Forums | MacLife

from MacNN

"Apple was No. 4 in the US server market with 1.2 percent marketshare" which was an increase from .9%  -and it's also a MacNN typo- Apple is number 5, not number 4.

From MacCentral: "Apple shipped only 1,525 server units." in 2002.

I find it ironic that heabox just went out and found himself a reasonably-backed statistic proving himself wrong.

"Apple nearly triples server marketshare                               
                                                                Monday, October 28, 2002 @ 4:50pm                             
                               
                                                               

                                      The US server market continued to show signs of recovery with a 12.2 percent increase in the third quarter of 2002, while the worldwide market share grew by 3.1 percent, according to preliminary statistics by Dataquest. Apple showed a 273% market growth over the third quarter of 2001 with a total of 5,700 units shippped in the US. (The Xserve began shipping early in the quarter.) Apple was No. 4 in the US server market with 1.2 percent marketshare behind Dell (26.3%), HP (25.9%), IBM (11.7%), and Sun (6.9%)."

That was the link Mr.Headbox posted.  So ahhh yeah.. WTF are you talking about     


"my one thousand and one hundredth post W00T!

That was the link Mr.Headbox posted.  So ahhh yeah.. WTF are you talking about     

Me? I'm referring to the fact that headbox said that the "PC" had greater than a 99% share of the server market. Even by Apple having a 1.2% share, he's wrong, but even more so when you consider the stake that companies like HP, IBM and Sun have.

Of course, he'll edit his post, now that I've mentioned it.

So sorry, I didn't mean you.   My bad.. I messed that up..   

Should've read what is mr. box talking about...  How do you post a link and miss quote it so badly.

Yeah! Long live Apple!!

I really can't see why anyone's disputing AMD's earlier post, the SEC filing.

It's a quote from Apple, after all. Sure, it's incredibly long, but it's from 'the source'. The difference is that they had to strip it of RDF prior to filing, so it's a little dull. The only poit I could raise with AMD is that it's too long for forums (summarised points are easier to skim, as most of us do) and that it's possible there could be a context issue (although that's unlikely, given the extreme length of the quote).

The information is as accurate as anything can be.

The lawsuits are nothing special. I'd imagine that many large companies attract lawsuits in the US, like large animals attract flies. None of them were of the "US Government versus Microsoft" anti-trust type, so they're nothing to be overly worried about. Most of the ones there looked like ambit claims (correct me on the terminology, but the point stands).

Nononono... slight misunderstanding here.

It's not that it's "incorrect' or from an "unreliable source"

It's just that it's... eh... unrelated to the topic.

Which we've all seemed to lose track of, again.

Thanks a lot, AMD and Box of Heads. Your skill of "astrayness" is still acute.

How about going to Pojo.com boards and pissing off the kids there? You know, make yourself useful?

obscene link removed

[quote removed]

Com'on dude.  Now that's just childish.  And stupid.  If you want to argue about Apple vs. Microsoft, that's fine.  But to post a pic like that...you're just being way too juvenile.  Please have some decency.   

obscene link removed

And so are you

Bye for now!

obscene link removed

And so are you

Bye for now!

You mean he got banned and I can start posting in this forum again, thus ending my boycott?

I would assume so.  Hopefully this will quiet down the other PC lovers around here and spur open, intelligent discussion instead of flamewars.

What was the link to?  Just wondering of course.

Art Vandelay wrote:

By the way, would you mind giving some examples of the type of R&D Apple does for the PC industry? Apple doesn't make video cards, or hard drives, or sound cards. They didn't invent the super drive and the rumored 970 processor that may show up in towers down the road was developed by IBM (a PC company or all things).

Twisted Guy wrote

Have you been living under a rock the past 19 years?  Apple has done nothing but come up with the ideas mimicked by the PC industry at large, or develops/adopts technologies to improve computing (beyond just making the computers faster) the rest of the industry takes years to grasp, plus creates countless innovations in their software and operating system.  Recent examples include the original and new iMac's level of industrial design, FireWire (and FireWire 800), wireless networking, the Power Mac G3/G4's industrial design, virtually everything from all PowerBooks and iBooks since '98-99, rapid USB adoption, UNIX with a real GUI, Rendezvous, iMovie, iDVD, promotion of DVDs as a recordable medium; need I go on?  I won't deny that the folks on the PC side of the fence have ushered in some innovations and enhancements of their own; USB was developed by Intel (but was going nowhere until Apple adopted it), and many things for 3d gaming graphics originate with PCs, but it's Apple who genuinely strives and innovates on an incomparable magnitude in order to improve the computing experience.  Each individual component of hardware and even software is useless until it is tied into a unified and complete experience and integrates with one another.  It is Apple who continues to innovate and better computing in that respect.

But, then, this is all moot, because some PC wanker with no life will roll by and criticize my "limited world view" and attack Apple and Mac users with passion and zeal, despite his proclamations that Apple is doomed, Macs are insignificant, and he doesn't care about Apple or Mac users one bit.  Well, I don't need to defend myself and other Mac users against you witless fools with nothing better to do than partake in your little bouts of circle-jerk irony, prancing around like the master of the universe trogoldytes you are, spouting your rhetoric while contradictory rhetoric is hurled at you in response, just so you can get yourself off and satisfy your ego in sad little attempts to compensate for those phallic deficiences you desperately try to hide in your charades.

Nor do I need to justify myself to you.  You just don't get it, and never will, and I honestly pity you in your sad little lives if these attacks are what you need to resort to in order to extract meaning from your life.  I have better things to do, and should get back to work on a design which will surely pay for a new 20 GB iPod.

First, I'm not a PC troll, I just happen to use and like both platforms. I just think your statement "but the entire PC industry you worship relies on Apple for R&D" is inncorrect. I think a post by "digedit" in a similar thread at macworld.com summarized it best:

"OS X is a good OS in the making and Apple hardware is very nice (although it isn't exactly fast) but Apple is hardly the innovator it used to be.

What are some of the most mentioned reasons why OS X is better than OS 9 ? Protected memory, preemptive multitasking, symetrical multiprocessing,and modern memory management. Things Windows users have had since 95 ( and earlier if they were using NT) Many other areas of the OS X interface are strikingly similar to features already implemented in Windows. a few examples: The finder has become more similar to windows explorer and the dock is basically a glorified windows taskbar. Not to mention that OS X is hardly "new". It's basically a shell built atop a BSD core which has been around for quite a while. OS X is to Unix as Windows 3.1 was to DOS.

Yes they've borrowed very heavily on the software side of things lately but when it comes to hardware they are truly followers. What Mac doesn't have USB, AGP or PCI as their main busses to peripherals ? All are based on intel technolgy and appeared in PCs first. Ooops forgot one, IDE/ATA is also borrowed straight from the PC world although Apple is always at least one generation behind. Actually nearly every component inside a Mac is taken straight from PC manufacturers innovations. (Firewire the one exceoption). The only other difference is the CPU which they don't really have anything to do with other than being a primary customer, and in any case the G4s are nothing to brag about these days in comparison to intel/AMD.

Apple did not invent the digital camera, the cd burner, or bluetooth. I had a CD burner on my PC before one was even available on my Mac. Microsfot sells bluetooth enabled keyboards and mice although Apple does not. Sure every once in awhile Apple will do something first or make a technology standard before Windows but in many, many cases the opposite is true as well.

Anyway, I am not bashing Apple but I do get tired of listening to this "innovative" rhetoric which is not really relovent any more and stems from a period in time, long ago when this was more true."

Where to begin the systematic destruction of your argument...

What are some of the most mentioned reasons why OS X is better than OS 9 ? Protected memory, preemptive multitasking, symetrical multiprocessing,and modern memory management. Things Windows users have had since 95 ( and earlier if they were using NT)

Doing it first is one thing, doing it right is another.  Apple, with the UNIX/BSD underpinnings of OS X has done all those things right.  Windows 95 wasn't even close to having decent memory management, protected memory, multistasking, or multiprocessing.  Windows NT up through version 4 still didn't have it all right.  WinXP disables multiprocessing in the home version as well.  The memory management in XP Pro is bad enough that I hear complaints from my dad constantly about how he's running out of memory (yes, he actually gets errors saying the memory isn't available) and has to restart 2-3 times a day because the memory leaks all over the place; this is on XP Pro on a P4 Dell system with a gig of RAM, and all he uses is Word, Excel, and Explorer.

Ok, so maybe Apple doesn't get the innovation points here, but they do get points for doing it right.  The memory subsystem in OS X is rock solid, fast, and reliable.

Many other areas of the OS X interface are strikingly similar to features already implemented in Windows. a few examples: The finder has become more similar to windows explorer and the dock is basically a glorified windows taskbar. Not to mention that OS X is hardly "new". It's basically a shell built atop a BSD core which has been around for quite a while. OS X is to Unix as Windows 3.1 was to DOS.

The Finder more similar to Windows Explorer?  You have to be kidding.  You either a) don't use the Finder or b) don't use Windows Explorer.  If anything, the current Finder in OS X is more similar to a hybrid of OS 8-9 and the desktop environment of the Lisa or OpenStep; the Lisa is an Apple creation, OpenStep is from NeXT, which was owned and spearheaded by Jobs and incorporated into Apple, so in a roundabout way, is still Apple's creation.  File management in OS X via the Finder is radically different from that in Windows via Explorer-not only in terms of functionality, but in terms of the metaphorical and philosophical approaches to the interface and the user's interaction with it.  If you can't tell the difference, that's your problem.

The Dock in OS X, as has been mentioned a million times before to correct ignorant PC users, comes from the Shelf as created by NeXT for their OpenStep operating system.  Just as in the case of the OpenStep desktop environment from which many of the Finder's features come from, the Shelf was a creation by Jobs and co. at NeXT, and thus was purchased by Apple when they bought NeXT, making it Apple's.  The Shelf was in OpenStep long before Windows had anything resembling the Taskbar, and as such, the Dock, which is a direct descendent of the Shelf, is in no way related to Windows' Taskbar.

Don't even compare OS X to Win 3.1, either.  There are so many flaws in that comparison and argument that I would fill several pages just responding to it.  The only common bond is that there is a GUI shell upon an OS rooted in a CLI interface.

Apple did not invent the digital camera, the cd burner, or bluetooth. I had a CD burner on my PC before one was even available on my Mac. Microsfot sells bluetooth enabled keyboards and mice although Apple does not. Sure every once in awhile Apple will do something first or make a technology standard before Windows but in many, many cases the opposite is true as well.

Actually, Apple had high-res digital cameras, software, and other components long before digital photography was even thought of as a possibility on PCs.  They may not have been the first to do it, back in 1994, but at the time, the QuickTake series of digital cameras (which were a collaboration with Kodak) were arguably the best around.  I used one regularly at a job I had a few years ago, and even on an old 7300 running 8.6 and Photoshop 5.5, using the QuickTake to shoot, download, and edit photos was as easy, intuitive, and fast as using a new USB camera with iPhoto.

I won't argue that Apple didn't invent a lot of the technology we use, but that has always been the case with Apple, really.  Innovation is not so cut and dry, and does not always mean creating something new or ushering in a new technology; in fact, such actions are more well defined by invention, not innovation.  Apple certainly does not hold the record for invention, but they're still on top when it comes to innovation.

I have to refer you to my previous comments to others that "you just don't get it."

Innovation, more accurately, is the creative process of solving problems and utilizing tools, technology, or other resources in a natural and intuitive way.  So, Apple takes existing ideas, technology, etc. and applies it to solving a particular problem in the most intuitive way possible.  If solving the problem requires implementing a technology in a different way, or coming up with completely new solutions, ideas, and technology, then Apple is fully equipped to do so.

Back when the problem was graphics, easy visual navigation of a computer's filing system, and software which was easy to use and applied to real-world uses, they came up with the Mac GUI and software.  GUIs weren't new, nor were word processors, drawing programs, etc. but Apple did it in an approachable, intuitively understandable way.  More recently when the problem was getting digital video from the camera to your computer, and editing it, Apple came out with iMovie.  It wasn't the first application for importing or editing digital video, but it did it in a simple, elegant, intuitive way which made it possible for people who didn't have thousands of dollars in dedicated hardware and software and who didn't go to filmmaking school to learn how to operate Avid systems to shoot and edit digital video.  Just last week, when the problem was laptop keyboards which couldn't bee seen in the dark without a special clamp-on lamp or something, Apple made a fiber-optics system and light sensors to keep the PowerBook keyboard lit.  Fiber-optics were nothing new, nor are light sensors, but using them to light a laptop keyboard was brilliantly innovative and solved a problem which has existed since the first laptop.

Apple's focus is not on invention (despite the fact they hold more technology patents than any other personal computer manufacturer), like you seem to think and interpret innovation as, but rather on solving a problem in a unique, simple, and intuitive manner.  Whether it comes in the form of hardware or software, solving a problem in a unique, intuitive, simple, and elegant way is innovation.

hey....anyone remember the first days of headbox? he was a lot like this.....
hey man, your cool, but, this troll we all know came here saying i like both platforms and stuff...and pretty soon he was extreme hardcore trolll....anyway, he's gone...
keep it real man
:d
tito