5b$...
> Jekyll and Hyde wrote:
>> "Bobs" <> wrote in message
>> news:485c486f$...
>>> http://blogs.nzherald.co.nz/blog/mac.../?c_id=1501832
>>>
>>> What a cretin. I especially like this bit
>>>
>>> "I don't have time to support another type of computer" or "It won't
>>> integrate!" "It's not on our program for software support!"
>>>
>>> The looks on their faces when someone like me plugs in a MacBook, says
>>> "Great, I'm online. Of these printers my Mac can already see on your
>>> network, which one should I use?" is comical to say the least. Poor
>>> things. How dare a damn Mac user so casually deal to their mana?
>>>
>>> ******
>>>
>>> So this tosser just connects his laptop to a corporate lan despite the
>>> person in charge of it, saying no? The look on their faces in probably
>>> one of utter amazement that this guy thinks it's perfectly acceptable to
>>> plug in a networked device onto a lan despite not having permission to
>>> do so.
>>
>> Lol, the guy is a total tool. Macs don't work properly on Exchange mail
>> server,
>
> So this is a Macs fault? If Windows could get its act together or even
> release the proper specs there would be no issue.
>
> Its a sad indication of the level of in-competance of IT departments that
> they think they are there for IT, they decide what apps to deploy because
> it suits them....what they should be there for is the business.
>
> and many intranet based apps these days REQUIRE IE. IE on the Mac
>> hasn't been updated for years and is almost non functional.
>
> If you are relying on a web based tool that only works properly in IE then
> you are a fool.

So call them fools, but it's the way it is.

>> As far as running Windows goes, well then it's a pc isn't it. Given that
>> Apple have given up on their own inferior (and always have been) cpus
>
> These were IBM's CPUs....and good ones. The architecture is without doubt
> far superior to x86, the x86 is a triumph of development over design....

This WAS true for a short time.

> and
>> dodgy benchmarking the only thing distinguishing them from a pc now is
>> the OS.
>
> and you think Vista is great? poor you....virtually no enterprise business
> is now seriously looking at Vista, its a dead duck...
> And if that OS is Windows then I'd call it a PC made by Apple,

No, I hate Vista with a vengeance and personally refer to it as "Fister"
(explicit connatation intended).

> Considering that in some circles its considered that the best hardware to
> run Windows on is a mac book that's a sad indication of the PC market.
>
> given
>> that all the hardware is now mainstream PC hardware.
>>
>> J&H.
>
> Just shows that the hardware really does not matter for most people....

I always wondered how the Mac camp would cope with the change to Intel.
Having only months earlier been repeatedly told by Apple and Jobs they were
running the most advanced, fastest, and best cpu's on Earth, but the Intel
cpu's were going to double that performance. How would they deal with this
inconguity? Well they ignore it completely, that's how, luckily false
advertising isn't illegal in the USA.

J&H.
>
> regards
>
> Thing
>