Re: Apple putting Intel CPUs inside

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Alan, Mar 22, 2006.

  1. Alan

    Alan Guest

    "..." <> wrote in message
    news:413Uf.7828$...
    > Hi
    > Plz comment on this i find this is some great plain apple came up
    > with becouse there Computers are soo crap.
    > And the advert saying that the intel CPUs have been traped in dull
    > lil boxs. Im sure thats what apple is doing now to the poor things..
    >
    > What do you think?
    >
    > Cheers Spillage
    >


    Apple's are always going to be aimed at people who 'just want it to
    work' and really don't care about bells and whistles, configurability,
    or any other more 'advanced' user options.

    Basically, the way I see it, an Apple computer is like many modern
    cars. When you open the bonnet, the engine is covered up, and there
    are three or four 'things' that are brightly coloured (oil, water,
    screen wash, etc). It is saying to the 'user':

    "You can touch this, this, and this. You don't know enough about me
    to do anything else, so call a qualified mechanic if you think
    something else needs attention."

    That is why Apple's are perfect for little old ladies, technophobic
    creative types, and anyone else who doesn't want to know how it all
    works.

    Windows sits somewhere in the middle, and most Linux distros are out
    the other end - they are perfect for your petrolhead 'tinkerers' who
    can't resist opening it up to tweak everything and want to know how it
    *all* works.

    That is why the arguments about which is 'best' are pointless - they
    are all 'best' for different people.

    My 2c worth.

    Alan.


    PS: You appear to be about four years behind the rest of us?

    --

    The views expressed are my own, and not those of my employer or anyone
    else associated with me.

    My current valid email address is:



    This is valid as is. It is not munged, or altered at all.

    It will be valid for AT LEAST one month from the date of this post.

    If you are trying to contact me after that time,
    it MAY still be valid, but may also have been
    deactivated due to spam. If so, and you want
    to contact me by email, try searching for a
    more recent post by me to find my current
    email address.

    The following is a (probably!) totally unique
    and meaningless string of characters that you
    can use to find posts by me in a search engine:

    ewygchvboocno43vb674b6nq46tvb
    Alan, Mar 22, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Alan

    Bystander Guest

    In article <Tl3Uf.7835$>,
    "Alan" <> wrote:

    > "..." <> wrote in message
    > news:413Uf.7828$...
    > > Hi
    > > Plz comment on this i find this is some great plain apple came up
    > > with becouse there Computers are soo crap.
    > > And the advert saying that the intel CPUs have been traped in dull
    > > lil boxs. Im sure thats what apple is doing now to the poor things..
    > >
    > > What do you think?
    > >
    > > Cheers Spillage
    > >

    >
    > Apple's are always going to be aimed at people who 'just want it to
    > work' and really don't care about bells and whistles, configurability,
    > or any other more 'advanced' user options.
    >
    > Basically, the way I see it, an Apple computer is like many modern
    > cars. When you open the bonnet, the engine is covered up, and there
    > are three or four 'things' that are brightly coloured (oil, water,
    > screen wash, etc). It is saying to the 'user':
    >
    > "You can touch this, this, and this. You don't know enough about me
    > to do anything else, so call a qualified mechanic if you think
    > something else needs attention."
    >
    > That is why Apple's are perfect for little old ladies, technophobic
    > creative types, and anyone else who doesn't want to know how it all
    > works.
    >
    > Windows sits somewhere in the middle, and most Linux distros are out
    > the other end - they are perfect for your petrolhead 'tinkerers' who
    > can't resist opening it up to tweak everything and want to know how it
    > *all* works.
    >
    > That is why the arguments about which is 'best' are pointless - they
    > are all 'best' for different people.
    >
    > My 2c worth.
    >
    > Alan.
    >


    The fact that Mac OSX is entirely Unix, includes a full range of Unix
    console-based tools with every installation, along with Apache, Perl,
    Python, the latest version of Java and (optionally at no extra cost) a
    complete suite of developer tools, all helps improve its appeal to
    little old ladies and other technophobes, I suppose?

    Having the whole thing wrapped in a user interface that does things
    Microsoft won't match until some time next year just restricts your
    options, no doubt.

    Damn Apple, they're just not serious about computers!
    --
    Bystander
    Bystander, Mar 25, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Alan

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Bystander wrote:
    > In article <Tl3Uf.7835$>,
    > "Alan" <> wrote:
    >
    >> "..." <> wrote in message
    >> news:413Uf.7828$...
    >>> Hi
    >>> Plz comment on this i find this is some great plain apple came up
    >>> with becouse there Computers are soo crap.
    >>> And the advert saying that the intel CPUs have been traped in dull
    >>> lil boxs. Im sure thats what apple is doing now to the poor things..
    >>>
    >>> What do you think?
    >>>
    >>> Cheers Spillage
    >>>

    >>
    >> Apple's are always going to be aimed at people who 'just want it to
    >> work' and really don't care about bells and whistles,
    >> configurability, or any other more 'advanced' user options.
    >>
    >> Basically, the way I see it, an Apple computer is like many modern
    >> cars. When you open the bonnet, the engine is covered up, and there
    >> are three or four 'things' that are brightly coloured (oil, water,
    >> screen wash, etc). It is saying to the 'user':
    >>
    >> "You can touch this, this, and this. You don't know enough about me
    >> to do anything else, so call a qualified mechanic if you think
    >> something else needs attention."
    >>
    >> That is why Apple's are perfect for little old ladies, technophobic
    >> creative types, and anyone else who doesn't want to know how it all
    >> works.
    >>
    >> Windows sits somewhere in the middle, and most Linux distros are out
    >> the other end - they are perfect for your petrolhead 'tinkerers' who
    >> can't resist opening it up to tweak everything and want to know how
    >> it *all* works.
    >>
    >> That is why the arguments about which is 'best' are pointless - they
    >> are all 'best' for different people.
    >>
    >> My 2c worth.
    >>
    >> Alan.
    >>

    >
    > The fact that Mac OSX is entirely Unix, includes a full range of Unix
    > console-based tools with every installation, along with Apache, Perl,
    > Python, the latest version of Java and (optionally at no extra cost) a
    > complete suite of developer tools, all helps improve its appeal to
    > little old ladies and other technophobes, I suppose?
    >
    > Having the whole thing wrapped in a user interface that does things
    > Microsoft won't match until some time next year just restricts your
    > options, no doubt.
    >
    > Damn Apple, they're just not serious about computers!


    I just wish it ran on PC hardware. I have a small LAN that I've built up
    over the years from largely donated or bartered parts. Can't afford to
    change my hardware.
    --
    ~Shaun~
    ~misfit~, Mar 26, 2006
    #3
  4. Alan

    RJ Guest

    In article <e04brg$1vn$>, lid
    says...
    > In article <Tl3Uf.7835$>,
    > "Alan" <> wrote:
    >
    > > "..." <> wrote in message
    > > news:413Uf.7828$...
    > > > Hi
    > > > Plz comment on this i find this is some great plain apple came up
    > > > with becouse there Computers are soo crap.
    > > > And the advert saying that the intel CPUs have been traped in dull
    > > > lil boxs. Im sure thats what apple is doing now to the poor things..
    > > >
    > > > What do you think?
    > > >
    > > > Cheers Spillage
    > > >

    > >
    > > Apple's are always going to be aimed at people who 'just want it to
    > > work' and really don't care about bells and whistles, configurability,
    > > or any other more 'advanced' user options.
    > >
    > > Basically, the way I see it, an Apple computer is like many modern
    > > cars. When you open the bonnet, the engine is covered up, and there
    > > are three or four 'things' that are brightly coloured (oil, water,
    > > screen wash, etc). It is saying to the 'user':
    > >
    > > "You can touch this, this, and this. You don't know enough about me
    > > to do anything else, so call a qualified mechanic if you think
    > > something else needs attention."
    > >
    > > That is why Apple's are perfect for little old ladies, technophobic
    > > creative types, and anyone else who doesn't want to know how it all
    > > works.
    > >
    > > Windows sits somewhere in the middle, and most Linux distros are out
    > > the other end - they are perfect for your petrolhead 'tinkerers' who
    > > can't resist opening it up to tweak everything and want to know how it
    > > *all* works.
    > >
    > > That is why the arguments about which is 'best' are pointless - they
    > > are all 'best' for different people.
    > >
    > > My 2c worth.
    > >
    > > Alan.
    > >

    >
    > The fact that Mac OSX is entirely Unix,


    No it's not.
    RJ, Mar 26, 2006
    #4
  5. Alan

    Bystander Guest

    In article <>,
    RJ <> wrote:

    > In article <e04brg$1vn$>, lid
    > says...


    ..
    ..
    ..

    > > The fact that Mac OSX is entirely Unix,

    >
    > No it's not.


    Well, yes it is.

    Or do you have some eye-wateringly lame nit-picking you want to do on
    the topic?
    --
    Bystander
    Bystander, Mar 26, 2006
    #5
  6. Alan

    Bruce Hoult Guest

    In article <e05ksk$d9t$>,
    Bystander <> wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > RJ <> wrote:
    >
    > > In article <e04brg$1vn$>, lid
    > > says...

    >
    > .
    > .
    > .
    >
    > > > The fact that Mac OSX is entirely Unix,

    > >
    > > No it's not.

    >
    > Well, yes it is.
    >
    > Or do you have some eye-wateringly lame nit-picking you want to do on
    > the topic?


    Unlike Apple's previous Mac/Unix hybrid operating system, A/UX, OS X is
    not certified as a Unix by The Open Group, currently custodians of the
    Unix trademark.

    --
    Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
    Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------
    Bruce Hoult, Mar 26, 2006
    #6
  7. Alan

    RJ Guest

    In article <e05ksk$d9t$>, lid
    says...
    > In article <>,
    > RJ <> wrote:
    >
    > > In article <e04brg$1vn$>, lid
    > > says...

    >
    > .
    > .
    > .
    >
    > > > The fact that Mac OSX is entirely Unix,

    > >
    > > No it's not.

    >
    > Well, yes it is.


    Well no, because Apple's proprietary parts of the Mac OSX, obviously,
    are not Unix.
    RJ, Mar 26, 2006
    #7
  8. Alan

    Bystander Guest

    In article <>,
    Bruce Hoult <> wrote:

    > In article <e05ksk$d9t$>,
    > Bystander <> wrote:
    >
    > > In article <>,
    > > RJ <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > In article <e04brg$1vn$>, lid
    > > > says...

    > >
    > > .
    > > .
    > > .
    > >
    > > > > The fact that Mac OSX is entirely Unix,
    > > >
    > > > No it's not.

    > >
    > > Well, yes it is.
    > >
    > > Or do you have some eye-wateringly lame nit-picking you want to do on
    > > the topic?

    >
    > Unlike Apple's previous Mac/Unix hybrid operating system, A/UX, OS X is
    > not certified as a Unix by The Open Group, currently custodians of the
    > Unix trademark.


    Ah, that'll be it!

    The company that has sold more Unix systems than anyone else over the
    past five years ... hasn't, because it's not "really" Unix.

    Ooo, are my eyes watering now!
    --
    Bystander
    Bystander, Mar 26, 2006
    #8
  9. Alan

    Bystander Guest

    In article <>, RJ <>
    wrote:

    > In article <e05ksk$d9t$>, lid
    > says...
    > > In article <>,
    > > RJ <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > In article <e04brg$1vn$>, lid
    > > > says...

    > >
    > > .
    > > .
    > > .
    > >
    > > > > The fact that Mac OSX is entirely Unix,
    > > >
    > > > No it's not.

    > >
    > > Well, yes it is.

    >
    > Well no, because Apple's proprietary parts of the Mac OSX, obviously,
    > are not Unix.


    Oh right -- so a computer running Unix and any other software isn't
    entirely Unix. Yeah, that's it. I get it.

    And Windows XP isn't all Windows, because it's Win2K plus XP bits, or
    Knoppix isn't really all Linux because it's got Knoppix-y bits added ...
    but I digress.

    What was the point of this lame yes-it-is no-it's-not stuff? Did you
    have anything relevant or useful to say about the subject at hand? Do
    you even recall what that was?
    --
    Bystander
    Bystander, Mar 26, 2006
    #9
  10. Alan

    Bret Guest

    On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 22:39:00 +1200, Bystander
    <> wrote:

    >In article <>, RJ <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >> In article <e05ksk$d9t$>, lid
    >> says...
    >> > In article <>,
    >> > RJ <> wrote:
    >> >
    >> > > In article <e04brg$1vn$>, lid
    >> > > says...
    >> >
    >> > .
    >> > .
    >> > .
    >> >
    >> > > > The fact that Mac OSX is entirely Unix,
    >> > >
    >> > > No it's not.
    >> >
    >> > Well, yes it is.

    >>
    >> Well no, because Apple's proprietary parts of the Mac OSX, obviously,
    >> are not Unix.

    >
    >Oh right -- so a computer running Unix and any other software isn't
    >entirely Unix. Yeah, that's it. I get it.
    >
    >And Windows XP isn't all Windows, because it's Win2K plus XP bits, or
    >Knoppix isn't really all Linux because it's got Knoppix-y bits added ...
    >but I digress.
    >
    >What was the point of this lame yes-it-is no-it's-not stuff? Did you
    >have anything relevant or useful to say about the subject at hand? Do
    >you even recall what that was?


    He was trying to educate you, I don't suppose anyone else will bother
    now.
    Bret, Mar 27, 2006
    #10
  11. Alan

    Bystander Guest

    In article <>,
    Bret <> wrote:

    > On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 22:39:00 +1200, Bystander
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <>, RJ <>
    > >wrote:
    > >
    > >> In article <e05ksk$d9t$>, lid
    > >> says...
    > >> > In article <>,
    > >> > RJ <> wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> > > In article <e04brg$1vn$>, lid
    > >> > > says...
    > >> >
    > >> > .
    > >> > .
    > >> > .
    > >> >
    > >> > > > The fact that Mac OSX is entirely Unix,
    > >> > >
    > >> > > No it's not.
    > >> >
    > >> > Well, yes it is.
    > >>
    > >> Well no, because Apple's proprietary parts of the Mac OSX, obviously,
    > >> are not Unix.

    > >
    > >Oh right -- so a computer running Unix and any other software isn't
    > >entirely Unix. Yeah, that's it. I get it.
    > >
    > >And Windows XP isn't all Windows, because it's Win2K plus XP bits, or
    > >Knoppix isn't really all Linux because it's got Knoppix-y bits added ...
    > >but I digress.
    > >
    > >What was the point of this lame yes-it-is no-it's-not stuff? Did you
    > >have anything relevant or useful to say about the subject at hand? Do
    > >you even recall what that was?

    >
    > He was trying to educate you, I don't suppose anyone else will bother
    > now.


    <PLONK>

    Goodness, that was quick...
    --
    Bystander
    Bystander, Mar 27, 2006
    #11
  12. Alan

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Bystander wrote:

    > <PLONK>
    >
    > Goodness, that was quick...


    Ok, so who's this Bystander guy? One of our resident nymshifters?
    --
    ~Shaun~
    ~misfit~, Mar 27, 2006
    #12
  13. Alan

    RJ Guest

    In article <e05qvf$oh7$>, lid
    says...
    > In article <>, RJ <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > > In article <e05ksk$d9t$>, lid
    > > says...
    > > > In article <>,
    > > > RJ <> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > In article <e04brg$1vn$>, lid
    > > > > says...
    > > >
    > > > .
    > > > .
    > > > .
    > > >
    > > > > > The fact that Mac OSX is entirely Unix,
    > > > >
    > > > > No it's not.
    > > >
    > > > Well, yes it is.

    > >
    > > Well no, because Apple's proprietary parts of the Mac OSX, obviously,
    > > are not Unix.

    >
    > Oh right -- so a computer running Unix and any other software isn't
    > entirely Unix. Yeah, that's it. I get it.


    Yes because that is an absolutely true statment

    >
    > And Windows XP isn't all Windows, because it's Win2K plus XP bits,


    BullCrap!!!!

    It is all Windows, Cretin. Different versions but so what.

    > What was the point of this lame yes-it-is no-it's-not stuff? Did you
    > have anything relevant or useful to say about the subject at hand? Do
    > you even recall what that was?


    Dont blame me for your infantile temper tantrums
    Moron
    RJ, Mar 28, 2006
    #13
  14. Alan

    Bret Guest

    On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 22:47:28 +1200, "~misfit~"
    <> wrote:

    >Bystander wrote:
    >
    >> <PLONK>
    >>
    >> Goodness, that was quick...

    >
    >Ok, so who's this Bystander guy? One of our resident nymshifters?


    I was going to accuse him of that, he smells familiar :)
    Bret, Mar 28, 2006
    #14
  15. Alan

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Bret wrote:
    > On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 22:47:28 +1200, "~misfit~"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Bystander wrote:
    >>
    >>> <PLONK>
    >>>
    >>> Goodness, that was quick...

    >>
    >> Ok, so who's this Bystander guy? One of our resident nymshifters?

    >
    > I was going to accuse him of that, he smells familiar :)


    He does indeed. I just don't get the whole nymshifting thing. If you're an
    asshole the least you can do is embrace your personality and accept
    yourself. Running away from ones self never works and, basically, that's all
    nymshifting is. An attempt to escape the consequences of one's own actions,
    ones own personallity. Sad really.
    --
    ~Shaun~
    ~misfit~, Mar 28, 2006
    #15
  16. Alan

    Bystander Guest

    In article <>,
    RJ <> wrote:

    > In article <e05qvf$oh7$>, lid
    > says...
    > > In article <>, RJ <>
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > > > In article <e05ksk$d9t$>, lid
    > > > says...
    > > > > In article <>,
    > > > > RJ <> wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > > In article <e04brg$1vn$>,
    > > > > > lid
    > > > > > says...
    > > > >
    > > > > .
    > > > > .
    > > > > .
    > > > >
    > > > > > > The fact that Mac OSX is entirely Unix,
    > > > > >
    > > > > > No it's not.
    > > > >
    > > > > Well, yes it is.
    > > >
    > > > Well no, because Apple's proprietary parts of the Mac OSX, obviously,
    > > > are not Unix.

    > >
    > > Oh right -- so a computer running Unix and any other software isn't
    > > entirely Unix. Yeah, that's it. I get it.

    >
    > Yes because that is an absolutely true statment
    >
    > >
    > > And Windows XP isn't all Windows, because it's Win2K plus XP bits,

    >
    > BullCrap!!!!
    >
    > It is all Windows, Cretin. Different versions but so what.
    >


    And equally, OSX is all Unix, okay? Running a Unix user interface
    program called 'Finder', which users can ignore if they want to (but
    none of them ever do). Umm, drongo.


    > > What was the point of this lame yes-it-is no-it's-not stuff? Did you
    > > have anything relevant or useful to say about the subject at hand? Do
    > > you even recall what that was?

    >
    > Dont blame me for your infantile temper tantrums
    > Moron
    >


    "Infantile temper tantrums"? Good Lord.

    Your PC-boy ignorance hasn't even exasperated me, much less removed my
    ability to punctuate.
    --
    Bystander
    Bystander, Mar 28, 2006
    #16
  17. Alan

    RJ Guest

    In article <e0c11b$99a$>, lid
    says...
    > In article <>,
    > RJ <> wrote:
    >
    > > In article <e05qvf$oh7$>, lid
    > > says...
    > > > In article <>, RJ <>
    > > > wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > In article <e05ksk$d9t$>, lid
    > > > > says...
    > > > > > In article <>,
    > > > > > RJ <> wrote:
    > > > > >
    > > > > > > In article <e04brg$1vn$>,
    > > > > > > lid
    > > > > > > says...
    > > > > >
    > > > > > .
    > > > > > .
    > > > > > .
    > > > > >
    > > > > > > > The fact that Mac OSX is entirely Unix,
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > No it's not.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Well, yes it is.
    > > > >
    > > > > Well no, because Apple's proprietary parts of the Mac OSX, obviously,
    > > > > are not Unix.
    > > >
    > > > Oh right -- so a computer running Unix and any other software isn't
    > > > entirely Unix. Yeah, that's it. I get it.

    > >
    > > Yes because that is an absolutely true statment
    > >
    > > >
    > > > And Windows XP isn't all Windows, because it's Win2K plus XP bits,

    > >
    > > BullCrap!!!!
    > >
    > > It is all Windows, Cretin. Different versions but so what.
    > >

    >
    > And equally, OSX is all Unix, okay? Running a Unix user interface
    > program called 'Finder', which users can ignore if they want to (but
    > none of them ever do). Umm, drongo. \


    Utter bul,lcrap moron
    Finder is a proprietry application
    It is NOT part of Unix
    RJ, Mar 30, 2006
    #17
  18. Alan

    whoisthis Guest

    In article <>,
    RJ <> wrote:


    > > And equally, OSX is all Unix, okay? Running a Unix user interface
    > > program called 'Finder', which users can ignore if they want to (but
    > > none of them ever do). Umm, drongo. \

    >
    > Utter bul,lcrap moron
    > Finder is a proprietry application
    > It is NOT part of Unix
    >


    Umm, the fact it is proprietry means zero.

    Fact, OSX is built on BSD
    Fact, the finder is an application that runs on top of BSD in exactly
    the same way that KDE runs on top of linux.

    So lets leave nit picky semantics alone and accept that when you talk
    about linux you simply accept that Firefox is a linux application, its
    not PART of the linux however it does not stop the OS the application is
    running on being any less linux than it would be running grep in a BASH
    shell.
    whoisthis, Mar 31, 2006
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Guest
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,742
    Romme
    Jun 15, 2004
  2. Rich
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    387
  3. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    460
    Noel Paton
    Apr 4, 2006
  4. Jimmy Dean
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    873
    Neal Weissman
    Apr 21, 2007
  5. Ian

    Intel Core 2 Quad CPUs Comparison

    Ian, May 5, 2008, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    793
Loading...

Share This Page